FTC Study Finds 'Vast Surveillance' of Social Media Users (nytimes.com) 49
The Federal Trade Commission said on Thursday it found that several social media and streaming services engaged in a "vast surveillance" of consumers, including minors, collecting and sharing more personal information than most users realized. From a report: The findings come from a study of how nine companies -- including Meta, YouTube and TikTok -- collected and used consumer data. The sites, which mostly offer free services, profited off the data by feeding it into advertising that targets specific users by demographics, according to the report. The companies also failed to protect users, especially children and teens.
The F.T.C. said it began its study nearly four years ago to offer the first holistic look into the opaque business practices of some of the biggest online platforms that have created multibillion-dollar ad businesses using consumer data. The agency said the report showed the need for federal privacy legislation and restrictions on how companies collect and use data. "Surveillance practices can endanger people's privacy, threaten their freedoms, and expose them to a host of harms, from identify theft to stalking," said Lina Kahn, the F.T.C.'s chair, in a statement.
The F.T.C. said it began its study nearly four years ago to offer the first holistic look into the opaque business practices of some of the biggest online platforms that have created multibillion-dollar ad businesses using consumer data. The agency said the report showed the need for federal privacy legislation and restrictions on how companies collect and use data. "Surveillance practices can endanger people's privacy, threaten their freedoms, and expose them to a host of harms, from identify theft to stalking," said Lina Kahn, the F.T.C.'s chair, in a statement.
Color me shocked (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind this is the whole business model.
exactly and it's a pseudo-business model based on classism, economic discrimination and financial exploitation
ethics are foundational, which is why society is collapsing
Lina Kahn is taking names and kicking ass (Score:5, Informative)
The news to everyone here isn't so much the actual problem as described in TFS, but that the FTC, (under Lina Kahn' chair) is actually enforcing consumer protections. Good job Lina Kahn, and Joe Biden who appointed her!
It's not just billionaire republicans that are so upset with her either. LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, a democrat, contributed $10 million to Kamala Harris' campaign along with a simple request to fire Lina Kahn [msnbc.com].
Here's an interview of Jon Stewart interviewing Lina Kahn [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:1)
KAHN!
Re: (Score:2)
in a good way
Re: (Score:1)
Next up: "FTC discovers news pundits like to spin for ratings."
Re: Color me shocked (Score:2)
Shocked, indeed, to hear such truth from a U.S. entity like the FTC.
Considering the contents of the report: that's the whole gig of surveillance capitalism. They gun be mad.
...what a... (Score:2)
Captain Noduuh (Score:2)
Here's your winnings, Sir!
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it never was news
Really? In just one social media company, Cambridge Analytica is a household name. There’s been plenty of data harvesting news/history about Mark “Dumb Fucks” Zuckerberg, including how he gave himself that nickname.
But hey, we’re just old-fashioned out of touch paranoid “privacy” freaks according to this generation if we’re not standing proud as fellow narcissists shouting from at least three social media platform rooftops 6 times a day. Who am I to argue with?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you probably get your political views from social media too...
A retort like that, only confirms who the hypocrite is. Did “social media” make up Cambridge Analytica, or is my claim indisputable regardless of how you feel? Did Zuckerberg not refer to his first customers as “dumb fucks”? You act as if Mark himself didn’t just recently admit political bias and influence on his platform. By Facebook. How many other indisputables will you deny?
I would say do better, but there’s a reason Kamala Harris cannot win without shit-talking
Rick Romero's Head asplode (Score:3)
Unless the government is providing service with taxpayer dollars then if you're getting something for free you are the product.
I'm not normally the paranoid sort but after multiple stories of Facebook listening in on my phone and tracking me even though I never opened the app much less logged into it I've taken to just uninstalling both Facebook and Twitter as soon as I get a new phone. If anyone else pulled half the shit they do, especially Facebook Twitter isn't sophisticated enough to do what Facebook does, they'd be permanently banned from the app stores
Governments toolbox. (Score:2)
Never in the history of Captain Obvious has anything been this obvious. Unless the government is providing service with taxpayer dollars then if you're getting something for free you are the product.
The irony of talking about taxpayer dollars and government providing a service, when social media is now a massive and powerful intelligence gathering tool for government.
If Facebook ever came close to declaring bankruptcy, you would find the men in black sprinting with briefcases stuffed with cash from every three-letter agency. Even the ones you haven’t heard of yet would come running. Too Big To Fail doesn’t even begin to describe law enforcements reliance on social media now.
Oh we’re
Re:Rick Romero's Head asplode (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't isolated to people obviously using "social media" and therefore being public in their behavior in ways that can be collected and monitored.
Virtually every website that anybody visits has third-party data collection technology installed, either for the purposes of "monetization" of the site's content, or for the purposes of "analytics". A small number of advertising companies, chief among them Google, makes the tools freely available, and virtually everyone who puts up a website uses them, sometimes completely unthinkingly.
I run a website for a STEM education booster club. I don't put any "analytics" on the site. I had a volunteer, who had web experience from working at a local health care organization, helping out with some of the site material. The very first thing this person did was to add "Google Analytics" to the site. Couldn't even explain why, it was just "what we do" at this person's workplace (a health care company, remember?). I removed it.
The Age of Web has been great in terms of making more information more easily available to more people than ever before. It has been fantastic at creating a common remote electronic interface to every business that it makes sense to have one. BUT - the behavioral tracking that extends across the entire face of it is wrong. It doesn't even need to be there to sell advertising - lord knows magazines and newspapers were effectively selling ad space for their dead tree products without behavioral tracking.
Until/unless it becomes illegal in the US to collect personal data and to hold personal data in excess of that needed for the immediate and obvious interaction with a website (i.e., shopping cart and basic customer info for a shopping website, a username for a login website, appointment information for a health care org website, etc.), the behavioral tracking for micro-monetization through "targeted advertising" isn't going to end.
I'm not fond of solving problems through legislation, I tend towards libertarian in my political views, but this really seems to be a case where a huge societal good is being made very bad and won't get better absent a law to eliminate the bad behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Never shop for underwear online, because for the next 2 years you'll be inundated with underwear ads on multiple "unrelated" sites. if somebody is watching you browse, they'll eventually ask, "why do you get so many underwear ads?"
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and this tracking is dangerous too. It's being used by your least favorite political party to manipulate people into supporting bad candidates and bad laws, and even on occasion to rile up dangerous mobs.
It's not working very well (Score:2)
I am a white middle-aged man who doesn't drive and I keep getting ads for giant trucks and makeup for fat ladies.
I also get ads for Swiffer mops but I never clean my place either...
Re: (Score:3)
You're not getting the message.
Maybe you should start driving a giant truck and start wearing fat lady makeup.
Re: (Score:1)
> and makeup for fat ladies.
and you look faaabulous in it!
By the way, how is makeup for skinny ladies different than that for fat ladies?
Re: It's not working very well (Score:2)
It comes in bigger packages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, they all totally swear that nobody has access to the mic on my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
It's advertising fraud to juice the numbers when they show the advertisers the engagement reports.
No one
No, just keep taking selfies . . . (Score:2)
It's confirmed! (Score:3)
The FTC discovers reality at the pace of an asthmatic sloth.
Re: FTC...pace of an asthmatic sloth. (Score:1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
FTC Study ... (Score:2)
That would go a very long way for data privacy rather than new regulations on data when they still don't enforce the ones currently in use.
Privacy laws (Score:2)
The US needs laws protecting privacy.
Oh, and the government needs reminded of the requirement for a warrant, before violating your privacy. The founders didn't know about electronics, but they certainly would have included them under "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".
It Won't Happen (Score:2)
The main reason we don't have these level of privacy laws is that it helps law enforcement. It might be illegal for law enforcement to surveil you; but not for the private sector doing it for profit. So they either purchase the data or subpoena it.
"We didn't collect that data. We're not the ones that violated privacy; the user gave that information up to the private company."
If the constitution doesn't allow the government to do it; then you do it through the private sector. When they don't do what you want
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible that this is an underlying reason why it will be an uphill better to get a citizen protection law banning the collection of all but necessary personal information on websites. But that doesn't mean it can't happen. The government isn't that fond of encryption for the people, either, but didn't manage to squelch it either.
The problem might be that this requires the government to act, where the spread of encryption required that the government not act. Getting the government to trip over it
Threatening the oligarchy (Score:1)
I would love targeted ads, if... (Score:3)
...they weren't so incredibly stupid
Here's what I want.
When I'm in the market for a product or service, I want all suppliers to send me their best pitch, preferably with lots of technical detail.
When I make a decision to buy or not, I want ALL pitches to stop.
What I don't want.
Endless spam about related products.
Sending me endlessly repeating ads for stuff I already bought.
Ads that seem to be worse than random. I once started receiving ads for 3D printers used in dentistry. Evidently, the stupid robot somehow believed I was a dental lab.
Re: (Score:2)
Society is not read-only (Score:2)
Third Party Doctrine (Score:2)
The government likes this very much, thank you. Don't expect anything to change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Look at the top... (Score:2)
Who expect that companies run by Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg would do anything other than THE MOST EVIL AND GREEDY THINGS humanly possible.
Well Social Media isnt so social anymore (Score:1)
It took four years? (Score:2)
It took them four years to reach this conclusion? Four years? When there are huge swaths of citizens screaming about it constantly?
God damn, our government is slow as shit. Hopefully in another twenty or thirty years they'll get around to telling congress about it. It'll take congress about another decade to process this new and shocking information.
Innocent sheeple (Score:2)
Oh I have nothing to hide so don't mind sharing info on social media.
Did you know that this data might be used against you when you apply for a job? Governmental position? Influence background checks? Feed advertisers with your socieconomic habits and make you more susceptible to be targeted for influence campaigns? Do sheeple understand they are sometiems being corralled?
Good for them. Laughing about cat memes, giving their opinion on local schools, politicians, making friends online so networks can ma
This is only the tip of the iceberg (Score:4, Informative)
Since I know you'll want some citations for that, here you go: Data Broker Giants Hacked by ID Theft Service — Krebs on Security [krebsonsecurity.com] and Mozilla Drops New Privacy Partner After CEO Found Tethered To Data Brokers | Techdirt [techdirt.com] and Everything We Know About What Data Brokers Know About You - ProPublica [propublica.org] and Wyden: Data Broker Used Abortion Clinic Visitor Location Data To Help Send Targeted Misinformation To Vulnerable Women | Techdirt [techdirt.com] and Data Broker That Trafficked In Abortion Clinic Location Data Also Helps The Air Force With Targeting | Techdirt [techdirt.com] and Data Brokers: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) - YouTube [youtube.com] and Forget A TikTok Ban, We Need To Regulate Data Brokers And Pass A Real Privacy Law | Techdirt [techdirt.com] and Our Ongoing Refusal To Regulate Data Brokers Is Going To Bite Us On The Ass | Techdirt [techdirt.com] SC and Data brokers, in bed with scammers, aimed their algorithms at millions of elderly, vulnerable [substack.com] and 96% Of Hospitals Share Sensitive Visitor Data With Meta, Google, and Data Brokers | Techdirt [techdirt.com] and Data Broker Medbase200 Sold Lists of Rape & Domestic Violence Victims - Slashdot [slashdot.org] and FTC Blocks Data Broker Outlogic From Collecting And Selling Sensitive Location Data | Techdirt [techdirt.com] and Data Brokers Are the Problem | Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org] SC and Once More With Feeling: Banning TikTok Doesn’t Do Much If We Don’t Regulate Data Brokers And Pass A Privacy Law | Techdirt [techdirt.com] and Wyden’s Office Gets FTC To Protect The Data Of 1.6 Billion People Tracked By Now-Bankrupt Data Broker | Techdirt [techdirt.com] SC and Biden EO Restricts Sale Of Consumer Data To ‘Countries Of Concern’ (But We Still Need A Privacy Law And To Regulate Data Brokers) | Techdirt [techdirt.com]
My feeling is that it
You Cannot Have Security Without Privacy (Score:3)
so that means the ftc is going to do something (Score:3)