Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks Privacy Technology

Facebook Paid Contractors To Transcribe Users' Audio Chats (bloomberg.com) 51

Posted by msmash from the new-lows dept.
Facebook has been paying hundreds of outside contractors to transcribe clips of audio from users of its services, Bloomberg reported Tuesday, citing people with knowledge of the work. From the report: The work has rattled the contract employees, who are not told where the audio was recorded or how it was obtained -- only to transcribe it, said the people, who requested anonymity for fear of losing their jobs. They're hearing Facebook users' conversations, sometimes with vulgar content, but do not know why Facebook needs them transcribed, the people said. Facebook confirmed that it had been transcribing users' audio and said it will no longer do so, following scrutiny into other companies.

"Much like Apple and Google, we paused human review of audio more than a week ago," the company said Tuesday. The company said the users who were affected chose the option in Facebook's Messenger app to have their voice chats transcribed. The contractors were checking whether Facebook's artificial intelligence correctly interpreted the messages, which were anonymized. [...] The social networking giant, which just completed a $5 billion settlement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission after a probe of its privacy practices, has long denied that it collects audio from users to inform ads or help determine what people see in their news feeds.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Paid Contractors To Transcribe Users' Audio Chats More

Facebook Paid Contractors To Transcribe Users' Audio Chats

Comments Filter:

  • The company said the users who were affected chose the option in Facebook's Messenger app to have their voice chats transcribed.

    I don't use any Facebook apps so can't say. If it's opt in, then there's no problem here (though I'd argue both sides of the conversation need to opt in before you can transcribe it). If it's opt out, then this is a great example of why we need a law requiring this sort of stuff to be opt in.

    • Of course it's opt in. How else could Facebook possibly get the data? The user must have either 1) knowingly installed Facebook's app, or else 2) knowingly uploaded recorded audio data using their web browser. In either scenario, the user knew there was 0% chance of privacy, and I'm sure there are a hundred pages of legalese that explain to you why and how data sent to them gets used however they want to, prefaced with "tl;dnr: we're Facebook, so we'll be exploiting this data however we think best for us."

      • Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think it's still a problem that Facebook treats every aspect of a user's life as being their property, when the user has only unwittingly agreed to it all. Their invasive practices on the general public harm not only the general public, who has agreed only because they didn't realize how much they were agreeing to, but it also harms those of us who don't play ball with Facebook, only have connections to people who do. Facebook is compiling information on us and about everyon

      • Re:Opt in or opt out? (Score:4, Informative)

        by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2019 @03:52PM (#59084026)

        You're clueless.

        Facebook comes preinstalled on many, many phones. On Android phones, it cannot be uninstalled because it's baked into the system partition. You'll need to hack your phone to get root access to truly remove it, and then any application which checks the "integrity" of your device will throw red flags because you're not using an approved Android system image. No Google pay for you. No logging in to Snapchat (though if you log once in with a clean image, then mess with it, you stay logged in and Snapshat doesn't care to check again). No Pokemon GO.

        The best your typical user can do in Android is "disable" the Facebook app and delete its data and cache. Because of the way Android works, and the way Facebook is baked in as a "system" application, it can and will be updated with OTA updates. It can be reactivated without your knowledge or consent. You can and will have a ton of vague, unidentifiable com.something.blah.android services running in the background that are spying on you 24/7, with no real way to determine which are tied to which "app", which can be safely stopped, etc.

        The Facebook app will spy on you whether or not you log in. It will surreptitiously try to get you to log in, or try to spy on you and find out who you are to "help" you log in.

        • Actually, you can uninstall system apps without root by hooking the phone up to your computer and uninstalling using adb. This is how I de-fucked my brother's Samsung bloatphone which didn't have a root exploit at the time. It won't take it out of the factory reset image, but it'll get rid of it on your current install.

          Now, 99% of people aren't going to know or be willing to do that, but I figured I'd point it out more because it's useful to know. The ideal route to go in my opinion is to get TWRP and fl

  • MZ for prison (Score:3)

    by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2019 @03:09PM (#59083858)

    Enough with the fines just start putting people in jail.

    • Re:MZ for prison (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2019 @03:27PM (#59083942) Journal

      What are you going to jail them for? What crime?

      And if you say "There ought to be a law" ... I'm gonna scream.

      Here's a thought, don't fucking use FACEBOOK if you don't like how they monetize you for using their "service" for free

      • Yeah, I don't understand all the hip, trendy facebook hate. If you don't like them don't use them, it's incredibly simple.

        • That would be a great idea, if they weren't compiling information on everyone, even people who don't use their service.

          • Oh noes, my "information". Sorry, I still don't get it. I'd be more worried about Amazon who (legitimately) has tons of information on where I live, my finances, and what I buy. And I'm not worried about Amazon. Most of us just aren't that interesting to where it matters who has our "information". Sometimes that slippery slope people worry about just ends in a plain old normal slope then just flattens out to a normal road again.

          • That would be a great idea, if they weren't compiling information on everyone, even people who don't use their service.

            They can only collect information that you put out there, you can't control that information once you disseminate it.

            • False. Google the term shadow profiling.
              • I didn't say anything about you having to give Facebook your information, of course if there is information out there then they can collect and correlate it just like anybody else can. Again, you cannot control information like that. If the information is out there then why do you think you have a right to control who gets to see it?

        • Yeah, I don't understand all the hip, trendy facebook hate. If you don't like them don't use them, it's incredibly simple.

          Are you fucking serious? Facebook tracks everyone everywhere regardless of whether they have ever once in their lives used Facebook or not.

          • Not if you use it from a desktop, don't use it as your news source, and lie about your birthday and preferences.
            • Yes they do. Facebook knows every page you visited that has a tracking pixel or like button on it. You have to go out of your way to block them and keep up with what theyâ(TM)re using to track you if you donâ(TM)t consent.

      • Uh, if they record any conversation without at least one party's express consent, they're violating state laws. In many states, you need consent from both (or all) parties to record audio.

        If a mere mortal does that shit, they go to jail.

        • Uh, if they record any conversation without at least one party's express consent, they're violating state laws.

          When a user selects the option "send me a transcript of this chat session", that's express consent from at least one party.

          • Some states are 2 party. So if I visit a friend, who has one, and I never consented obviously, they are in violation.

            • Some states are 2 party. So if I visit a friend, who has one, and I never consented obviously, they are in violation.

              Yes, your friend who "records your chat" without your permission if you are in a two party state, is in violation. Probably. Since that is a patently absurd situation, I suspect that the law isn't that black and white about it.

      • What are you going to jail them for? What crime?
        And if you say "There ought to be a law" ... I'm gonna scream.

        Felony wiretapping.

        They are doing it systematically on an industrial scale to people who never consented to having their conversations with others recorded across state lines and listened to by a small army of paid pervs.

        Why shouldn't MZ go to prison for that?

        Here's a thought, don't fucking use FACEBOOK if you don't like how they monetize you for using their "service" for free

        Not only have I never and will never use Facebook all of their networks and domains are blocked on this network.

      • Here's a thought, don't fucking use FACEBOOK if you don't like how they monetize you for using their "service" for free

        Ok, but along with that advice, take care not to imply that Facebook has license to do whatever they want simply because their service doesn't cost money. If I accept someone's offer to come assess my window treatments for free, that doesn't make it ok for them to help themselves to my fridge contents or have sex with my dog. Facebook has been such a bad actor for such a long time that the only safe thing to do is to not use them... that is true. But that's NOT because they're free, it's because they're

    • Enough with the fines just start putting people in jail.

      Nah - just make the fines meaningful. First offense, up to 5% of your pre-tax/EBIT revenue as calculated over the past 12 months. Second offense within 3 years, 5-10%. Third offense within 5 years, 15-20%... and increased along the same relative scales thereafter.

      Pretty sure the shareholders will instantly get involved (one way or the other) sometime between the first and second levy of fines.

    • Enough with the fines just start putting people in jail.

      Better yet, ship them to China.

  • ... more than a week ago; the moment someone reviewed an audio clip about someone planning to write this news article.

  • California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law.

    They have commited a Felony in the State of California.

    • Lol, no they haven't. Both parties will have consented based on eula.

    • You consented by using their system.

      • Not in Canada. you can't consent to that. It's a Constitutional Right, it can't be signed away in a contract.

        • I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that in Canada, you are not allowed to consent to letting someone record you? (How do they have professional musicians? Is 2112 illegal?) And furthermore, you're saying that this lack of power on your part, is a "right?"

          I'm probably misreading you and coming off as dickish (explanation: I'm a dick!) but that appears to be what you wrote.

          • You can't sign boilerplate giving away a Constitutional Right.

            You also can't do it for anyone in range of the recording device.

            • I'm 100% sure that this is 100% unenforceable.

              To be 100% accurate according to your obviously shortened and having complete lack of nuance probably in the law.... your rendering would make most Cell Phone Cameras and video recording equipment use illegal.

              If there are exceptions, then those exceptions might, could and probably are extended to FB being able to have a boilerplate exemption that is legally sound. VLAWG guy needs to weigh in, since he is a Canadian lawyer.

    • Facebook messenger is completely nonstandard and uses a proprietary protocol which nothing else implements. You can't write a compatible client, for both practical and (likely) legal reasons (e.g. patents, DMCA, etc).

      Therefore, no users are able to use the protocol without running Facebook's proprietary software. The proprietary software obtains consent by clickthrough EULA. Ergo, it is "impossible" (caveats in next paragraph) to use the protocol without every user involved in the conversation agreeing to

    • And in Canada.

      And in Washington State.

  • FaceBook this...FaceBook that...Facebook here...Facebook there...

    Is it just, but I am tired of these in my face Facebook stories...

  • "Much like Apple and Google..."

    That tells you all you need to know about Facebook as a company.

  • ... once again, we didn't mean to get caught. So sorry about that.

  • "What? No, OF COURSE these free meeting sites and voice activated services aren't 'spying' on you, LOL. You're just a paranoid fool. Do you really think that Facebook, Amazon, Apple, etc, are recording you? Why would they care what YOU say? You're just being ridiculous. Take off your tinfoil hat, Mr. Conspiracy Monger".

    • It's all fun and games until you are the one saying stuff they care about.

    • What? No, OF COURSE these free meeting sites and voice activated services aren't 'spying' on you, LOL.

      1. You selected the option to get a transcript of your chat, so of course we are recording this conversation. AT YOUR REQUEST. How else do you think we can provide a transcript?

      2. We wrote some pretty good software to do the transcribing automatically. It's not perfect. We want to make it better. That means we need a baseline to compare the computer output to.

      3. To get the baseline, we sent your voice sans any identifying information or other data to a person who transcribes it manually.

      4. Sometimes the

  • We give away our information for "free" stuff. This is what they do with that information.

    Continue blindly clicking your EULAs...

    • We give away our information for "free" stuff. This is what they do with that information.

      You mean they look at/listen to the thing you give them? Well color me shocked!

  • Mincing words, again. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Atrox Canis ( 1266568 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2019 @03:35PM (#59083986)

    "Much like Apple and Google, we paused human review of audio more than a week ago," So, just this one quoted sentence is enough to make me glad I stopped using Social Media some years ago...

    "Much like Apple and Google" (You're seriously comparing yourself to the personification of evil organizations here, and you are attempting to make it sound like a virtue.

    "We paused." So, they could start it again?

    "Human review." But we might still be recording, for future review.

    "More than a week ago." After we got caught.

    And as others have said, if this was a default setting that a user must take deliberate action to opt out of, it speaks volumes to the absence of morality and common sense on the part of the developers and the company they work for.

    If you work for a social media company after all of the almost weekly revelations for the past year that have exposed the many, many violations of privacy and rights perpetuated by these companies, then you no longer can innocently claim that you are not part of the problem. Now, if you are some sort of indentured servant that can't physically reclaim your visa or legally work for another company, you might have some ground to stand on when you protest that I'm being too harsh. But then, you are contributing to other problems here so perhaps that should bug you just a little bit.

  • After we were found out, and knowing it was going to be reported on, we stopped doing it for a little while, then we'll go back to doing it.

    By the way, this is illegal in Washington State and Canada.

  • Compensate the people providing their voice conversations for validation. Doing behind the scenes with a subtle opt in agreement raises FUD. Even better pay people to correct the conversions. They will know what was intended to say.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ummm, well, OK. The network's the network, the computer's the computer. Sorry for the confusion. -- Sun Microsystems

Close