FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies(ftc.gov)
ftc.gov
FTC: Vast Surveillance of Users by Social Media and Video Streaming Companies
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-staff-report-finds-large-social-media-video-streaming-companies-have-engaged-vast-surveillance
331 comments
Behind the ball by 15 years to start taking this seriously and beginning to think about pushing back, but better late than never.
Next please reign in the CRAs.
Next please reign in the CRAs.
Ever stop and think it's funny that Meta, Google, etc. are worth billions because they figured out how to legally fill a database with information about you? In any other time in history some might call it spying, but well they figured out how to do it legally, and it's worth billions. Meanwhile from a technical standpoint, remotely logging your data is a trivial thing, with consent of course. It's like, we made this imaginary wall (law) and spent billions building a road around that wall, and thats equivalent to econmic prosperity. Similar idea with streaming services versus file sharing.
Lina Khan has been on a tear. She actually seems to care about online human rights.
2016 Schneier on Security "Data is a Toxic Asset": https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/03/data_is_a_tox...
This portion is particularly problematic:
> many companies engaged in broad data sharing that raises serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the companies’ data handling controls and oversight.
> many companies engaged in broad data sharing that raises serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the companies’ data handling controls and oversight.
the full report[0] is a good read don't just read the summary..
>>> But these findings should not be viewed in isolation. They stem from a business model that varies little across these nine firms – harvesting data for targeted advertising, algorithm design, and sales to third parties. With few meaningful guardrails, companies are incentivized to develop ever-more invasive methods of collection. >>>
[0]: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Social-Media-6b...
>>> But these findings should not be viewed in isolation. They stem from a business model that varies little across these nine firms – harvesting data for targeted advertising, algorithm design, and sales to third parties. With few meaningful guardrails, companies are incentivized to develop ever-more invasive methods of collection. >>>
[0]: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Social-Media-6b...
Surveillance is cancerous. It keeps on growing, feeding on justification for every data point "just because", and then eventually it kills you.
Let’s add automaker to the list as well with all the cameras and microphones spying in auto cabins.
Related earlier this week:
Instagram Teen Accounts
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41572041
Instagram Teen Accounts
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41572041
> The report found that the companies collected and could indefinitely retain troves of data, including information from data brokers, and about both users and non-users of their platforms.
As a non-user of many social media platforms, is there anything I can do to prevent companies from collecting data about me? It feels wrong that companies you do not sign up for are still finding and processing data about you.
As a non-user of many social media platforms, is there anything I can do to prevent companies from collecting data about me? It feels wrong that companies you do not sign up for are still finding and processing data about you.
This is truly interesting from a dialectical perspective. The current narrative is that data is simultaneously infinitely valuable and presents zero liability. This contradiction can't hold forever (though it can hold longer than any of us are alive, of course)
I suspect it will break in the direction of the narrative that "data wasn't that valuable anyway", regardless of how disingenuous this sentiment is. Nothing else preserves the economic machine while simultaneously dismissing the concerns of consumers. Perhaps we'll get special protection for stuff like SSNs to make it seem like politicians are acting on the behalf of their constituents (even though a competent manager of a rational society would simply ban use of ssn as a form of identification as this is basically public information.
I suspect it will break in the direction of the narrative that "data wasn't that valuable anyway", regardless of how disingenuous this sentiment is. Nothing else preserves the economic machine while simultaneously dismissing the concerns of consumers. Perhaps we'll get special protection for stuff like SSNs to make it seem like politicians are acting on the behalf of their constituents (even though a competent manager of a rational society would simply ban use of ssn as a form of identification as this is basically public information.
Far from me to try to defend platforms, but I am still wondering (for years now) :
How are data deletion requests supposed to be handled in practice, when the only way to be sure is to physically destroy the hardware that data was stored on ? (Especially the case for transistor-based storage, and even more so when wear leveling is being used.)
Or is this is actually a "pinky promise" by the company to not restore the data (or else they will have to face legal consequences) ?
How are data deletion requests supposed to be handled in practice, when the only way to be sure is to physically destroy the hardware that data was stored on ? (Especially the case for transistor-based storage, and even more so when wear leveling is being used.)
Or is this is actually a "pinky promise" by the company to not restore the data (or else they will have to face legal consequences) ?
I honestly think that if half of the FTC's lawsuits under Lina Khan succeed, she'll have more meaningful positive change in the life of the average American to point to than the last six or so presidents
[deleted]
A little hypocritical when it comes from various government organizations all over the western world. Surveillance companies are essential for police to be able to easily gather data when needed fast. It is a happy accident that surveillance is so lucrative for advertising and also so effective for policing.
See also: "How advertisers became NSA's best friend"[1].
[1]https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/12/5204196/how-advertisers-...
[1]https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/12/5204196/how-advertisers-...
[deleted]
Please make it so my kids can watch a YouTube video required by school without watching 20 YouTube shorts after. That's all I want.
from the report: "While the Order did not explicitly request that the Companies report all the types of Personal Information collected.."
Why wouldn't they ask for all the personal information that they collect? Can anyone explain this?
Yes thank you for listening BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that surveillance is going on in here!
Shocked, gambling, establishment, etc.
We really need e2ee social media that's designed to protect, not addict people.
There are pretending to take this topic seriously because there is an election coming up. Your government is in bed with big tech, no one is coming to save you, everyone is on their own, expect no quarter.
Lina Kahn has been the best part of the Biden administration, by far. I wish she'd run for president.
Wait till the FTC discovers Full Story
instead of stupid recommendations, which are laughable, the government should actually enforce them.
Facebook Employees Explain Struggling To Care About Company's Unethical Practices When Gig So Cushy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DiBc1vkTig
It is insane to me that I can be notified via physical mail of months old data breaches, some of which contained my Social Security number, and that my only recourse is to set credit freezes from multiple credit bureaus.