Pointing out that ISPs are worse is really neither here nor there. Just because big tech isn't the worst does absolve them of criticism nor is a compelling argument for why we cannot talk about them lobbying for the law to allow them to continue to do what they're doing or even expand it.
I'm not even going to try and address why we cannot have privacy because of "legitimate first amendment problem[s]" or because it would result in "law[s] against strong encryption." I don't consider those arguments to even pass the basic sniff test, they feel like throwing out every argument under the sun and seeing what sticks. Almost to Gish Gallop levels.
> This is gotcha journalism
That isn't what "gotcha journalism" means. Collecting facts, presenting those facts, and putting a negative spin on it isn't "gotcha journalism" because the journalist didn't trick Google or Facebook into doing these things, they're simply telling the public that they did. In fact the term doesn't really to apply to journalism outside of interviews, see:
If I ran a newsletter, "selling data" would be me giving a 3rd party my mailing list. Profiting from the data would be me "selling eyeballs" from my list.
That is effectively what Google and Facebook do. They are in the eyeball selling industry, not email selling.
They create a medium the advertisers want to advertise into.
They "own the eyeballs," as it were. They create the newspaper that people read.
Google does not own the eyeballs, they are an aggregator but they loudly point out that users could switch. Let's acknowledge that users are not likely to switch away from Google websites, Android, etc. but it's as if Google snatched the newspaper and stuck advertising stickers all over it just before you read it in the morning.
Google owns the eyeballs on the places of the internet that have sold that space to google.
If I have a website and want to monetize it with ads, I'm giving that section of my page to Google. Who now rents the "tower" in my sidebar, and owns the eyeballs of my visitors. The advertisers don't get to own my data. I'm just exposing my audience to their products. If my audience decides that they want the advertised widget, they are then willingly giving their data to the advertiser when they purchase/sign up/whatever.
The only point I agree with you on (if this is what you meant) is how Google ranks search results based on the speed of the content, and who's content loads fastest for Google? AMP... owned by Google.
I think the browser is the equivalent of a newspaper.
It's just you can "open your newspaper" to pages defined by someone on the internet, as opposed to only getting the 30-to-50 pages put out by the newspaper company.
I think the pages within it can be Google, but there's a browser in between. If you use Chrome, then Google totally owns your eyeballs (according to my viewpoint).
But you are spot on with publishers opening up a "tower" on their page, and Google moving in and paying rent. And from that point on, Google is watching you.
Maybe the ISP owns the eyeballs? ISPs are often characterized as either a "content network" (such as Netflix) or an "eyeball network" (such as Comcast). And the networks sometimes fight because Comcast thinks they're the big, bad eyeball network. Netflix, of course, thinks they're the big, bad content network.
Google gives free reading glasses that allows you to read the newspaper. The problem is that they only work for the newspapers they like and the newspapers they like happen to have advertising stickers all over it.
Purportedly unrelated to that they have also told all the newspaper sellers to take a note of when and where you buy your newspaper, but they assure you that is completely unrelated to the advertising side of things.
That sounds like what TV, radio and newspaper ad space sells.
Google on the other hand is selling the data attached to those eye balls. You want Male eye balls, between the age of 18-35? You want eye balls from a certain state? city? county? How about college educated eye balls?
Knowing everything about your eye balls and monetizing that information is Google's real racket...that and fraudulent clicks (that is Google often sells fake eye balls).
If I pay you $5 to show an ad in front of a certain type of person and you come back and tell me that you did it I haven't really learned anything about that person. It seems hard to say that that is the same as selling people's data.
Because sure, Google knows a lot of people and they have a lot of ad space to fill which means they have a good chance at finding and reaching the demographics I asked for but I don’t get any of that information as part of my transaction with them.
If adtech wants to serve us "relevant" ads, that's fine but the intrusive spying has to stop. Plain old contextual ads should be more than enough for that purpose.
With TV, it’s all vague guess on their part about what kind of content people like. Are the people watching daytime soaps can be 18 or 80, it’s vague topic and time of day based filtering.
Google's guessing of your demographics is amusingly wrong sometimes (you can see the categories it puts you in).
> With TV, it’s all vague guess on their part about what kind of content people like
People with HBO have disposable incomes. People watching Nick or Disney channel are or have children, whose ages and genders can be further refined based on the shows in question. "You have a 8-11 year old daughter" is absolutely trivial to accurately glean from television, and is basically the single most valuable advertising demographic.
As to Disney watchers, my male collage roommate used to love those shows. At the extreme end MLP friendship is magic has a vastly wider following than the original target demographic.
They both correlate with demographic data, TV is swimply wildly inaccurate and not tied to a specific individual.
On TV, you can target so many demographics indirectly by buying ads on shows they like. Companies like Nielson have been reporting on the demographics watching shows for decades. You can also target geographically at least down to the county-ish level.
TV stations and Google both know who is watching what and selling access to their customers to advertisers. Google might be a bit more sophisticated than TV, but besides "retargeting" (following you around different sites) they use the same basic techniques and offer the same things to Advertisers
What? That's a difference in scale, not in kind.
----
† Yes, I'm stretching the "proof" beyond its breaking point here.
It's a bit murky whether the amounts to being able to identify you. It's not clear how much advertisers care about identifying people who don't buy or how effective advertising actually is. And this data goes stale pretty quickly anyway.
So it comes down to, "well, it depends." None of this is comforting to people who don't want to be tracked. On the other hand I haven't heard anything credible about people being directly harmed by it? It seems more about the principle of the thing?
When the argument is that the privacy groups have a perverse interest in opposing a specific rule because of donations from tech companies, it seems pretty relevant that the tech companies already aren't actually violating that rule.
> Pointing out that ISPs are worse is really neither here nor there. Just because big tech isn't the worst does absolve them of criticism nor is a compelling argument for why we cannot talk about them lobbying for the law to allow them to continue to do what they're doing or even expand it.
But that isn't what they're talking about. They're talking about laws against selling user data, which the ISPs are doing (so there is a strong lobby against passing a law to prohibit it), but the tech companies generally aren't.
To prohibit what the tech companies are doing you would basically need a law against collecting user data, or something much more invasive and specific about what it could be used for than "don't sell it", and that's a whole different debate. Because then you run into problems like entrenching the incumbents by creating a complex regulatory environment that only huge tech companies can navigate. Which is why opponents try to tar them with "selling user data" instead, which is a lot easier to define and be opposed to, even though they aren't actually doing that.
> I'm not even going to try and address why we cannot have privacy because of "legitimate first amendment problem[s]" or because it would result in "law[s] against strong encryption." I don't consider those arguments to even pass the basic sniff test, they feel like throwing out every argument under the sun and seeing what sticks.
Political realities exist even when they're complicated and inconvenient. Mocking them doesn't make them go away.
> Collecting facts, presenting those facts, and putting a negative spin on it isn't "gotcha journalism" because the journalist didn't trick Google or Facebook into doing these things, they're simply telling the public that they did. In fact the term doesn't really to apply to journalism outside of interviews
The term originally dates from a time when "interviews" were a thing that happened after you actually agreed to be interviewed. Now the debate happens live on the internet and trolls get to ask their loaded questions in front of the public with the implication that you're guilty if you don't respond.
But the question is phrased so as to make an exonerating response impossible. It's the rhetorical equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife" -- have you stopped allowing tech company money to influence your policies? Respond right now, while the question is on the front page, or you're guilty.
You conveniently left out one of the two companies, and I wonder why you omitted that Facebook has actually been convicted of violating the rule.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46618582
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/05/facebook-emai...
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/mark-zuckerberg-le...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/12/faceb...
(There are more sources.)
> But that isn't what they're talking about. They're talking about laws against selling user data, which the ISPs are doing (so there is a strong lobby against passing a law to prohibit it), but the tech companies generally aren't.
Yes, Facebook totally got caught selling user data.
> To prohibit what the tech companies are doing you would basically need a law against collecting user data, or something much more invasive and specific about what it could be used for than "don't sell it", and that's a whole different debate. Because then you run into problems like entrenching the incumbents by creating a complex regulatory environment that only huge tech companies can navigate. Which is why opponents try to tar them with "selling user data" instead, which is a lot easier to define and be opposed to, even though they aren't actually doing that.
Such as... GDPR?
> Political realities exist even when they're complicated and inconvenient. Mocking them doesn't make them go away.
Totally agree.
> The term originally dates from a time when "interviews" were a thing that happened after you actually agreed to be interviewed. Now the debate happens live on the internet and trolls get to ask their loaded questions in front of the public with the implication that you're guilty if you don't respond.
What's your source?
In either case, the model for having API access was that the end user would get a nice clear permissions dialog telling them what info they were giving to the third party and having them click "I Agree" before any data was transferred.
Even better, in the case of the device partnerships, you had to login with your FB username and password!
Those articles are the equivalent of saying Apple shares data with Google because iMail can open your Gmail account
Why do so many people think that these companies sell your data?
The most common behavior people observe that makes them think companies are selling their data is when they visit some site P that sells widget p and then on completely unrelated site Q they start seeing ads for p. The obvious conclusion to draw is that Q now knows they visited P. In reality, ad broker X knows the user visited P, and is satisfying queries from Q (really, from the user agent visiting Q) by vending ads for p to the user agent that is displaying site Q's content alongside that ad. But the ad and Q's content are generally sandboxed from each other the same way that your bank account login state is sandboxed from Q also (1). In reality, Q has no idea the user has visited P, but the content on the page strongly suggests that Q does.
(1) note: It is possible there are holes in the security model that an unscrupulous Q could use to gather information on a user about their history on P; that's generally considered a violation of the ad vendor's policy and will get Q kicked off the ad network.
throw these companies have lots of money to pay fines, suits, and campaign donations with, and the outcome is decided
When you purchase data, it can be remixed and resold, can be used outside the original terms of service agreed to between FB/Google and their users. This is difficult to enforce agreed upon protections, and is a troubling issue (e.g. Cambridge Analytica had user data they used in a "clearly wrong" manner -- a problem that AFAIK was from 3 years ago and has since been shut down).
Buying access to the users means an advertiser is purchasing the ability to put a message in front of the user. This data is covered by user agreements, and is much harder for third parties to use in a "clearly wrong" manner. This data must be deleted at the request of the user, and can be (relatively) easily deleted by going to the original source (a key distinction -- it's very hard to delete data that has been sold and resold).
It is important to use the correct description of what is happening. On FB, you're not "buying an audience" so much as "defining an audience to reach". You don't get to hold the user data in a csv; you get to put messages in front of groups of people. You don't possess the data -- you have access to use it through a user interface provided by FB/Google.
I respect that you may feel FB/Google holding these user data is unethical. Other people feel the exchange is perfectly fine. Regardless, using precise language is important to not muddy the waters, especially in such a tendentious debate.
Saying or assuming that no tech companies sell user data is disingenuous. Case in point, doesn't Edmunds have an exclusive data contract to share data with Oracle Data Cloud?
Re-reading my comment, I don't think I said anything about companies in general.
The fact that they collect it in the first place is the real problem. And when they inevitably get hacked and lose the data (happened), or leak the data (happened), or their employees inappropriately access the data (happened), or they hand it over to whatever government after putting up a token fight (happened)... it doesn't matter one bit.
This is not correct. Google and Facebook may not sell PII directly to third party but most lower/medium size tech companies do sell PII to third party (insurers, credit co, erc) and most of them even say it explicitly on TOS or privacy policy.
Now, because it's written deep down inside some TOS doesn't mean users are fully informed and people certainly are not making truly informed decisions.
Now, the fact is: people do not understand whats going in and tech companies are abusing this.
And the question is: are we OK with that?
This is a classic case of zooming in too far with your politics. You can maybe make this argument if you put blinders on and only consider the next best option in this exact political system, but really this is a paradigmatic example of Google & Facebook attempting both regulatory capture & crowding out organizations who would authentically advocate for users rather than gigantic corporations.
If you wake up every morning and choose the least evil of the options directly in front of you without once thinking of the bigger picture, you go to some truly bad places.
It. Is. Wrong.
There is no nuance that legitimizes any, or even any part of it.
Overall, isn't your last point also the source of problems? If the whole idea is to be able to exert regulatory control, to protect users, over companies that seem to have a huge share on decision-making in this space due to their unmatched wealth, how is their parting with a minuscule portion of their wealth so they can potentially influence a decision made on the topic of restricting them, solve any problems in the first place? It seems like a stretch to suggest that privacy advocacy groups need money from tech giants to support themselves.
I agree that every organization needs the money but the problem at hand is that every organization should not ideally depend on tech company donations because they have amassed the largest sums. Since this is the problem these laws are trying to address in the first place, I am not sure taking donations from tech giants would solve the problem, even if it doesn't exacerbate it (assuming for a moment that the tech giants are actually being a force of good here).
Start with the premise that you're passing a law against people telling other people anything they know about you (especially if they would otherwise be able to without compensation), then add in the "money is speech" thing, which is existing precedent whether you like it or not.
> If the whole idea is to be able to exert regulatory control, to protect users, over companies that seem to have a huge share on decision-making in this space due to their unmatched wealth, how is their parting with a minuscule portion of their wealth so they can potentially influence a decision made on the topic of restricting them, solve any problems in the first place? It seems like a stretch to suggest that privacy advocacy groups need money from tech giants to support themselves.
Privacy advocacy groups don't just have binary existence where either they exist or they don't. Every dollar is more advocacy.
And you can't have it both ways. Either the amount they receive is insignificant and consequently shouldn't affect their overall policy positions or it is significant and losing it would be a meaningful hit.
This sounds extremely vague and contrived - something something, the money is speech thing, 1A issue. We regulate all sorts of sales, data collection practices, etc, all the time. Can you find a concrete example, especially in a non-political, plain business-to-consumer context where such regulation has received 1A scrutiny? Even a description by Google or FB or their surrogates of such a potential problem will do.
Every dollar is more advocacy.
The question is advocacy for what. To square this circle you have to argue that the interests of Google and FB are aligned with the privacy interests of individual users - those are the interests such groups tend to claim to represent. This seems implied in your line of argument as I read it and, to me at least, appears glaringly inaccurate.
It's not 'here's all the activity data about Anthony Mouse', and user data is collected internally, but it is also baked into targeting products that they sell to brands and agencies.
No, this is not true. It's more like "Oh you want to to serve ads to individuals that shop at Uniqlo? Give us your ad creative and we will show you to the profiles that have checked into a Uniqlo three times in the past 6 weeks"
Additionally, at FB ads, often it's custom audience, and in that case it's "Oh you want to to serve ads to individuals that shop at Uniqlo? Give us your ad creative and list of email addresses of people you want to target and we show them your ads." (though you can actually do "similar audience" and so on.
They certainly buy data [0]. Whether they are the seller or the buyer, they have vested interest to make sure the trade can continue.
[0] e.g. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-30/google-an...
Yes; absolutely!
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
If you accept money from a company, which is actually completely contrary for what you claim to represent you're compromised. Period.
It, ALL OF IT, is wrong. There is no nuance that legitimizes ANY of it.
That's funny. Was that meant as a joke? It's like the reverse variant of the fallacy of the article. You imply that I'm getting paid based on my positions, the article implies that they're taking positions based on getting paid. No consideration of the possibility that the same positions could be held without compensation.
If the answer is yes to these questions Google may have a clear competitive reason to lobby for pro data selling/buying legislation to the detriment of users which may signal that these privacy advocacy groups may not actually be privacy advocacy groups as the article alludes to.
Google and most of the other major tech companies don't actually sell user data. They collect it to use internally. The biggest companies who actually do that are the ISPs, but that doesn't really fit the same narrative, and I doubt they donate a lot to privacy groups.
The reason a lot of privacy groups don't try to restrict selling user data is a combination of a potentially legitimate first amendment problem with restricting it and a finite amount of political capital. Sometimes political capital has to be spent making sure that e.g. the FBI director doesn't push through a law against strong encryption. Sometimes it's better to have a bill that improves privacy a little and actually passes than a bill that improves privacy a lot but never makes it into law, or start with one that isn't as easy for Comcast to have struck down by the courts and in so doing create a problematic legal precedent.
Meanwhile you ask why Google and Facebook donate to privacy groups, but their goals are actually aligned on a lot of things, like promoting the use of HTTPS over HTTP and opposition to draconian copyright laws.
This is gotcha journalism, and it's problematic because what are you proposing as a solution? That privacy groups stop accepting money from tech companies? What that would do is cause them to have less money for privacy advocacy. Ask yourself who benefits from that.