
I Downloaded the Information That Facebook Has on Me - tim333
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/technology/personaltech/i-downloaded-the-information-that-facebook-has-on-me-yikes.html
======
abalone
I just downloaded my Facebook data archive. _It is incomplete._ They are
leaving out one of the creepiest aspects: Your search history.

Click in the search bar on Facebook. On the right is an Edit button. This
shows the search history they keep on you -- all the people you've looked up.
_Says a lot about you._ It goes back years, unless you clear it. (And who
knows what "clear" really means.)

This would be a rather unsettling thing to see in your archive. They totally
left it out.

~~~
WA
More missing:

\- Likes on everything I liked on FB and external

\- Shares via Share Buttons on external websites

\- Websites I visited and where I was tracked because of Social Media buttons

\- Time spent on FB

\- Status updates I changed or dismissed

\- Mouse hovering behavior to train the feed

\- Data like my phone number that wasn’t put there by me but correlated
through my friends address books

\- Metadata through WhatsApp acquisition

\- ...

~~~
icedchai
Do you really think they're obligated to provide you absolutely _everything_
they know about you? I don't.

I would say if they provide everything you've _directly_ provided, they've
fulfilled their "obligation."

Obligation is in quotes, because I don't actually believe they should even be
required to do this.

~~~
abalone
_> I would say if they provide everything you've directly provided, they've
fulfilled their "obligation."_

Post likes, shares and search history are all examples of data you've directly
provided that they're omitting from the export.

As for your principles, when you ask the FBI for their file on you their
obligation is not limited to data you've directly provided.

~~~
icedchai
According to
[https://www.facebook.com/help/405183566203254?helpref=faq_co...](https://www.facebook.com/help/405183566203254?helpref=faq_content)
likes, shares, and searches are included.

The FBI is subject to FOIA. FB is not, obviously.

~~~
abalone
No, that actually says it's _not_ included in the Downloaded Info.

It's in the Activity Log, which is omitted from the download. This is not
obvious and misleading. In fact someone asked whether they could download
their activity and Facebook directed them to the Downloaded Info, which omits
it.[1]

As for FOIA, you're missing the point. Of course FB is not subject to such a
law. The whole debate right now is whether it should be. If you request an
organization's "file" on you, it should be comprehensive and not selectively
omit the creepiest stuff.

[1]
[https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=6345563...](https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=634556393223841)

------
WillPostForFood
_Why should Facebook remember the people I’ve cut off from my life?_

For one reason, so they aren’t recommended to you as a possible friend in the
future. Seems like a minor thing to be upset about in a possibility space of
major things.

~~~
phy6
Seems reasonable. I can see the <insert perpetually outraged millennial news
site> headline now: "An open letter to Facebook: How dare you recommended I be
friends with my rapist"

~~~
danso
To be fair, that situation sounds like one that would be better served by
using the Block option, rather than just inference from the defriending
action.

~~~
Klathmon
But that's still "data" that needs to be maintained for you.

~~~
tk75x
A "block" list is different from a "people you unfriended" list. I see the
point of keeping track in order to not show those "on this day" posts of
someone you want out of your life, but the block feature was made for that
purpose and should be used for these situations.

~~~
abalone
I am overall critical of FB (see my top comment on the omission of search
history) but in this case I can see this as a good faith design decision. Yes,
ideally users should distinguish between:

\- "block" (keep track of them so they don't appear in your feed)

\- "unfriend" (erase the connection; they might reappear)

But this also adds complexity which can lead to UX failures. Probably a lot of
users were using "unfriend" when they really want to block someone. So then
their abuser shows up in their memories and Facebook suggests they become
friends or whatever and then there's a scandal because look how insensitive FB
is.

So the UX designer's choices then are, try to educate all your users about the
distinction here and get victims to use a block -- which is not going to be
100% successful -- or err on the safe side and just make "unfriend" work more
like a block. I can see them making the latter design decision in good faith,
and maybe I would too.

Note: It is _very common_ in more technical circles like HN to just implicitly
blame the user here for not understanding the options. I.e. if less than 100%
of users understand "unfriend" is not a "block" then, well, they should pay
more attention. (This is very common in security discussions.) But good UX
design means owning the outcome and how users interact with your interface in
the real world. And so simplicity often is the better route, even at the cost
of some tradeoffs.

------
klmr
By contrast, I found that my Facebook dump was extremely devoid of
information. Sure, a few advertisers have my data (but much fewer than in the
article, < 200!). Beyond that, the dump contains very little information that
I didn’t explicitly provide to Facebook (such as Timeline posts, images, etc).
At most it assigned a very broad category to me (“Established Adult Life” —
OK, duh).

Of note, it did _not_ contain any record of phone calls or SMS conversations
I’ve had. This is probably because I didn’t give Facebook permission to
collect this data, when asked.

Of course I’m under no illusion that this is the only data that Facebook has
on me. Based on my (even sporadic) activity they must be able to infer lots
more (and then there’s all that tracker data). They just don’t make the
interesting bits downloadable.

~~~
phy6
For a while I had enabled Messenger to handle texts on my phone, because it
kept nagging me to do so, and also the one built in to the phone was terrible.
So that means for a time they saw all my github/gmail authenticator login
codes, delivery notifications, etc. I'm sure that's all somewhere.

~~~
paulie_a
I can't even imagine how terrible that phone app was that Facebook messenger
was a viable alternative. The floating head thing was truly awful.

------
qntty
_On a brighter note, I downloaded an archive of my LinkedIn data. The data set
was less than half a megabyte and contained exactly what I had expected:
spreadsheets of my LinkedIn contacts and information I had added to my
profile._

Somehow I'm unwilling to believe that Linkedin is really an exception here.
More likely they don't include all the data they have on you.

I downloaded my facebook data, and the only thing that I was surprised at is
that they actually give you so much of the data they have on you. I expected
them to redact most of it. Is it really reasonable to think that they don't
have even more data than they let you download? They're not required by law to
give it all to you, are they?

~~~
taurath
Linkedin is worse than Facebook in terms of privacy. So many dark patterns on
their site - someday their reckoning will come just as facebooks. Easier
target too since it could hurt people’s jobs and careers.

~~~
bhnmmhmd
When Microsoft acquired LinkedIn I suspected they will go for the top talent
with this. Think about it:

Based on users' data and behavior, one can anticipate whether or not he/she is
going to quit/leave his/her current job. Microsoft recruiters can then swoop
in and offer him/her a job.

Or for example, Microsoft can essentially map all the top IT talents network
and use this to its advantage.

The list goes on...

~~~
taurath
I had forgot the MS acquired it! Honestly it’s probably less bad than it was.
Maybe in a few years we’ll hear about all the scrubbing they had to do to keep
MS safe.

------
danielovichdk
I also downloaded my data and deleted my account.

I have known for a long time, even before the scandal, that my time on the
socalled social media site was coming to an end.

Being a software engineer I believe I am aware of a good deal of what is going
on behind the scenes at Facebook, in terms of collecting data etc.

Talking to people which has no technical insight around privacy, and what data
is collected as such, frustrates me to a whole new level than before.

It amazes me that people don't sit down for a couple of hours and tries to
understand how the company works and what their business model is based on.
And what data is collected from them, with or without their knowledge.

I am happy to be off and I will try to convince my peers to understand why.

~~~
mixmastamyk
If it were only social media companies that might be significant, but every
company we interact with is doing the same things these days. For example, did
you know that employers are selling weekly paycheck info to credit bureaus
without consent? Unbelievable it's not illegal.

For some strange reason Americans only care about privacy regarding medical
info, but everything else is totally up for grabs. Never understood that
dichotomy.

------
giarc
>More important, the pieces of data that I found objectionable, like the
record of people I had unfriended, could not be removed from Facebook, either.

The article somewhat alludes to this practice as nefarious so that Facebook
can serve better ads. Through a different view, one where you don't assume the
worst, you could argue they keep a record of who you unfriend, so they don't
recommend them as a friend again.

We are currently in a place where everything Facebook does is bad. Let's be a
bit more rationale at times.

------
laythea
Sorry but I fear the horse has already bolted.

Even if you were able to delete yourself entirely from Facebook. You have been
"consumed" already.

Your data was valuable in at least 2 ways: \- Monetize to companies such as
Cambridge Analytics. \- Train Facebook's AI models using it.

What was probably happening, was that Facebook was selling your data to other
companies so that they can train AI models/make conclusions etc. In addition,
Facebook itself is using this data to train AI, make conclusions etc.

Facebook will no longer be able to Monetize to companies as much after this
media.

However, and this is the big one, if they use your data to train their models
to target individuals (and therefore "take advantage" of them), then they can
claim that your data was not used. And then they sell the models, or the
results of the models. Its like indirectly selling your data.

This could be a big win for Facebook, because if Facebook does not dish out
our information to other companies, it will *uniquely" be placed to provide
such services to the rest of the world.

And this will be almost impossible to regulate.

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
> then they sell the models, or the results of the models

Meh, the models will be worthless in a few months, and that is if they aren't
already worthless right now.

All those black boxes with magic coefficients from inputs to outputs are
inherently unmaintainable. Toss them a black swan, and it all goes pear-
shaped.

------
sixothree
Too bad this is only a small portion of what Facebook collects. For example,
it doesn't include information they have purchased from third parties.

~~~
return1
do they do that?

~~~
qaz_plm
It appears they've been doing it since 2012:
[https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/30/facebook-buys-data-on-
us...](https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/30/facebook-buys-data-on-users-
offline-habits-for-better-ads/)

Assuming this is up-to-date this tells you who they buy from:
[https://www.facebook.com/help/494750870625830](https://www.facebook.com/help/494750870625830)

------
dc2
It's interesting to note that the data Google stored was more alarming, though
was taken up at the bottom of the article and with less detail. It also didn't
make the headline. This is because bashing Facebook gets more views currently.
This is a good example of how media bias can distort opinion, while
maintaining that all data stated is accurate.

In other words, it's not enough that media is accurate. Bias is just as
important.

------
deckar01
An additional concern is an attacker phishing a user’s email/Facebook password
and downloading this dump to aid with identity theft or blackmail.

------
908087
No, they downloaded the portion Facebook is willing to allow them to download.
This is absolutely not everything Facebook has.

Note the wording here, which is similar to the misleading wording Zuckerberg
used to avoid honestly answering certain questions in recent days:

> “allows people to see and take out all the information _they’ve put into
> Facebook_.”

This doesn't include data such as:

\- Data your "friends" have "put into Facebook" about you, which could include
SMS/call records of your communications with those friends and various other
details.

\- Data Facebook purchases or collects from data brokers or public records

\- Data Facebook collects on the broader web via "like" buttons, etc

~~~
phy6
Exactly. I downloaded mine and there were entire chat histories missing, and
some of the ones I explored were incomplete. I could see more data in the
actual browser chat interface than what was in the download. It didn't include
posts I made on other people pages, all the likes, shares, and the thousands
of gifs I've sh!tposted. It also did not include data from the pages I
manage/own.

------
spullara
These dumps of all the stuff that is in the service about you is super
dangerous. If they get your account they can then download everything you have
ever posted almost effortlessly. I can imagine these will be on sale in the
dark web.

------
bdamm
Missing from the list is any way to find out what some of these listed
entities mean. For example, under "Advertisers who uploaded a contact list
with your information" is claimed "Nebula Mars". What exactly is that? I can't
google it and get any useful result. It both meaningless in its terminally
symbolic state and deeply meaningful as an indicator of where my data is truly
living in the world.

------
ta23464947
I left Facebook years ago for this kind of privacy scraping antisocial greed
(and LinkedIn et al), but one thing I'm curious about with this latest
'revelation' is whether or not you can get information about your shadow
profile.

Presumably that doesn't mean an email address, they actually collate
information about you the individual - what's the process of having a look at
that?

------
tzury
You downloaded the information Facebook shared with you when you asked for the
information they have on you.

Tracking cookies, personal profiling, and several other trails would probably
never be exposed.

------
itakedrugs
I wish that I could download all the information that Google has on me, but I
was stupid and I asked them to hide it from me...

~~~
zuckdrink
[https://takeout.google.com](https://takeout.google.com)

------
wnevets
I did this last night and the only surprising thing about the data they had
were contact details from ~8 years ago.

------
return1
Can the US government please make such a tool for foreign citizens?

~~~
phy6
If you believe Conspiracy Theories™ , and have a comfy tinfoil hat, this is
it. There was something called Lifelog.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_LifeLog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_LifeLog)

------
mudil
Can anyone explain to me why FB and Google surveillance of me does not violate
the 4th amendment? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated..."

~~~
greggarious
Because Facebook is not a governmental agency for starters...

~~~
mudil
The amendment doesn't say anything about the government agencies. It says
about the unreasonable search.

------
ygaf
>The social network had even kept a permanent record of the roughly 100 people
I had deleted from my friends list over the last 14 years, including my exes.

How useful is the info one can even get from this?

I mean even if you interpret unfriending as enemying (which is a leap),
possibly revealing interests you _don 't_ have, associations you _don 't_
have.... it's a lot weaker (to advertisers) than positive information.

~~~
lordCarbonFiber
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's probably so they don't recommend
those connections in the future. I think the average user would be much more
upset at facebook recommending they add their ex as a friend (because of
course you have a lot of mutual connections, tagged pictures, and other flags
that might indicate a strong bond) than just keeping a black list of people
you've chosen to remove.

~~~
ygaf
My bad; that's social media 101.

