In privacy fight, we’re asking Facebook the wrong questions


The U.S. Congress isn’t in every respect the best forum to untangle the intricate weaving of Facebook, your matter and advertiser access. But its particular failings provided an ideal platform for Objective Zuckerberg to perch atop an extra seat cushion and deflect the chit-chat back to comfortable places.

Most of the geriatric politicians on hand lacked a organic understanding of what is at play. Which may be why investors clearly felt Zuckerberg moved out ahead. 

Facebook portions initially fell as his testimony began, but by the time Day 2 of the hearings had wrapped Wednesday, Facebook worn out had rebounded 5.3 per cent. Zuckerberg’s personal fortune soared by all over $3 billion.

Zuckerberg easily handled questions like “Do you imagine you’re too powerful” and “Would you work with us in terms of what regulations you over are necessary in your industry?” 

And why wouldn’t he? They were the wrong impossibles.

Zuckerberg faced a phalanx of questions and cameras, but based on the reaction in the look at market, he acquitted himself well. (Leah Millis/Reuters)

The whole debate was focused on how Facebook allows advertisers to exploit your statistics to better target potential customers. But Ophir Gottlieb, the CEO of Capital Superstores Laboratories, says that misses the bigger point.

“It’s all been anent data access,” Gottlieb says, “not data collection.” 

Ophir Gottlieb, CEO of Great Market Laboratories, on Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony to U.S. Congress and where it sway take Facebook 12:39

And data collection is what Facebook does pre-eminent.

Facebook’s CEO had been called to Washington to answer grave concerns in what the social media giant knows about us and how our intimate detachments are passed along to third-party advertisers. For two days, he diligently, politely and keenly answered those without a doubts.

On Day 1, Zuckerberg ask pardoned and promised a largely deferential Senate committee that he would do outstrip. Day 2 brought the House committee and a tougher line of questioning. 

But both dates highlighted attention where it didn’t need to be, while demanding answers to the infernal questions.

Mara Einstein of City University of New York on the information that Facebook share ins with advertisers 9:22

That’s why Gottlieb says the Congressional hearings were predetermined to fail. Or at the very least, to play to Facebook’s strength.

“There are predilections Facebook collects about you, that it estimates about you that are salacious, that would perturb you,” Gottlieb told CBC News. “There’s never been any discussion helter-skelter whether Facebook should collect less data about you.”

What Facebook grasps about you

The sheer volume of data Facebook keeps on most of us is flabbergasting. Sure, it has all the information you post: your birthday, your interests, your likes. But that’s unbiased scratching the surface. Colleague Matthew Braga looked at some of these issues this week. Others here, here and here exposition just how deep and broad the Facebook dragnet really is.

Look at the top of fair-minded about any web page (this one included) and you’ll see a small button allowing you to “with” it on Facebook. Seems harmless enough. But you may not realize that the social instrumentality company uses that button to track your online projects even when you aren’t logged on to Facebook.

The ubiquitous Facebook ‘fellow’ button is not as harmless as you think. (Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty)

DuckDuckGo, a vehemently pro-privacy search appliance, claims Facebook has tracking software on hundreds of thousands of the world’s top websites. That is why DuckDuckGo ranks its web emerges based on how much tracking goes on behind the curtain — and vows it desire never sell your browsing data to anyone.

Facebook smothers what are called “shadow profiles” of non-users. When someone uploads their acquaintances to Facebook, the social media giant uses that as a starting relevancy to build a profile on those who don’t have a profile. By collecting photos of unnamed people, or email talks it knows its users contact, the company can figure out who new people are and who else they remember — even if they don’t have a Facebook account.

Missed opportunity

Littrateur and media studies professor Mara Einstein says Congress had a together chance to grill Zuckerberg on how these systems work. But they very recently didn’t have the technological literacy to properly hold him to account.

One New York Times commentator compared the hearings to a five-hour tech support call, with Zuckerberg patiently legitimating the basics to unaware politicians. Einstein says that has to change.

“It’s been in the business’s best interest to make this feel as complicated as possible if they can,” she bring to lighted CBC News. Faced with tough questions, tech titans take pleasure in to deflect and talk about arcane technical terms like APIs (employment programming interfaces) and KPIs (key performance indicators).

“(They) say, ‘Oh, you don’t understand this,'” she discloses, and Zuckerberg was no exception. Every time he didn’t want to answer a give someone the third degree, he resorted to jargon.

But you don’t need to know how a TV works to understand how advertising modifies us, and the same thing is of Facebook and the internet, she says.

“We just need to be acquainted with what Facebook is doing and how they’re tracking us and how we can take responsibility for whether or not we insufficiency to be involved in that process.”

It’s up to us

Sounds simple enough. But for far too long, drugs have been complacent about their data, happy to disposal over reams of information about themselves for nebulous and meagre recompenses.

The Facebook scandal is an excellent reminder that it’s long past days for us all to start giving a collective thumbs down to mindlessly clicking away our sequestration. One inane quiz at a time.

Follow Peter on twitter: @armstrongcbc

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *