Facebook Patents Inferring Income of Users 129
theodp writes "Among the patents granted to Facebook this week by the USPTO is one for Inferring Household Income for Users of a Social Networking System. 'For example,' Facebook explains, 'an assumption might be made about a user that reads CNN.com and nytimes.com every day that the user is in a higher income bracket than another user that only reads TMZ.com and PerezHilton.com on the theory that a user who reads newspapers might be assumed to make more money than a user who only reads celebrity gossip blogs.' Advertisements such as those for travel packages, cars, and home mortgages, Facebook adds, 'are targeted to users based on income bracket,' which might also be inferred by 'gathering and analyzing different types of information about a user's geographic location.' Hey, what could go wrong?"
Browse anonymously (Score:3)
Browse anonymously
This is why I use EasyPrivacy list in adblock plus to keep Facebook from getting that info. They know you read a page if it has a "Like" button on it.
Re:Browse anonymously (Score:5, Funny)
Browse anonymously
Excellent; that puts you into a group of 0.001%. As a highly technically literate user you will have monthly household income of between 10,000 and 11,500 (95% chance) and are less likely to want pop star accessories. However, there is a 30% increase in the chance of you purchasing electronic gadgets. The correlation of your IP address with a slashdot reader decreases your chance of wanting to buy wedding accessories by over 99.72%.
Stay anon; please.
Re:He jokes (Score:5, Informative)
Statistics doesn't pigeon-hole you. It discovers what factors tend to influence people grouped with you, by how much, and how reliably. Like psychohistory, it only works on groups, the larger the better. The "pigeon-hole" is fuzzy and somewhat arbitrary. You still (maybe) have free will and are an individual... just like everybody else.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: He jokes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It hurts the people who are miscategorized, and therefore get inferior offers for goods and services that they might actually want to buy.
If they are visiting Paris Hilton / Justin Bieber sites, then I see no downside here.
Re: (Score:2)
*slow clap*
Absolutely magnificent. Thank you, this made my day.
Re: (Score:2)
Browse anonymously This is why I use EasyPrivacy list in adblock plus to keep Facebook from getting that info. They know you read a page if it has a "Like" button on it.
I just block Facebook in my proxy and/or router.
Selectively unblock comment sections (Score:2)
You don't have to unblock Facebook to use most comment sections. More of the major new sites are using either Disqus or a site-specific instance of LiveFyre than are using Facebook Comments as their enhanced commenting platform. USA Today is probably the biggest site using Facebook Comments. A lot of local news stations and small-town papers have moved to Facebook Comments. Lots of blogs and special interest websites now use Disqus to get into that cross-web "discoverability" of their sites by being on the
patenting statistical hypothesis? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
don't forget to throw in claims about 'heuristics', 'on a computer' and 'over the internet'.
Re: patenting statistical hypothesis? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is patently absurd. In the UK, Equifax, Experian and Call Credit already sell income predictions based on statistical modelling of credit bureau information. How is switching the underlying data set in any way a unique or clever thing to do?
This is nothing more than a fancy regression algorithm.
Re: (Score:2)
I can remember being told to say that you read a proper newspaper (times telegraph or guardian) in job interviews for professional jobs to mark out that you where one of us and not some over promoted clerical assi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter if it goes a bit wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no level of perfection at which an invention to benefit advertisers becomes useful at all. In fact, the farther from perfection, the less dis-utility it will have for society.
Re: (Score:1)
This is pointless (Score:5, Informative)
The reason Facebook has any advertising income, and therefore value as a company, is that it has the ability to provide very directed advertising.
If you want to target people who read cnn.com and nytimes.com, why not just advertise there like you always could.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is pointless (Score:4, Interesting)
I can think of a couple of reasons to not go direct in this case:
1) It's possibly more expensive to advertise on CNN or NYT.
2) There's no inherent ability to "share" or "like" an ad. (yes, people do it)
Facebook adds value not only for the targeting, but for the "social" nature of it's platform.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason Facebook has any advertising income, and therefore value as a company, is that it has the ability to provide very directed advertising.
If you want to target people who read cnn.com and nytimes.com, why not just advertise there like you always could.
I think the phrase "For example" implies the answer. They're giving that as one example of how you can infer somebody's income, but the whole point of aggregating as much info as possible about somebody is that you have more factors available. If somebody reads cnn and nytimes daily, they are more likely to be wealthier. If they read cnn, nytimes, meet 10 other factors that imply their income, live in an area with a hot real estate market, and have been looking at real estate related websites, then you'r
Re:This is pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason Facebook has any advertising income, and therefore value as a company, is that the people purchasing FB advertisements believe it has the ability to provide very directed advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
A small clarification:
The reason Facebook has any advertising income, and therefore value as a company, is that the people purchasing FB advertisements believe it has the ability to provide very directed advertising.
Actually, online advertisers know exactly how effective the directed advertising is. Unlike traditional advertising, where the old saw goes "I know 50% of my advertising budget is working, I just don't know which 50%", online ads can very often be linked precisely to specific sales. This is actually the biggest factor in Google's success as an advertiser; good targeting was important, too, but the real breakthrough was being able to help advertisers quantify very precisely what return they were getting on t
uhm... (Score:2, Interesting)
They do know everyone selling data + advertising already does this, right? This is a VERY obvious use of aggregated data.
I declare Shenanigans!
Shenanigans on Facebook!
Shenanigans on the USPTO!
They are trying to scam us now and it needs to be stopped Officer Barbrady!
Re: (Score:3)
They do know everyone selling data + advertising already does this, right? This is a VERY obvious use of aggregated data.
Before you make such a judgement, you might want to actually read the patent. Slashdot summaries almost always completely misrepresent what is actually covered in the claims section of the patent.
Re:uhm... (Score:5, Informative)
I've just finished reading the claims and scanning the description and found no part of it that should be patentable; anybody reasonably skilled in statistics would end up with something similar or even identical. Heck, I'd even end up with something pretty much the same, and I have no formal background in statistics.
Also note that the patent names the required activities only (mostly it just lists potential sources of data); it does not explain the methods or mechanisms used to perform those activities.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically it's about as deserving as the vast majority of software patents that are granted.
Re: (Score:1)
I've just finished reading the claims and scanning the description and found no part of it that should be patentable...
You are, of course, a professional in the field of statistics and modeling? Marketing perhaps? You are maybe a patent lawyer?
No?
You're just some arm-chair pontificater?
I thought so.
Also note that the patent names the required activities only (mostly it just lists potential sources of data); it does not explain the methods or mechanisms used to perform those activities.
Complete bullshit. The "Detailed Description" goes way beyond what you suggest.
Certainly such a patent is asinine, but your over-simplistic "argument" - such that it is - does not address any of the issues and in fact is the standard type of argument from people that have no clue as to how to read a patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any examples or arguments to back up your ad hominem attacks?
Do they get royalties (Score:1)
Whenever someone uses a correlation statistic? What about when someone uses a set of data to infer something about other populations?
It may sound an awful lot like they patented statistics, correlations, and sampling, but it's different 'cause it's on a social network. Totally different.
Re: (Score:2)
The redlining link is interesting (Score:2)
*See first paragraph in the History section of submitters link on redlining. [wikipedia.org]
Re:The redlining link is interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
The patent specifically suggests using inferred income for targeting mortgage offers, which the Wikipedia article notes has been a ripe area for abuse: "Reverse redlining occurs when a lender or insurer targets minority consumers, not to deny them loans or insurance, but rather to charge them more than could be charged to a comparable majority consumer whose business is more sought after"
Re: (Score:3)
The patent specifically suggests using inferred income for targeting mortgage offers, which the Wikipedia article notes has been a ripe area for abuse: "Reverse redlining occurs when a lender or insurer targets minority consumers, not to deny them loans or insurance, but rather to charge them more than could be charged to a comparable majority consumer whose business is more sought after"
That is even more of a stretch. The Facebook scheme is nothing more than presenting advertising to people based on viewing habits, not some scheme to deny people the opportunity to risk future treasure on real property.
Re: (Score:3)
Viewing habits here, Facebook explains, are just a proxy for income bracket,, which will be used to categorize and target users. And, as this article on Digital Inclusion and data profiling [firstmonday.org] notes, "Digitally dependent surveillant technologies do work differently in how they collect, categorize, target, and overall exploit users. As these technologies emerge as central to the current economy, old forms of prejudice and injustice can be grafted onto these new tools." Doesn't have to be that way, sure, but som
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. Someone else already has the patent on adjusting prices depending on someone's net usage.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's kind of ironic that Facebook just applied for a frivolous patent for gathering and analyzing the information, but someone else already holds the frivolous patent for acting upon that information.
Re: (Score:2)
The patent specifically suggests using inferred income for targeting mortgage offers, which the Wikipedia article notes has been a ripe area for abuse: "Reverse redlining occurs when a lender or insurer targets minority consumers, not to deny them loans or insurance, but rather to charge them more than could be charged to a comparable majority consumer whose business is more sought after"
Why would a "comparable majority consumer"'s business be "more sought after", especially online?
I suspect the unpopular truth is that we are talking about customers who are not comparable, and that lenders want to charge more for higher risk, which makes perfect business and ethical sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the unpopular truth is that we are talking about customers who are not comparable, and that lenders want to charge more for higher risk, which makes perfect business and ethical sense.
No. The unpopular truth is that minorities have been screwed over for hundreds of years by members of the majority scratching each other's backs, regardless of the business or ethical rationale.
Want to keep minorities out of a neighborhood? Only offer them shitty loans, while offering less qualified borrowers who are "one of us" more attractive terms.
Oh, and don't worry about your descendents being ashamed if your behavior. They would rather blame the victim than face the truth about their ancestors and how their "accomplishments" were built on a tilted playing field.
I see. So Facebook wants to keep racial minorities out of neighborhoods by showing specific ads to people based on their estimated income. Because the people who work at Facebook are so racist.
Thanks for explaining that. (Maybe Occam makes disposable razors now? Hmm.)
scary (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They're already inferring men's size, and always small at that ("do you want to be BIGGER?" "is your erectile dysfunction holding you back?" "when the moment is right, will your donger be ready?").
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Profiling... (Score:2, Offtopic)
In a post-capitalist economy, this is the 1% new power version of racial profiling. Think of it as a form of denial of services. You'll never see what the 1% does much less enjoy. Knowledge is power and denying information denies access to all but the 1% who matter.
Re:Profiling... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Post-capitalist"? We're reaching the zenith of everything Capitalism has sought to achieve. Record income disparities with unparalleled wealth for the super-wealthy, concentrating control over every aspect of society in the hands of a tiny elite. Thanks to Facebook, "the markets" (a.k.a. billionaire investors) even control human social interactions once considered sacrosanct from corporate intrusion. The Capitalist economy is all about the ascendancy of the 1% (and the 0.01% within that).
Re: (Score:1)
Side note: I know Futurama did it as a joke, but it's scary to think how accurate the
Re: (Score:2)
"Post-capitalist"?
Its become cool to declare something to be "post" it's almost "post-hipster". Secondly, if you want to see what the 1% enjoys, there are entire TV channels dedicated to it.
I want to create an app (Score:3)
If enough users launch it, it will completely mess up all these statistical correlations and eventually provide anonymity by increasing the noise.
Re: (Score:3)
Mixing issues (Score:3)
If algorithms can be patented, then sure. If FB is using a unique algorithm to infer income, it might be granted (that I think patenting mathematics is absurd is irrelevant - if you believe your algorithm is so great, keep it a secret. Application of mathematics to one area shouldn't be patentable). I'd be surprised if Amazon doesn't look at your shopping history and suggest products in your price range. If I never bought anything over $25, why should they show me a product costing over $10,000?
On the other hand, what does this have to do with redlining? My outrage that statistics is being patented has nothing to do with the fact that FB should be allowed to show whatever ads to whomever they please. They are not a government organization (and haven't taken taxpayer money) that shouldn't be allowed to discriminate between consumers.
Isn't this exactly what marketing research (Score:4, Insightful)
corn is a powerful consumer classification that segments the UK population. By analysing demographic data, social factors, population and consumer behaviour, it provides precise information and an understanding of different types of people. Acorn provides valuable consumer insight helping you target, acquire and develop profitable customer relationships and improve service delivery.
This is just another case of adding "... on a computer" or "... over wifi" to something that's already an established practice to gain a patent.
Prior Art (Score:2)
Agreed. There is probably plenty of prior art, but one would be crazy to challenge the patent because:
Congratulations, Facebook, you are a patent troll
Read the claims, not the /. summary (Score:2)
Isn't this exactly what marketing research companies have done before. A quick web search says [caci.co.uk]:
corn is a powerful consumer classification that segments the UK population. By analysing demographic data, social factors, population and consumer behaviour, it provides precise information and an understanding of different types of people. Acorn provides valuable consumer insight helping you target, acquire and develop profitable customer relationships and improve service delivery.
This is just another case of adding "... on a computer" or "... over wifi" to something that's already an established practice to gain a patent.
No, this is another case of not reading the claims. The patent claims go into confidence metrics and applying advertising criteria based on those metrics. Now, maybe there's other prior art out there that teaches that element, but your link is the equivalent of saying "Tesla got a patent on the power train in the Model S? But isn't that really just a Ford Model T adding '... with a battery'?"
Re:Isn't this exactly what marketing research (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just another case of adding "... on a computer" or "... over wifi" to something that's already an established practice to gain a patent.
They are not patenting the concept, they are patenting a specific algorithm.
FFB (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry, your friends and family will help upload all your personal information to Facebook to sell to advertisers, to make sure you don't miss out on anything.
Turn it all off (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox addon Ghostery does the same including going to the next logical step of self-destructing all cookies that you don't explicitly protect. It also give the ability to white/blacklist. Combined with addon's that take care of the long term cookies that Adobe created with flash and you have the ability to block almost all tracking.
I've yet to see a single addon that gets all the different avenues of tracking. It's not enough to block the tracking widgets because cookies can reveal you, and Adobe flash co
Re: (Score:2)
While we're at it, here are Facebook's IP address blocks
31.13.24.0 - 31.13.31.255 aka 31.13.24.0/21
31.13.64.0 - 31.13.127.255 aka 31.13.64.0/18
66.220.144.0 - 66.220.159.255 aka 66.220.144.0/20
69.63.176.0 - 69.63.191.255 aka 69.63.176.0/20
69.171.224.0 - 69.171.255.255 aka 69.171.224.0/19
74.119.76.0 - 74.119.79.255 aka 74.119.76.0/22
103.4.96.0 - 103.4.99.255 aka 103.4.96.0/22
173.252.64.0 - 173.252.127.255 aka 173.252.64.0/18
204.15.20.0 - 204.15.23.255 aka 204.15.20.0/22
More accurate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A mid-level corporate manager at McDonalds probably makes more money than some lab technician.
By that logic, you could look at the IP they are connecting to Facebook from.... if they have been connecting from Google's IP address space, then you might infer they are an office worker who gets the privilege of surfing the internet at work -- which puts them in a higher bracket than someone who connects from a dial-up only ISP or AOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone listed as working as a lab tech somewhere is obviously going to make more than someone listed as working at McDonald's.
Not if the lab tech is a graduate student in the U.S.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, even though gradstudent wages are miserably low, the sad truth is that McDonald's near-minimum-wage is even more terrible. And, unlike gradstudents, the majority of people working McDonalds jobs are adults, often raising families, near the top of their career advancement --- they're not about to see double or triple salary after a few more years of burger flipping. US gradstudents have it tough, but the US working poor have it even harder (levels of poverty difficult to understand for anyone
I can infer productivity of Facebook users @ work (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Racist! (Score:5, Informative)
It's a statistical measure. People who read such things generally have a low income. The fact that you specifically read them and don't have a low income is irrelevant; the advertisers don't care about you as an individual. The large number of people who do fit the profile make the advertising more lucrative to a degree which far overwhelms the small number of people like you who make it less lucrative.
Re: (Score:2)
It backfires on them, though, too. Because I'm on disability, I have all kinds of time to read newspapers and browse links friends have posted. It sure as heck doesn't provide the income they're dreaming of raping and pillaging, though. :)
Interesting, but for different reasons (Score:1)
Advertising (TV, Radio, Banners, Internet) is sold on an open market bidding system. You bid for impressions (CPI) and clicks (CPC). Coveted demographics - such as 16-20 year old females, or wealthy folks have very high bid rates. So being able to infer people's income makes good business sense.
Facebook has a good model, as you bid for placement based on age,
I want my internet back (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No wonder facebook sucks.
Re: (Score:3)
Another confirmation that our idea of the internet has devolved in the hands of entrepeneurs.
I'm with you. Some people seem to have had it drilled into their heads that they've got some moral duty to download and expose themselves to corporate propaganda ((i.e., advertizements) and the malware* that frequently accompanies it), lest the Internet shrivel up and die. They forget that aside from spam, the Internet started out nearly ad-free, and that ads were scarce for a while in the beginning of the 1990s web-boom.
I don't think it'd necessarily be a bad thing if ad-dependent content disappeared; what
Seinfeld is Prior Art (Score:2)
How about them Knicks?
This is a ridiculous patent and should be invalidated. As others have said, this is correlation. Nothing patentable here at all.
I taught data mining in college. This is a standard example of relating attributes to income. It is not novel.
What the fuck (Score:2)
All Depends (Score:2)
Every salesperson & potential mother-in-law .. (Score:2)