
It's not just Facebook. Thousands of companies are spying on you - mlb_hn
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/opinions/data-company-spying-opinion-schneier/index.html
======
pi-squared
This is a standard media trick (and also common people's rationalization) -
oh, it's not just X that's bad for you, see everything else - it's also bad
for you too. You might as well stick with what you know. Suddenly, people feel
they have no choice and the story is over in a day or two, everything's back
to normal.

The difference is these few days blew off the periphery of uncertain users. It
won't hurt them now, but in the long run - it may be like tobacco. Annectodal
example from here on.

I've tried many times to quit Facebook, these latest ones threw me off board
for good. I tried to do it smartly by contacting people I know and want to
keep in touch with and then posted on my wall and my profile pic that I am
going out of fb for good. I gave (I think reasonable) 72 hours and some people
did reach out and most congratulated me. Which means a lot of people want it,
they get its bad for them but "everybody is there" is the main argument. I
don't try to convince them, I just tell them where they can find me. Tonight I
am out for good.

~~~
ikurei
> [...] some people did reach out and most congratulated me. Which means a lot
> of people want it, they get its bad for them but "everybody is there" is the
> main argument.

I wouldn't give much weight to those congratulations. When I went vegetarian a
lot of people did the same. Most new acquaintances that discover my
vegetarianism respond very positively, specially left-leaning people. Although
I try not to preach, I'm too often the only one that orders a salad. But they
always follow it with "I see that it's wrong, but I could never stop eating
burgers/cheese/jamón". I'm not even sure they truly think it's wrong, but feel
a need to say it.

It's one of those things that many people associate with positive traits or
stories. We've all seen the inspiring posts or youtube videos of the people
who refuse to use a car because of pollution, or stop eating meat because of
animal suffering, or will never use a device that runs proprietary software...

We seem to like these stories, and sometimes even admire the commitment, while
having no intention of doing anything like. We feel good for congratulating
them of tweeting our support.

(For example, many here admire Richard Stallman's commitment and honesty, and
agree with a lot of what he says, but read him froma Mac. We are never going
to switch to an old libreboot-able PC with gNewSense, but we sympathize with
his cause.)

Many people love Facebook, and many others hate it but can't be weaned off it.
We won't get very far by abandoning Facebook and prompting others to do the
same. We'll a alternative, and/or very strong positive and negative
reinforcement to do so.

> The difference is these few days blew off the periphery of uncertain users.
> It won't hurt them now, but in the long run - it may be like tobacco.

Your comparison with tobacco is very apt. People stopped smoking when a)
leaving it was applauded, and b) people still smoking were starting to be seen
with some contempt. It took a long time to build those up though. We are very
far away from that with Facebook, and even if us leaving is the beginning, I
don't think we want to wait 10 or 15 years. Tobacco damaged lungs, Facebook
damage could be much more insidious.

~~~
Vinnl
> When I went vegetarian a lot of people did the same. Most new acquaintances
> that discover my vegetarianism respond very positively, specially left-
> leaning people. Although I try not to preach, I'm too often the only one
> that orders a salad. But they always follow it with "I see that it's wrong,
> but I could never stop eating burgers/cheese/jamón". I'm not even sure they
> truly think it's wrong, but feel a need to say it.

That's how it starts, but I've noticed that over time, more and more people
have learned more about why one would be a vegetarian (among others because
they ask as part of small talk, and I quickly mention a few non-obvious points
before moving on), and have experimented with eating vegetarian for a month.
And the important part is: when they're around other vegetarians they know,
they're proud of giving it a try, which is extra motivation for them to keep
it up.

After having formed a habit, many of them keep it up for at least most of the
time. And then, of course, they will go on to have the same effect on other
people. That's how cultural change happens.

Of course, the problem with Facebook is that the primary method of showing off
that you're quitting Facebook would be Facebook itself. I guess the 72h grace
period is a good way to deal with that to some extent.

------
comportboy
Google can ID your web browser uniquely. If you've ever logged in to Google
just once in your lifetime, they know it's you forever.

They cross it with your location, your movements, your emails, expenses,
everything.

There is no single more spooky company than Google.

~~~
code_duck
As demoed on EFF’s Panopticlick site, anyone can. My browser tests as unique
and it’s stock Safari on an iPhone.

~~~
singularity2001
while theoretically possible there are enough people monitoring Google's
JavaScript to make sure that they will never use fingerprinting on you. Or do
they?

~~~
singularity2001
Can someone please revive Random Agent Spoofer?

~~~
chopin
It's better to switch off JavaScript. Try panopticlick with and without it.

~~~
mercora
i just tried but sadly it did not finish without allowing js on their site and
for both of the thirdparty tests. It might would have finished if i would not
have enabled this test though.

However, even if it would show better results then my user agent and accept
header is apprently pretty unique anyhow. But why bother.. My ip addresses do
not change that often.

------
praet
Isn't this already known for years? I might be wrong but feel like the whole
thing with Cambridge Analytica was more about accurately influencing public
opinion than it was about data being leaked.

This is kind of dumbing down the issue, but: anyone not well-versed in
implications of privacy violations would feel way stronger when claiming "Mark
Zuckerburg is partly responsible for Donald Trump becaming president" versus
"Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft have data which will make you
more susceptible to spending slightly more money [...on something you don't
actually need]"

~~~
blat001
100% agree, Im a little surprised how shocked everyone is in this "exposure"
as if you look at any AdTech they talk about this as a standard feature
(audience matching etc...)

~~~
jackvalentine
> 100% agree, Im a little surprised how shocked everyone is in this "exposure"

I'd recommend you try and spend more time with 'regular' people rather than
tech bubble then. What you're seeing here is this knowledge breaking further
in to the mainstream.

~~~
stareatgoats
I disagree. What we're seeing here IMO is targeted influencing in it's own
right. "Regular people" are way too susceptible to influence - period. In this
case it is the joint forces of old media (who are vying to keep their obsolete
business idea of peddling influence using paid ads), and governments who are
seeing their tax-base dwindle when global tech companies move to tax havens,
and certain tech competitors pointing fingers away from themselves: all whom
are targeting Facebook to set an example.

Add a sprinkle of righteous outrage at the unethical tactics of Cambridge
Analytica and how the Trump Campaign was able to use data that the DNC would
rather have exclusive access to.

"Regular people" don't care that their data is hoarded, they only start caring
when it is framed nefariously (and disingenuously) by interests like the
above.

~~~
jackvalentine
> "Regular people" don't care that their data is hoarded, they only start
> caring when it is framed nefariously (and disingenuously) by interests like
> the above.

If the framing is a good or bad thing is just a matter of opinion. A 'good'
way of flipping what you've written is 'we've finally found a way to break
through to regular people about these issues on a level they understand and
resonate with'.

To call general articles on websites like cnn.com "targetted influencing " is
a bit of a stretch.

~~~
stareatgoats
I think it's the other way round. We are not "breaking through to regular
people", the current campaign against Facebook is rather exploiting peoples
superficial knowledge and unfounded fears to build a disingenuous case.

Facebook has been too slack, and the good part about this whole thing is that
they may finally might get their sh*t together. At least they have the power
to bring this under control, as the various decentralized alternatives being
touted here on HN won't have.

> To call general articles on websites like cnn.com "targetted influencing "
> is a bit of a stretch.

Yeah, well. Depends on your definition of targeting, but influencing it is.
And as usual, how good or bad you think that influencing might be depends on
if you like what you are being led to believe or not.

~~~
jackvalentine
You've said disingenuous a lot, what exactly is disingenuous about the current
reporting?

~~~
jochung
I'm not OP, but... The fact that it is not consistently connected to other
instances of political campaigns previously is a big one. The narrative is
that the West is radicalizing to the right because of the evil propaganda,
unlike the pure and virtuous honest reporting that brought us "change we can
believe in" or "Clinton is 95% sure to win" and so on.

When the good tribe does it, it's "remarkable insight into the political base
and clever use of modern technology", when the bad tribe does it, it's
"disturbingly sophisticated targeting and an automated violation of consent".
Really, go read the write ups about previous democrat campaigns, the narrative
was of tech savvy modern progressives leaving the conservative old timers in
the dust.

Russel conjugation is the favorite trick or the press today as they hawk their
narratives:

"I am trying to get an important message out. You are running a political
campaign. They are spreading harmful propaganda."

But 99% of harvested data is gathered with only proxy consent of 1% of the
users, and most of either group is unaware of what's happening. Ignoring this
ratio in order to haggle about exactly how the 1% was or wasn't tricked is
entirely beside the point.

The bigger problem with this whole affair is that people correctly diagnose a
breakdown in the mechanisms for forming consensus reality, which makes a lot
of information suspect. This should make you question your in-groups' world
view as much as the out-group. But instead of going back to primary sources
and reevaluating what they know, people only double down on it more, and use
it to justify why the out group is even more clueless/insidious than before.
But one of the biggest hallmarks of propaganda is that the enemy is both
horribly inept and terrifyingly powerful at the same time, swapping between
the two seamlessly to serve the current narrative.

~~~
jackvalentine
This is a very US-Centric view. I suppose that's the root of the disagreement
here - a misunderstanding of each other's starting points.

The coverage in my country has been more about castigating Facebook et al and
both major parties have copped flack for their voter-intelligence operations.

------
ttflee
In a privacy-less future, one has to learn how to achieve goals without
revealing intentions by hiding them in randomized behaviors and words. One has
to practice double-think, triple-think or even recursive-onion-think.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Your comment was all fine up until the very last word, citizen. You used the
name of a particular vegetable that's also a name of a particular subversive
technology. You're now on a list.

~~~
mar77i
Subversive technology? I 'ardly know 'er!

------
headsoup
Of course they are, and up till now they didn't even need to be shy about it.
Let's hope things change this time

Start here:

[http://www.internetremoval.com/directory/](http://www.internetremoval.com/directory/)

------
amanzi
This is the tradeoff for getting free stuff on the internet. But surely there
has to be a balance between watching adverts to pay for free services, and
handing over all privacy in return.

~~~
toomanybeersies
The bigger irk for me is when you pay a company for a product, and then they
still sell your data anyway.

~~~
ShorsHammer
Exactly, the "you paid nothing so you're the product" trope is patently false.

Spend $1000's a year on sites that are still highly invasive. Using blockers
and disabling js often breaks them. Does this business really need to send my
data off to a dozen 3rd parties to upsell me on a drillbit set?

~~~
beagle3
It’s not false.

If you didn’t pay, you are the product.

If you did pay, you may or may not be the product. But that’s not covered by
the trope.

------
nkkollaw
I opened the article.

My ad blocker blocked 20 scripts, the page somehow managed to still load
something from facebook.com--which was the last script to load and froze the
page, and then a video started playing automatically.

Doesn't look like CNN can preach anything.

------
mlb_hn
It's continuing to like the most recent Facebook exposure is going to get a
lot more public interest than Equifax or other previous exposures over the
last decade.

The author suggests that the key difference now is GDPR compliance will
ultimately force the public to routinely pay attention to the personal data
industry.

------
jonbarker
The only thing keeping all most people's app download history from getting
leaked is fb's (and others') threat of kicking the app download ad partners
off their platform. They usually don't do that, and it's always reactive,
meaning the damage is already done.

------
throw2016
This site itself is full of people who see nothing wrong in the invasive
stalking of users by facebook or google inspite of knowing about their
practices well before the public. If there was any serious concern you won't
need a whistleblower.

While facebook is bad, Google and Android is far worse. Singling out facebook
without comment on the unrestrained greed and ethical vacuum in the
engineering community that makes this possible seems not only insincere but
also feels like a hatchet job by vested interests, happy to replace facebook
with their version of the 'users are dumb' and laugh their way to the bank.

The community here is deeply intertwined with invasive practices and
implementing and defending them for years now and cannot simply wash their
hands away.

------
mar77i
From a while ago, this famous onion piece...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juQcZO_WnsI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juQcZO_WnsI)

------
rosege
This reminded me of Scott McNealy from 1999 saying you have no privacy get
over it! [https://www.wired.com/1999/01/sun-on-privacy-get-over-
it/](https://www.wired.com/1999/01/sun-on-privacy-get-over-it/)

------
swang720
There's an old adage that I go by–if you're not paying for a product, you are
the product.

~~~
wruza
Likely, but the inverse may be not true.

~~~
taneq
I find it so frustrating when people trot out the "if you're no the customer,
you're the product" about Android and then claim that it's impossible for
Apple to monetize your data just because you also paid through the nose for
that shiny iPhone.

~~~
beagle3
I have never seen anyone claim that Apple cannot monetize your data; only
that, at present, they do not.

------
kingname
Especially in China, almost all the android apps will steal your personal
info, such as all your contracts, all your sms, all your photos, all other
apps and etc.

------
mobilemidget
And not only companies, probably your government too

------
johnnyOnTheSpot
s/spying on/recouping their investment in/

------
avoidit
To everyone who is saying "What's the big deal? Wasn't all of this obvious and
well known?" \- ask 10 people you know who the parent company of WhatsApp and
Instagram is (and throw in an irrelevant app in there just to make it less
predictable). If your friends list is across a reasonable cross spectrum of
age and job titles, I am guessing not more than 2 of them would know the
answer. Or, if you want to make it a little more humorous, ask "So what do you
think of the recent Facebook scandal?". At least a few of them would say "Oh!
I don't use Facebook anymore! I only use WhatsApp"

~~~
mar77i
Tech-savvy person here, "big deal" isn't what I'm wondering.

How on earth, though, is this "big news"?

~~~
soziawa
Because it started with Trump and Trump makes people click on headlines. They
have now realised that Facbeook is bad also makes people click on headlines.
That's all.

In any half serious newspaper this isn't big news but more of a reminder of a
story they ran when Facebook launched this shit.

------
zombieprocesses
Almost every company is spying on you online. Including CNN and hacker news.

The question is why is everyone picking on FB? In china or russia, Xi or Putin
orders the institutions to attack so and so and the media/government hounds an
entity.

What happened with FB? Was it just an magical organic process where the media,
government, etc all decided to attack FB all at once? That's quite a
coincidence. What's even more interesting is how britain, canada and western
europe also joined in as well.

I'm not a fan of FB. I've never had a FB account and never will. But what has
happened in the past year vis a vis FB is quite astounding.

I don't think there has been a day on HN the past year where we didn't have a
hit piece on FB.

~~~
hlecuanda
Facebook never gave me anything of value in exchange for constantly monitoring
and profilingmy behavior online. in fact, as it became ubiquitous,it added a
new chore for me: maintaining ever changing privacy options on a defensive
profile on their network.

So it takes peoples time, attention, and details on top of behavioral
monitoring.

In contrast, Google provides me with a very competent productivity suite, a
superb photo-managing software navigation, maps, aggregate traffic data,and a
host of tools to actually build a business and educate myself and others.

Plus i get enterprise class security for my account and -arguably- the best
web email service.

The day theres a data breach or in this case a breach of trust, im more likely
to view google in a better light and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Facebook gets my contempt and scorn.

~~~
zombieprocesses
> Facebook never gave me anything of value in exchange for constantly
> monitoring and profilingmy behavior online.

Then don't use it. I don't use it. It's not that difficult.

> In contrast, Google provides me with a very competent productivity suite, a
> superb photo-managing software navigation, maps, aggregate traffic data,and
> a host of tools to actually build a business and educate myself and others.

This reads like cringe material from google's social media team.

> Facebook gets my contempt and scorn.

Well both google and facebook get contempt and scorn from me. But then again I
don't work for google or facebook so I can be somewhat objective.

