
Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate - seapunk
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/privacy-and-data-security/facebook-google-donate-heavily-to-privacy-advocacy-groups
======
cj
This quote from the article highlights the problem at hand:

> Organizations like the Center for Democracy and Technology, which received
> at least $960,000 from [Google and Facebook] in 2018, are often quoted in
> the media as unbiased third parties and influence how policy is developed in
> Washington as such, despite receiving the tech company funding.

> The group supports allowing tech giants to sell user data to third parties
> with limited restrictions, a position that is in line with technology
> companies that profit handsomely from such sales, but not so popular with
> consumers.

I guess "Privacy Advocacy Groups" does not equal "Pro-Privacy Advocacy
Groups".

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The problem with this theory is that it doesn't align with facts.

Google and most of the other major tech companies don't actually sell user
data. They collect it to use internally. The biggest companies who actually do
that are the ISPs, but that doesn't really fit the same narrative, and I doubt
they donate a lot to privacy groups.

The reason a lot of privacy groups don't try to restrict selling user data is
a combination of a potentially legitimate first amendment problem with
restricting it and a finite amount of political capital. Sometimes political
capital has to be spent making sure that e.g. the FBI director doesn't push
through a law against strong encryption. Sometimes it's better to have a bill
that improves privacy a little and actually passes than a bill that improves
privacy a lot but never makes it into law, or start with one that isn't as
easy for Comcast to have struck down by the courts and in so doing create a
problematic legal precedent.

Meanwhile you ask why Google and Facebook donate to privacy groups, but their
goals are actually aligned on a lot of things, like promoting the use of HTTPS
over HTTP and opposition to draconian copyright laws.

This is gotcha journalism, and it's problematic because what are you proposing
as a solution? That privacy groups stop accepting money from tech companies?
What that would do is cause them to have less money for privacy advocacy. Ask
yourself who benefits from that.

~~~
2OEH8eoCRo0
>Google and most of the other major tech companies don't actually sell user
data. They collect it to use internally.

Why do so many people think that these companies sell your data?

~~~
shadowgovt
Because people are profoundly bad at understanding how modern online
advertising works and the companies profiting from it have done a notably bad
job of consumer education.

The most common behavior people observe that makes them think companies are
selling their data is when they visit some site P that sells widget p and then
on completely unrelated site Q they start seeing ads for p. The obvious
conclusion to draw is that Q now knows they visited P. In reality, ad broker X
knows the user visited P, and is satisfying queries from Q (really, from the
user agent visiting Q) by vending ads for p to the user agent that is
displaying site Q's content alongside that ad. But the ad and Q's content are
generally sandboxed from each other the same way that your bank account login
state is sandboxed from Q also (1). In reality, Q has no idea the user has
visited P, but the content on the page strongly suggests that Q does.

(1) note: It is possible there are holes in the security model that an
unscrupulous Q could use to gather information on a user about their history
on P; that's generally considered a violation of the ad vendor's policy and
will get Q kicked off the ad network.

~~~
brtt
Just bc data doesn't leave the platform doesn't mean they are not selling
products with it baked in. Maybe it's semantics, but if you buy an audience to
target based on data that FB is capturing, you are buying user data.

~~~
edmundsauto
It's more than a semantic difference. Buying user data means you are
purchasing data. That is not what is happening here.

When you purchase data, it can be remixed and resold, can be used outside the
original terms of service agreed to between FB/Google and their users. This is
difficult to enforce agreed upon protections, and is a troubling issue (e.g.
Cambridge Analytica had user data they used in a "clearly wrong" manner -- a
problem that AFAIK was from 3 years ago and has since been shut down).

Buying access to the users means an advertiser is purchasing the ability to
put a message in front of the user. This data is covered by user agreements,
and is much harder for third parties to use in a "clearly wrong" manner. This
data must be deleted at the request of the user, and can be (relatively)
easily deleted by going to the original source (a key distinction -- it's very
hard to delete data that has been sold and resold).

It is important to use the correct description of what is happening. On FB,
you're not "buying an audience" so much as "defining an audience to reach".
You don't get to hold the user data in a csv; you get to put messages in front
of groups of people. You don't possess the data -- you have access to use it
through a user interface provided by FB/Google.

I respect that you may feel FB/Google holding these user data is unethical.
Other people feel the exchange is perfectly fine. Regardless, using precise
language is important to not muddy the waters, especially in such a
tendentious debate.

~~~
brtt
Who is the hypothetical you in the second to last paragraph? You are assuming
one scenario, that of a brand or agency planner, who is creating a media plan
with audience builder or w/e the name is these days.

Saying or assuming that no tech companies sell user data is disingenuous. Case
in point, doesn't Edmunds have an exclusive data contract to share data with
Oracle Data Cloud?

~~~
edmundsauto
An advertiser, in the 2nd to last paragraph. I'm only assuming the facts in
evidence -- that FB and Google aren't selling user data. They sell
advertisements, which use user data for targeting via generally broad
mechanisms or 1st party data.

Re-reading my comment, I don't think I said anything about companies in
general.

------
FillardMillmore
This article accentuates the need to always look for the source of the funding
when it comes to non-profits, think tanks, and "public interest" groups.
Unfortunately, the goals of these groups are not always as transparent as
their names would have you believe.

~~~
programmertote
The same goes for all UNGOs and NGOs that operate around the world for various
humanitarian causes. I have interned at places like World Vision, World
Concern, and Save the Children; my sister has worked for almost three years at
a well-known French NGO that operates in my home country (in SE Asia). A few
other people I know work for various non-profit orgs like UNICEF and UNOCHA
etc.

We notice one consistent thing: these purpose of organizations/institutions
isn't as simple as "serve the best for the native population that they are
supposed to save from natural/economic/humanitarian disaster". The need (say,
for regional/program directors) to find the next funding to keep the project
going trumps EVERY OTHER altruistic purpose. Also, these program directors
don't stay for longer than 2-3 years (let alone getting to know the native
population they are trying to help) and most of them are always trying to get
in on the next action/conflict in another country, and/or to simply move to a
better pasture (a more developed country). The management in these non-profit
orgs--such as save the children, world vision, UNICEF--are always whitewashed
(I do not intend this to come out negatively, but have to keep it real here)
and they rarely promote native workers to have a say in things that matter
(although native workers are the ones who have to do the day-to-day, on-the-
field hard work). On Facebook, there has been a growing resentment by native
workers toward these 'foreigners of ruling hierarchy' that work for non-
profits (while taking up most of the salary+benefits and wasting donation
money). I don't know how far it will go and am interested to see it out.

~~~
PeterStuer
And even political parties. In Belgium the "Green" party (Groen) after the
last election finally admitted they were not and never have been an
environmental/ecological party after they grabbed control of the former real
environment party (AGALEV) in 2003. They successfully bamboozled the green
vote just by semantically squatting the name for 16 years.

Never trust a name, as more often than not it just has been hijacked by the
most powerful/lucky marketing group.

------
Despegar
There should be scare quotes around Privacy Advocacy Groups.

All of the listed think tanks are for sale. EPIC, an actual privacy advocacy
group, is not.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Privacy_Information...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Privacy_Information_Center)

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
How do you know EPIC isn’t for sale? They don’t disclose who their donors are.

~~~
rhizome
What do you mean, "who their donors are?" What is missing from their
CharityNavigator?

[https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...](https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8671)

They're a 501(c)3, they take donations off the front page of their website.
Sure, you might be curious who is donating? Or if there are any donations over
a certain amount? I don't see any of that for The March of Dimes, either, do
we question whether they are "for sale?"

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I agree that "for sale" isn't a fair descriptor, of the March of Dimes or EPIC
or the EFF. That was mostly my point.

I think it's reasonable to ask some number of questions about the March of
Dimes. It's surprising, at least a little bit, that eradicating polio didn't
reduce the amount of charitable work a polio charity had to do.

------
calibas
Many, if not most, of the "consumer advocacy" groups are completely fake.
They're astroturf groups that are owned by various industries. Here's a small
selection of the ones owned by big oil:

California Drivers Alliance

Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy

Californians for Balanced Energy Solutions

The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition

Friends of Science

------
lallysingh
The EFF is clean. I think we're seeing employee matches for that one.

~~~
cdibona
I think that's true, our last big donation to EFF was a while ago. I know some
executives have donated over the years significantly, but not as 'google'.

------
turc1656
Glad I actually read the actual article. I saw the headline and thought to
myself _" hmmm, that's weird. I thought they wanted to basically destroy
privacy, why would they be donating to things that try to preserve it?"_

Now it makes perfect sense.

~~~
gnode
Google et al often stand to benefit from privacy regulations (e.g. GDPR),
because they can bear the cost of compliance, while smaller competitors
copying their business model can't. Increased costs in return for a stronger
monopoly.

It seems that's partly the case here: they want more legislation, but also
want to make sure it won't hurt them.

~~~
throwaway35784
Do you really believe they want gdpr? Or might they be more interested in
keeping it out of America? I see no evidence they care about people's privacy,
rather the opposite is intrinsic to their business model.

~~~
gnode
> Do you really believe they want gdpr?

It's not ideal for them, but I believe it benefits their monopoly position.
Implementing the technical and compliance measures required by the GDPR is
trivial at the scale of Google, but a significant barrier to entry for smaller
competitors.

I don't believe they care about people's privacy either, but it's a noble
cause to be exploited. I think what they really want is regulatory hurdles
that stifle competition, but have no real impact on their business.

I expect they want to shape emerging legislation to include the likes of:
appoint a dedicated data protection officer; have a process by which customers
can request their data; produce quarterly reports. Things which place a
proportionately larger burden on smaller businesses (which perhaps can even be
sold to them as services), but don't limit the collection or processing of
data.

------
droopyEyelids
Even if the privacy advocates are completely incorruptible, FB and Google
still have a devious motivation when they try frame the debate about their
companies around Privacy.

Privacy is important, but the monopolistic/oligarchic control these businesses
exert over their peers and the people of our countries is the real issue.

Nothing would make these companies happier than if we argued about privacy for
the next 100 years.

------
fock
also Google spends loads of money on ads in actual papers (definitely catering
to an older and more privacy-interested clientele), for example urging people
to take privacy into their own hands, by leading them here:
[https://g.co/privacycheckup](https://g.co/privacycheckup) .

I wonder how many of the targets take the bait and "sign up for privacy" just
to never sign out again, giving Google official approval for their data
collection mechanics...

I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that a wide array of problems (from
privacy to creating a sustainable economy) might just be served best by
heavily regulating the whole advertising sector (starting from banning
individualized ads to enforcing quotas on ad-spending/marketing in all other
industries)

------
outime
Not exactly the same topic but similar - reminded me of how Google also
donates not a small amount to Mozilla, to the point where Mozilla’s survival
seems to be quite dependent on Google’s generosity.

~~~
SXX
Can you clarify what Google donations are you talking about? I honestly
interested since I know for sure they bought the right to be default search
engine in many countries, but I doubt Google ever just donated a lot of money
to Mozilla for no reason.

~~~
cdibona
The Google payment to Mozilla has been in the form of a ad revenue sharing
deal since 2005 or so. Before that you could characterize it as a donation, or
something.

------
burtonator
Imagine if companies like Facebook and Google were taxed properly and we
didn't have to rely on their donations to fuel public policy!

~~~
yihsiu
taxed properly and the fund being used properly, which might be just as hard
as Facebook and Google only caring about social good.

------
8ytecoder
Are we sure this is not donation match?

~~~
Ensorceled
Do you have any reason to believe it is? The article contains interviews from
spokespersons of some of the charities in question and Bloomberg asked
Facebook/Google for comment. Surely if it was simply matching donations,
someone in PR for one of these organizations would have derailed this entire
article by pointing that out?

------
whamlastxmas
I would be surprised if they didn't. They want to control the narrative of
privacy advocacy in a way that best suits them.

------
kaonashi
controlled opposition is ineffective opposition

------
throwaway35784
It's a scientific fact that donations influence behavior. It is impossible for
these organizations to remain unbiased in their approach to privacy when they
take these contributions.

------
buboard
Doesn't sound like something that they would advocate for though. FB & G want
your data to make money, and government wants their data to spy on you. Or is
this a smokescreen

------
Hitton
I think it's the thing in most areas with public and NGO advocacy groups.
Although the groups are officially non-profits, they are often very profitable
for its employees. Local Greenpeace branch essentially takes protection money
from various developer and mining companies to look other way (at those that
don't "sponsor" them) and use the money for bird conservation activities etc.
in other areas.

If you think about it, it's not even that bad. No one else really cares much
about the companies' exploits and the money is at the end at least partially
used for praiseworthy goals. And wheel of market keeps spinning...

------
cryptozeus
Butcher is donating money to the farmer to raise the animals !

~~~
gnode
Or more analogously, how the agricultural lobby opposes legislation on
immigration, animal welfare, and food standards.

------
mnm1
> Google and Facebook want a federal privacy law, as long as it doesn’t
> disrupt their data collection and advertising empires, critics say.

Impossible. That sentence literally contradicts itself. The real question is
why we allow companies to be non profit, yet be shills for the like of Google
and Facebook while pretending they are doing a public service. A company
cannot be fully focused on privacy and take money from Google, fb, etc. Even
Mozilla can't fully pull that off although they come pretty close.

------
willyg123
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

Edit: A closer reading seems to indicate these groups may not be enemies.

------
blowski
It's like the Roman Empire funding the "People's Front of Judea" to discredit
the "Judean People's Front", very similar to Putin's tactics in Russia.

------
xutopia
Now they can own privacy advocacy groups... great!

------
menacingly
The actual title, "Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Federal Privacy
Debate" is much clearer

~~~
ocdtrekkie
So, Twitter shares of the article also use the current headline on HN,
"Facebook, Google Donate Heavily to Privacy Advocacy Groups". It looks like
Bloomberg Law _changed_ the title, but the original submitter here did use the
article title at the time.

Hopefully dang can update the title here as well.

~~~
dang
Updated now.

------
LandR
Very misleading title!

