The Facebook Kerfuffle, A Huge "Nothing Burger"

Recently the eyes of the world fell like an exploding nova on Facebook concerning its privacy policies and the release of private information. This has led to a wave of hysteria concerning how private companies acquire and use information that is ostensibility private. What is surprising is that the collection and selling of private information has been going on for years, and until now has been virtually ignored. Over the years I have posted my concerns. I have several pre-Facebook kerfuffle posts concerning how companies abuse privacy and sell your personal data. So why has this seemingly neglected issue of privacy all of a sudden exploded into a hysterical cause célèbre?

When a relatively unknown issue explodes into the public consciousness with extreme outrage and vehemence, there is usually a trigger. A black swan event occurred arising out of the use of Facebook's data by Cambridge Analytica by  the Trump campaign.

Time for the tinfoil hat. A large percentage of the media and Democrats are vehemently, to the point of irrationality, anti-Trump and suffer from TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome).  The media and the Democrats upon hearing of the apparent data abuse by Cambridge Analytica began salivating at how this disclosure could be used to bring an end to the Trump administration. So the media and Democratic war drums began to beat ever more loudly and intensely.

As an ironic aside and as an example of duplicity. When the Obama campaign used social media to enhance its campaign, this was considered "innovative", "brilliant", etc. The Trump campaign, seeing the success of the Obama campaign, copied the use of social media. Now the use of social media information is considered "criminal", "a violation of privacy", etc.

The Facebook kerfuffle finally highlights the abuse of personal information by private companies into the public's consciousness. But that is not is not the real reason for why this issue is being discussed. It is an incidental tool being used by some to manipulate the mob (public) and to bring down the Trump administration. As such this kerfuffle is a "nothing burger".  Nevertheless, for now the issue is similar to exploding nova were the incidental public outrage could result in private companies implementing better privacy policies.

Perhaps too soon to tell. A lot will depend on whether a new cause célèbre will soon be hatched to replace the transient Facebook kerfuffle. In any event, private companies will hopefully view this "nova" as a wake-up call and revise their privacy policies to be more cognizant of their customers rights.

OnStar and the Outer Limits

Every once in a while you run across a story that stimulates a reaction. In this case it was recently reported that OnStar would be selling customer data, nothing unusual about that. What became apparent as I read on here and here was that this data collection would be occurring even if you were not subscribing to the service. In other words, the OnStar unit is always on and always in contact with home.

Again data collection today is pretty much endemic. Everything you do is recorded.  Every time you use your credit you are disclosing where you are and at what time you made the transaction.  But the issue that I intend to review has nothing to do with tracking or privacy but the potential that the companies that you bought the product from can continue to CONTROL that product.

We have already witnessed some occurrence of post-sale control. Witness the Amazon Kindle boondoggle where Amazon, post-sale, ironically removed some Orwell books. Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle.  Then there is the Sony PlayStation, where Sony, post-sale, removed some features. Sony Sued Again For Removing PS3 Linux Feature. Whether these instances are isolated or an indicator of a coming future tidal way of similar actions is currently un-discernible.  But what is clear is that the potential is there.

Headlines from Utopia noted that the US is moving towards "Get ready for pay-as-you-go driving." Where GPS devices and associated black boxes will record your driving. While the article raises the typical privacy concerns, the real concern from the article is that “The device the government wants to install on vehicles does more than record miles,” said Cliff Young of the Privacy Awareness Institute.  “It can also override on-board GPS systems, block cell phone signals, and tap into national databases containing information on individual drivers.  It’s an electronic Trojan horse.” Feds to require black box event recorders in all new cars.

As a quick wrap, the TV Show "Outer Limits" had this tag line: "There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We can reduce the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Outer Limits." Quote from IMDB

Welcome to Orwell's "1984" where Big Brother will be able to control your electronic devices without your knowledge and/or consent even to the point of "bricking" it. So if your OnStar equipped vehicle comes to a slow stop in the desert at the dead of night you might want to reflect on why.  Be nice Big Brother is listening.

Social Media is Your Friend

As a child of the internet guinea-pig generation, I have a moderate data trail that --although not particularly embarrassing-- I wish I had some way to erase. These days I know a little bit better, and have a supply of pseudonyms in use. The knowledge that once my data is out there is a constant reminder that, no matter what the fine print that no one reads next to the "I Accept" button might say, nothing belongs to me once it is posted on the internet. Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and so forth) has created a space where far too many people let their guard down. By "Friending" or "Grouping" or "Following" other users, it creates a sense of privacy and control over your internet self that is misleading at best.
In reality it is a system in which you use what amounts to an interactive email platform to talk to people you already talk to in Real Life and people you met briefly at a party but weren't interested in enough to get a phone number. In exchange the platform overlords use what they know about you (because you have succumbed to the very human narcissism that is creating a profile) and your friends and your location and your registered Likes in order to decide which ads to put on your screen. Then, when the third parties got involved and started making games and trivia and secret questions your friends can answer about you? Suddenly there are gift cards on sale at VoldeMart for online games in which you pay real money for virtual objects that can be endlessly replicated.
I still post pictures on media sites. I blog inconsistently, and I micro-blog, and I post updates and one-liners to a collection of friends and acquaintances and lesser-known randoms and people from work who are only there out of a sense of obligation. There are upsides, such as the old teachers and childhood friends I wouldn't otherwise have any contact with. But why do I need it? I don't fit in their lives anymore and reading about theirs is interesting but irrelevant. It's like following a reality star, albeit one I once knew in real life and who is unlikely to crash a premiere. Every once in awhile I realize that even with my lame attempts at internet self-preservation in place, I am only digging myself deeper into the hole of lost data.
I had friends who weren't on any media. They had email, maybe one fake profile on the internet they never used. I was jealous of their anonymity. Who has that kind of restraint? One by one they fell prey. I can find them all online now.
My point? I'm not sure. I'm as guilty as everyone else. Maybe my point is to talk to your kids, early and often, now that we know the dangers of the internet. Not just about the perverts and the RIAA, but also that every piece of themselves that they place online is a piece they will never get back. Remember that there are endless ways to mine data now and they are only the beginning of an entire generation trained to operate with one foot in the internet at all times. Check your social media privacy settings as often as you can, and if you want to be the first to play with a promising new site, don't let them know who you really are. Does this sound like a cut & paste chain letter you would expect to find on some obscure friend's status message? Maybe. It's late and I'm probably being verbose with my conspiracies. Unfortunately it's true. Don't be scared to use the internet for your own advantage, just be premeditated and know that the internet is using you right back. In the future, the only thing you can own is what you don't put on the internet.

http://icanstalku.com

Speaking of the Consumer

The Technology Liberation Front posted an article: "heading to FTC’s next “Exploring Privacy” workshop at Berkeley Law School". According the the FTC, "The Federal Trade Commission will host a series of day-long public roundtable discussions to explore the privacy challenges posed by the vast array of 21st century technology and business practices that collect and use consumer data." What is interesting are the background posts of Berin Szoka and Adam Thierer. Both profess that: "consumers are empowered with real privacy controls so they can make the privacy choices that are right for them, rather than a one-size-fits-all choice imposed by someone else." Therefore, regulation is unnecessary.

What's wrong with this? Despite the boisterous public claim that the consumer is somehow "empowered" there is virtually no mention of the consumer as having any rights whatsoever. Essentially, their thesis boils down to companies have a right to violate your privacy anyway manner that they wish. If you have an issue with that it is your responsibility to protect yourself. I would hardly call that empowerment.

I previously discussed this issue in Misplaced Regulatory Blame II. In that post, I wrote: "Similar to Mr. Gomes article both these articles fail to acknowledge that the right of privacy belongs to the "recipient" not the instigator. Since the free-market (especially Forbes) promotes the concept of self-responsibility; these articles - instead of lambasting regulation - should have demanded that companies act responsibility to protect privacy. ... What is ludicrous is that instead of demanding responsible corporate behavior, Mr. Baldwin advocates that people buy products to defend their privacy!!!! The obvious between the lines interpretation is that corporations have an unrighteous entitlement to invade your privacy. If you want to protect it, you need to pay-up or suffer the consequences. Sounds a bit like extortion."

It's unfortunate that both Berin and Adam, despite their rose colored assertions that the consumer is living in a technological utopia of unlimited choice and empowerment, seem to imply (through their silence) that the consumer has no rights. The consumer has rights, David Boaz on Libertarian concepts wrote "Individual Rights. Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by government or by society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights; the burden of explanation should lie with those who would take rights away."

The obvious fact that this issue is surfacing as a regulatory concern with the FTC is anecdotal proof that the consumer feels that they are being unreasonably abused and are now pleading for regulatory intervention. Instead of protesting possible regulatory intervention, Berin and Adam, assuming that they actually believe in consumer rights, should be calling for the private sector to clean-up their act. After all, if you don't want regulation, a bit of self-control and responsible action helps.

Misplaced Regulatory Blame II

Back in May I wrote about misplaced regulatory blame. One aspect of this issue (by those opposing regulation) was that privacy regulation was ineffective and expensive as discussed by Lee Gomes in his Forbes article: "The Hidden Cost of Privacy". The reality it that the regulations Mr. Gomes was railing against weren't real regulations. The regulations simply require the disclosure of privacy practices and did not constrain how a company actually broadcasts private data to the world-at-large. But wait, like an infomercial, there is more!

Forbes, in that very same issue, also had an opinion piece by William Baldwin: "Privacy for Sale". Mr. Baldwin writes:

"Junk phone calls, sites that snoop on your Web surfing, medical Peeping Toms--your privacy is under constant attack. There ought to be a law!
No, on second thought, there ought to be a product. When commerce and legislation compete to solve a problem, commerce usually does a better job."

Similar to Mr. Gomes article both these articles fail to acknowledge that the right of privacy belongs to the "recipient" not the instigator. Since the free-market (especially Forbes) promotes the concept of self-responsibility; these articles - instead of lambasting regulation - should have demanded that companies act responsibility to protect privacy.

What is ludicrous is that instead of demanding responsible corporate behavior, Mr. Baldwin advocates that people buy products to defend their privacy!!!! The obvious between the lines interpretation is that corporations have an unrighteous entitlement to invade your privacy. If you want to protect it, you need to pay-up or suffer the consequences. Sounds a bit like extortion.

So why should I have to pay a private company to protect my privacy? From my point of view, if companies are not willing to act ethically and truly respect the privacy of the public, regulate them.

Misplaced Regulatory Blame

The government makes a good target for the blame game. Recently a flurry articles were published "documenting" onerous government regulation. Over at the Technology Liberation Front (TLF) we have: "Privacy Regulation: Expensive and Ineffective", "Golden Age for Antitrust?", and "What the EU Doesn’t Get: Harming Competitors is Called Competition (and shouldn’t be illegal)" . Over at TechDirt we have: "More Privacy Laws Don't Mean More Privacy". My issue with these articles is that they simplistically regurgitate the mantra that government regulation is bad without even bothering to investigate if the government regulation was actually bad.

Two of the TLF articles dealt with a fine that the EU placed on Intel for alleged deceptive business practices. Braden Cox wrote that: "The European Commission is a loose cannon when it comes to antitrust and competition law." Unquestioned in the TLF articles is the issue of whether Intel did or did not pursue deceptive business practices. Even Ed Felten picked up on the concept that Intel may not be all that innocent: "European Antitrust Fines Against Intel: Possibly Justified".

Two articles dealt with the issue of "privacy". These posts were triggered by Lee Gomes writing in Forbes: "The Hidden Cost of Privacy". The concern with these posts is that the reader is lead to believe that companies are being unduly burdened with privacy regulations. The actual topic is NOT privacy regulation but the disclosure of a companies privacy policies. The companies are not being forced (against their will) to protect your privacy, they are simply being required to disclose their privacy practices. A big difference.

The vexing implications of these "blame government regulation" posts is the persistent refusal to acknowledge that companies should be held accountable for their willful actions. If Intel pursued deceptive business practices, they should be held accountable, but that question was not asked. If companies violate privacy laws, they should be identified and exposed, but that question was not asked. Before, blindly blaming government regulation for all our various ills, we need to question and examine what the responsible companies were doing.