Of particular interest is that the reason why only 9 companies were targeted is that if they had targeted 10 or more, they would have have a mandatory review under the paperwork reduction act. A review that would have almost certainly said they couldn't ask for most of what they asked for in the way that they asked for it.
On this logic and this logic alone, companies like Apple, Gab, GroupMe, LinkedIn, Parler, Rumble, and Tumblr were not targeted. Think about that.
Otherwise, from the PDF:
1-6 mostly seem fine.
Q7 is secret sauce
Q8 doesn't really seem relevant to how personal data is used
Q10 is at least a little bit secret sauce.
Q11 I'm not sure what the relevance of this is
Q12 and most of Q13 is secret sauce
Q14-20 are what I think are really relevant
And so on...
Q12 is insane - ALL business strategy (short and long term), research AND development, marketing AND sales, AND any plans to create OR cancel any existing products, as well as all presentations to any executives!
That is insane! Why doesn't the FTC stop beating around the bush and just ask to be bribed, because there is no valid reason the FTC has to ask for any of that. It's clearly just an attempt to get inside information to do trades.
Sure the 45 days will be after inauguration, but usually the people are not booted on day 1.
I wonder what's really the limit in Q10a. For example companies will have huge recommendation models built, likely very automated without manually assigned labels. If they never ask for "“yes,” “no” for whether the natural Person is of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin", but one of the automated recommendation dimensions is close to 1:1 match for that question, would they have to disclose that? (i.e. give statistics per-dimension)
This applies to the rest of Q10 too. 1000 top attribute values? Does "around vector (0,0,0.3,0.9,....)" count? Because barely anyone asks explicitly for the real user attributes anymore.
But tech’s swing towards AI-weighted vector graphs seems to be out of the regulator’s view. It’s almost like they are back at square one again.
The court system only confirmed your rights to use webcrawlers within the last year, and webcrawlers have been around since the start of Google.
And as for the series of tubes guy, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He clearly still didn't have a good grasp on the subject, but I don't think he was being literal.
Here’s an example of what I mean by they have more understanding now:
And to a lesser extent: https://youtu.be/kd3Qa9tlA3o
I'm going to assume yes, they would need to disclose that. That scenario sounds awfully similar to some of the terms the FTC uses when discussing the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA):
> Under traditional credit scoring models, companies compare known credit characteristics of a consumer—such as past late payments—with historical data that shows how people with the same credit characteristics performed over time in meeting their credit obligations. Similarly, predictive analytics products may compare a known characteristic of a consumer to other consumers with the same characteristic to predict whether that consumer will meet his or her credit obligations. The difference is that, rather than comparing a traditional credit characteristic, such as debt payment history, these products may use non-traditional characteristics—such as a consumer’s zip code, social media usage, or shopping history—to create a report about the creditworthiness of consumers that share those non-traditional characteristics, which a company can then use to make decisions about whether that consumer is a good credit risk. The standards applied to determine the applicability of the FCRA in a Commission enforcement action, however, are the same.
> Only a fact-specific analysis will ultimately determine whether a practice is subject to or violates the FCRA, and as such, companies should be mindful of the law when using big data analytics to make FCRA covered eligibility determinations.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/big-data-...
I can't wait until they have to do that for a black box, neural network program !
Moreover, I don't think the answers will be made public so what's the problem with being held accountable to a government authority? That's just normal in this case.
It's more than relevant to get to know a company business strategy when their business model is essentially based on user data.
And no, it's not normal to be required to have a business plan, much less disclose it.
They do seem to have the legal authority to make life very difficult for and potentially restrict entire actions of these companies. I imagine that if you refused to answer, and that your right to do so was likely to be upheld, that they'd just do what they were going to do before they asked the questions.
Picture this like a chance to talk your way out of trouble. Saying the minimum probably won't be enough.
It's 250KB, orders of magnitude smaller than an average website!
That said I don't feel bad for these companies at all. They have plenty of resources and plenty of money. And no reason they can't ask for and receive extensions of the time due there is no 'train leaving' at that time the info needs to board.
My point is that to me it feels like this Order is a huge overreach of authority, and whether you personally do or don't feel sympathy for a certain company does not change what the government should and should not be able to ask of a company in the general case.
Reading the document, the demands are wide and reaching. I would like to know how much of what they demand is actually part of the FTC's authority for what they are allowed to require companies to provide.
I'm genuinely interested in what US Code permits the FTC to ask for such a trove of company information and strategy. My suspicion is that they're reaching. We can talk about whether we feel it's an overreach or not - you clearly feel the opposite of me - but I hope someone can chime in with the actual mandate or code.
>The FTC is issuing the orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which authorizes the Commission to conduct wide-ranging studies that do not have a specific law enforcement purpose.
> the Commission may prescribe annual or special, or both annual and special, reports or answers in writing to specific questions
I do not see how the requirements of part 12 of this Order are "specific questions," in fact they are quite broad to me. But I suppose that's for a lawyer to decide.
[0]: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/statutes/f... (Control+F "Sec. 6")
https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do/enforcement-authori...
They are looking to establish a new name for themselves with the public, and right now is the perfect time to do it.
“We’re taking big tech to task for the safety of our children! You’ve seen the headlines about what they’ve let happen under their watch! The FTC is here for you!”
I believe Requirement 12.d is not necessarily about "what are your trade secrets and future business plans?". Somehow FTC should have clear picture of "WHAT-WHY-WHEN" in order to come to conclusion.
We use digital social networking services every day, we still have nearly zero knowledge of how do their platforms actually work.
We are talking about experts here not newbies.
I would encourage everyone to read it. My personal take is that this is a ridiculous amount of homework to do in 45 days, and is essentially the FTC asking for not only these companies' "secret sauce" but also their confidential bookkeeping. I would be astounded if none of them challenged this order.
For example, requirement 12.d.: "Submit all documents related to the Company's strategies or plans, including but not limited to research and development efforts." It is not clear the FTC has this kind of authority to essentially demand "what are your trade secrets and future business plans?"