Go Ahead, Sell My Data
Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 10:22PM More and more I see articles popping up that bash social networks for "violating" our privacy and selling our information to advertisers. Inevitably, Facebook has been at the center of many of these "scandals". Today on HN I came across this interview with Disconnect co-founder Casey Oppenheim and I just don't get it.
In it, he bashes Facebook (and other online advertisers) for using our information in order to serve up targeted ads. He points out that many of the " “free” services aren’t really free — we pay with our data". At one point he even says that "Facebook’s primary objective is to maximize value for shareholders — not its users. More tracking = more targeted ads = more $."
While it is true that "we pay with our data" for many of the free (as in no monetary cost) social networks we use, what is the alternative? People don't want to pay money for these types of services and this is a business model that allows companies to operate and thrive while providing a valuable service to their users. I don't understand this pervasive notion that using our information in order to serve targeted ads is inherently bad. That somehow this type of business model is threatening, evil and has far reaching negative consequences outside of our experience within the given application. In fact, I can't give you a single concrete example of how a social network using my information to serve an ad on their site has negatively impacted me. These sites take the information we have submitted to be viewable by "Friends" and use computer generated scripts to determine what pops up in the adbar on the right side of my screen. The information isn't viewed by humans (not in an identifiable way) and it's not published along with our names in some public database that everyone can search. So what's the big deal?
I understand the instinctive philosphic reaction that "we own our data" but when I dig beaneath that initlal gut response I come up empty. I do think there is an important distinction between privacy and security that sometimes people miss. There is certain information (address, account numbers, ss #, etc.) that if obtained by a third party, could result in some real world problems that will negatively impact my life. But information social networks sell to advertisers doesn't fall into this category.
Until I hear arguments beyond "it is wrong" or "I own my data" I'm not convinced that this is a problem that needs to be fixed. Someone please convince me because I feel like I am in the minority on this one.
Reader Comments (34)
I agree, I think that if anything, it is a good thing that adverts are targeted at me. What is more annoying, an advert that targets the general public, or one that might sell me something that I might actually want? If you don't like it, don't buy the products the adverts are advertising.
FB does not simply sell your data to advertisement. It is capable to keep track of your (almost) entire web activity. And this, my friend, is bad. Privacy: you have the right and it's not being respected.
Selling my data is ok, as long as they clearly state what they're selling and to whom they're selling. The point is they lie to their users about their data selling practices.
No objection to the data being used to push personalised ads. My objection is that the web sites can provide any comers (typically domestic or foreign government, or through intentional or unintentional hacks, i.e. information disclosure) a detailed account of my online activities without my consent.
I grant anyone that given my perceived risk I'm free not to use those services (Google/Facebook/et al) ...but it would be nice if they did provide the assurance I want, allowing me to use their site on my terms (user control/consent) and their benefit (targeted ads).
I agree that more transparency is a good thing and would help people understand.
@mateus if if that is completely true, how has that impacted you in a negative way? It probably hasn't.
Fundamental US/Europe disconnect, here. Take a look at European data protection law, and what it's allowed a Facebook user to do - and the kind of breaches of that law Facebook are guilty of: http://www.identityblog.com/?p=1201
The alternative is to use technology to build solutions which provide the same value to users, at the same 'apparent' user cost (i.e. zero paid). The cost of the infrastructure can still be driven down to very, very low levels and shouldn't require us to sell our data.
Obviously they should be operating within the confines of the law and it appears they are coming up short in some respects. The post is more about people's non-legal concerns and why we are so uncomfortable with how these sites use our data.
@kcurtin Wait ... what? Don't you care about your privacy? Doesn't it bothers you your digital track being given to gov? Don't you mind to be watch al lthe time (I assume you sepnd lots of hours/day on internet)?
You web experience is a reflect of your personallity: what you like;dislike, watch, download, comment. Who you know and are.
Personally, I don't like the ideia to live on a Big Brother world.
"The information isn't viewed by humans (not in an identifiable way)"
Agreed.[1]
"it's not published along with our names in some public database that everyone can search"
Indeed.[2]
"If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to worry." <= My life motto, I'm sure it's your motto as well.
Hey OP, shall we exchange our address information in mysql databases? I promise only to use scripts and not look at it, not even to test my scripts. Oh, also our browser histories, almost forgot. That way we can send each other targeted location based ads.
I look forward to receiving your information.
---
[1] http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/14/google-engineer-fired-security/
[2] http://www.atelier.net/en/articles/social-network-info-helps-home-robbery-ring
Most concerns I think are valid. The problems are never the technologies - nuclear power-, but the nefarious uses that inevitably humans find for tech - atomic bombs. I know I am going to the extreme, but I believe this online profiling eventually - if not already- will be use to monitor citizens. I believe Facebook has a pretty straightforward law enforcement profile request form.
Your right to privacy is to not use those sites. Period. Don't want Facebook tracking your browsing habits? Delete your profile.
unless you pay for everything with cash, the credit card companies have a far more interesting view of you than social networks do.
no one seems to mention this in these discussions. and you PAY for that information exposure.
What makes you think I wouldn't pay to use Facebook without ads? I would be all over that if they let me see and edit my data. I would pay $20/mo because that would be so much more useful to me. I guarantee that's more than they make showing me ads.
Derek: They will track you across websites and collect data about you even if you don't have an account. Here are a few of the complaints: http://europe-v-facebook.org/Compalint_02_Shadow_Profiles.pdf and http://europe-v-facebook.org/Complaint_03_Tagging.pdf and http://europe-v-facebook.org/Comlaint_11_RemovalOfTags.pdf
@Derek Got your point: don't want to die of cancer, then don't live. Simple as that. But if I WANT to use those site because it pleases me? WHY must I deprive-me of my privacy?
Bottom line, it's a matter of transparency and honesty.
PS: in fact I do not use FB or mainstream social networks (i.e. FB/Orkut/MySpace), but I think it's important to draw.
Yeah, yeah, I get that "I pay with my data" attitude, and I share it, and it were fine if it were that way.
But Facebook creates a profile about you without your consent. Everytime a Facebook plugin is loaded from their server (Like-Button, Comments, etc.) it gives
Facebook insight about your browser, what page you were on (via referer) and what other sites you look at (cookies).
Additionally, when someone imports their email contacts, and you are in them, Facebook will create a shadow profile for you. Depending on how malicious they are (and I wouldn't give them too much credit here), they'll try to tie all that data together to create a very detailed profile about you. So they'll know what websites you frequent, therefore what your interests are. Even if you don't explicitly "give" them the data by providing it in your profile.
Got it now? Because, if you still think it's all cool then your naivety will haunt you some day.
Checkout the movie 'We Live In Public", maybe it will give you some perspective on what the problem is.
Wait a second, whats the problem here. We all know that facebook as whole set of other online applications are tracking our location, data, ip, whatever...
it is quite simple guys,
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T USE IT AND STOP BITCHING ABOUT IT !!!
pull your network cable out and go and smell the roses for the whole day if you want - it is your choice !
@Just Me - You're lame response was addressed above. Perhaps you should read the comments before spouting repeat arguments. These services abuse the internet in such a way that you don't even have to use the service for them to be harvesting a profile. Just because that's the status quo doesn't mean we have to put up with it. It's that complacent additude that allows dictatorships and injustice to thrive.
@kevin curtin - Thanks for at least being open minded and listening to what people have to say about why they believe it's a problem. It's true some of this may have not directly hurt anyone, but that doesn't mean that it won't or that it won't hurt them *indirectly*.
@anon That reminds me a famous quote from Brazil's dictatorship epoch: "Brasil, ame-o ou deixe-o", which poorly translates to "Brazil, love it or leave it".
I agree on the one hand; I'd love to have a virtual concierge fed by my Facebook/Google data that orders my milk, underwear, dinner, etc based on what it knows about my habits. Sort of like how even though I love driving, I'd love a robot driver even more: it's just more convenient in the end.
I think the negative potential here is in who else can get access to this data. I'm fine if Facebook and Google use my data for commercial reasons, but what happens if the government digs in under some future scenario? What if they force Facebook under the Patriot Act to share all of their data and start mining my social profiles to track me, determine whether or not I'm a "terrorist" or somehow otherwise violate my privacy? The problem is that the data is not going to be considered private, so I need to monitor my usage accordingly. And to do so, I need to know exactly what is being collected.
The response to this is to make sure we're all aware of the risks. If I could be guaranteed that Facebook will be the only ones using this data and that they had a right to deny government access to it (never gonna happen), I'd be totally fine with selling my tastes for purposes of greater convenience. Nonetheless, since I fear who else could force their way into accessing that data, I am continually concerned about what is being collected.
1984
There's some healthy discussion here. Personally as long as things like my phone number and email address are not given out willy nilly directly to companies, then I don't have much of a problem with Facebook using my data to serve me ads. Ads are a fact of life online and wishing them away will not work. The whole advertising ecosystem on Facebook is actually growing pretty rapidly and the number of companies (see BuyFacebookFansReviews) that do nothing other than social media promotion seems to be growing even faster. I know that not everybody is a fan of ads, but I'm actually a fan of tasteful quality ads because then I can usually find good deals. I think that Facebook has a real opportunity here to revolutionize the online ad market and dominate it even more than Google has done in the 2000's thus far, but they have to communicate specifically what happens to that data they get. Facebook has a lot of data that other companies don't have access to and I really doubt that they are giving that away because they want to hoard it for their own benefit: it just seems as if their PR for explaining what is going on is really dreadful right now.
Kevin, are you sure that the data is only being sold (licensed) for selecting and serving advertisements? Have you reviewed the FB Terms of Service? If so, where is the language restricting FB's use of the data. The last time I read the T&C's (about two years ago immediately after which I deleted my account) FB obtained a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, world-wide license to use the data for any use at all. Even though FB frequently changes the Terms of Use, I'd be surprised if the changes operatively limit the ways in which FB can use the data.
Given the license is perpetual (and perhaps even irrevocable as well) FB has all the time in the world to mine the data - and at some point they'll develop a prescriptive model of "personhood". Give them some current data (location, activity, who you're with...) and they'll be able to predict what you'll choose to do next, where you'll go eat....AND they'll have a good idea of the likelihood that they'll be right! This is the kicker, they'll be able to peg a confidence level to the prediction....which provides the means by which they can price the information!
I predict with 73% confidence that while you will publicly acknowledge my point, you will privately reject it jand will have little interest in any further correspondence.
It is a problem because it is a destabilising influence on society. By that, I mean that it makes our society more vulnerable to small changes in our institutions causing large adverse effects (by institutions I mean both organisations like facebook and government, and also practices like holding democratic elections). It does that by putting too much power in the hands of a small number of people and organisations. The presence of this data all in one place is destabilising, hence a problem in itself, because many different small changes could start to cause problems. One relatively significant such change that we can see developing at present (really a broad category of changes) is that governments try -- and seem to succeed to an increasing degree -- to gain relatively unconstrained access to this kind of data. That changes the balance of power between government and the general public, and between government and other democratic institutions, such as the legal system, health care, newspapers and TV, "watchdog" organisations, etc. Democracy is not simply the practice of holding regular elections according to certain standards, it is the collection of institutions that allow our society to remain self-correcting in every aspect of its operation.
As an example, say an extremist government were to gain power in a country where many details of people's lives were kept in large databases that have hitherto been regarded as private, including photos of their friends, and details of bars that they visit. If that government and passed a law, say, that homosexuals should be locked up for life, those people could be selected from a database and stopped at the next CCTV camera (facial recognition), rather than having to be rounded up in a less efficient manner. It isn't necessary to invent near-future distopian fantasies: we should just use our imaginations and remember that gross injustice is still routine in the world (great cultures like the USA and western europe included), and that setbacks, big and small, in the progress of civilisation are guaranteed.
I guess you would say that it doesn't give anybody any power over your life, because you do not publish anything about your life that causes you a problem if it is available to everybody. I would be skeptical about the truth of that statement because it depends on society in general, and government in particular, remaining open and benign in all the ways it is now, without setbacks. Regardless of that, one of the reasons that that lack of setbacks isn't guaranteed is that a large number people *are* giving away information that could be used against them by government and other organisations. That is true even if the people affected in that way are a small fraction of the population (I don't think it is a small fraction). People in Eastern Europe were controlled and oppressed by government on the basis of slimmer files than facebook and google have. Even if you cannot be affected at all in that direct way, the fact that others can is a bad destabilising influence that will affect you if we allow the creation of large databases to continue and develop as it does now.
Of course, some instabilities are good: technological progress is good, for example. But instabilities of the sort that make rational correction of error more difficult are bad. You should read the physicist David Deutsch's book, "The Beginning of Infinity", which contains some fascinating discussion on the subject of correction of mistakes in general, and on the application of that to things like optimism (Deutsch is a technological optimist), democratic choice, and progress in technology, culture and art in particular.