Facebook's Creepy Data-Grabbing Ways Make It The Borg Of The Digital World
The latest Facebook data breach – which exposed personal contact
information Facebook had harvested on six million of its users – is a
reminder that even if you're not handing over all your contact data to
Facebook, Facebook is obtaining and triangulating that data anyway.
And even if you're not on Facebook yourself, your contact data likely
is because the social network is building a shadow profile of you by
data-mining other people.
You might never join Facebook but a zombie you — sewn together from
scattered bits of your personal data — is still sitting there in
sort-of-stasis on its servers. Waiting to be properly animated if you
do sign up for the service. Or waiting to escape through the cracks of
another security flaw in Facebook's systems.
Facebook is a crowd-fuelled data-mining machine that's now so massive
(1.11 billion monthly active users as of March 2013) it doesn't matter
if you haven't ever signed up yourself to sign over your personal
data. It has long since passed the tipping point where it can act as a
distributed data network that knows something about almost everyone.
Or everyone who leaves any kind of digital/cellular trace that can be
fed into its data banks.
Chances are someone you have corresponded with — by email or mobile
phone — has let Facebook's data spiders crawl through their
correspondence, thereby allowing your contact data to be assimilated
entirely without your knowledge or consent. One such example was
flagged to TechCrunch on Saturday when one of the users informed by
Facebook they had been affected by its latest breach found it had
harvested an email address they had never personally handed over.
This behaviour casts Facebook as the Borg of the digital world:
resistance is futile. It also underlines exactly why the NSA wants a
backdoor into this type of digital treasure trove store. If you're
going to outsource low-level surveillance of everyone then Facebook is
one of a handful of tech companies large enough to have files on
almost everyone. So really, forget the futuristic Borg: this ceaseless
data-harvesting brings to mind the dossier-gathering attention to
detail of the Stasi.
Does this matter? That depends on whether you care about privacy —
your own or other people's. Since Facebook is not immune to data leaks
and security imperfections, as the latest bug illustrates (which has
apparently been a puncture-hole in its systems since last year), the
fact that it is harvesting and storing your data means there is an
ongoing risk that data could be exposed to others without your
consent. And that's ignoring the primary lack of consent in Facebook
storing your data without asking you in the first place.
Apparently it's ok for your friends to consent to sharing your data on
your behalf. Better choose your friends carefully then. Except it's
not even just your friends — it's likely anyone you have had cause to
correspond with in any capacity, friendship or otherwise. It seems
unlikely Facebook's algorithms are discerning enough to determine
which contacts are friends, were once friends or have always only ever
been passing/fleeting acquaintances and therefore have zero claim to
be custodians of your personal data. Not that your real friends are
likely aware they are acting as guardians of your data either.
Facebook says it uses the data it mines on you from others to power
its friend recommendation feature. Which means the friend suggestion
thumbnails that periodically crop up to help you build out your
Facebook network, based on people its algorithms think you might know.
This feature is helpful to Facebook, allowing it to encourage rapid
growth of its users' networks — by cutting down on the legwork
required to find friends on the service — and therefore fuel overall
user growth of its service. Sure, it's also handy for individual
Facebook users but is it useful enough to justify holding on to a vast
mountain of personal contact data without consent?
The key issues here — beyond the overarching privacy theme — are
transparency and consent. Facebook is very coy about explaining what
it is doing. Do your friends even know they are consenting to your
contact details being stored in Facebook's cloud when they hook
Facebook up to their contacts' books? It's highly unlikely they're
aware that that is what is happening. All they're likely thinking is:
'this feature will help me find more friends'. Facebook is certainly
not going out of its way to explicitly say how its digital matchmaking
service works.
You could argue that the average user won't care or likely understand
a technical explanation. But that does not excuse Facebook treating
your personal data as the property of another person who may or may
not care where that data ends up. It's your data — and you are the one
affected if it's leaked. But Facebook is sidestepping that reality by
being opaque about its processes and failing to acknowledge there are
wider privacy implications to its data-grabbing ways (Packet Storm
goes into one possible unpleasant scenario of the current Facebook
data-harvesting process here).
In its blog post detailing last week's data breach, Facebook skimmed
over the surface of its processes (see quotation below). It focused,
instead, on explaining why it harvests data, rather than making it
clear it is storing users' friends' phone numbers and email addresses'
to do this. Why avoid spelling that out? Because it inevitably sounds
creepy. Because, well, it inevitably is creepy.
When people upload their contact lists or address books to Facebook,
we try to match that data with the contact information of other people
on Facebook in order to generate friend recommendations. For example,
we don't want to recommend that people invite contacts to join
Facebook if those contacts are already on Facebook; instead, we want
to recommend that they invite those contacts to be their friends on
Facebook.
Because of the bug, some of the information used to make friend
recommendations and reduce the number of invitations we send was
inadvertently stored in association with people's contact information
as part of their account on Facebook. As a result, if a person went to
download an archive of their Facebook account through our Download
Your Information (DYI) tool, they may have been provided with
additional email addresses or telephone numbers for their contacts or
people with whom they have some connection. This contact information
was provided by other people on Facebook and was not necessarily
accurate, but was inadvertently included with the contacts of the
person using the DYI tool.
Note Facebook's phrasing: "This contact information was provided by
other people on Facebook". In other words, 'your personal contact info
was shared with us — but not by you'. That's the root issue here, and
Facebook is cloaking it with anodyne language — and burying it five
paragraphs into the post. Transparent? No, not even close.
Of course Facebook is not the only tech giant intent on amassing data
dossiers on as many Internet users as possible. Google has drawn the
attention of European data protection regulators, for example, after
it consolidated more than 60 individual product privacy policies into
one joined up policy — allowing it to join the dots of usage of its
different products to sketch more detailed profiles of those users.
Mountain View's Google+ social layer is also designed to function as a
data harvester, pushing people to tie their usage of multiple Google
products back to a single public profile. As the Guardian's Charles
Arthur has argued, Google+ is not really a social network at all; it's
more like The Matrix.
But despite Google's consolidated privacy policies drawing the
attention of data protection regulators the company has not (yet)
altered its data-knitting course. It remains to be seen whether the
investigation by six European Union member states will force it to
make changes. The possibility of fines is on the table. But when
you're dealing with a company with such massive resources as Google —
and one which pours so much effort into political lobbying — it likely
requires a commensurately joined up, global approach to have any hope
of changing its behaviour. A handful of EU countries aren't going to
be able to turn this juggernaut around.
There is also the argument that the cat is out of the bag. That these
huge data-mining operations are now so mature, extensive and well used
that any kind of regulatory unpicking is futile. Not least because the
quantity of data being gathered on human behaviour is only going to
grow — likely becoming even more personal and intimate, with wearable
devices enabling the harvesting of physical data-points too. And yet
that actually sounds like a lot more weight for the argument that
these huge data-harvesting operations really need proper scrutiny
stat.
It has to be said that data protection regulators have been extremely
flat-footed in their response to the implications of systematic
consolidation and cross-referencing of personal data. The lack of
transparency about how these algorithms work has certainly helped the
companies that created them to grow their user-data mountains in
carefully crafted shade.
But a little more light is now being directed onto those darkened
places, and onto the control-minded organisations (such as the NSA)
inevitably attracted by the scale of the data-mining operations going
on behind some of the shiniest consumer facades in tech town. So, even
if we as personal Internet-using individuals can't now hope to claim
absolute ownership of all our data online, it's worth asking what
other kind of data-fuelled Frankensteins are lurking in the darkness —
besides Facebook's zombie army of shadow profiles.
For More Info vist Here :
http://techcrunch.com/
