Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs Tried To Warn Mark Zuckerberg About Privacy In 2010 (qz.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Quartz: Zuckerberg should have heeded what he heard from the late Steve Jobs eight years ago. Then, when the social network had a measly half-billion users, Jobs spoke at The Wall Street Journal's AllThingsD conference, where Zuckerberg was in the audience, waiting to be interviewed himself, and described what privacy meant. Journalist Walt Mossberg asked Jobs his thoughts on recent privacy issues around Facebook (which at the time was revamping its privacy controls after criticism it was forcing people to share data) and Google (which was literally recording private wifi information), and whether Silicon Valley looks at privacy differently than the rest of the world.
"Silicon Valley is not monolithic," Jobs responded, "We've always had a very different view of privacy than some of our colleagues in the Valley." Apple, for instance, does not leave it up to developers to decide whether to be dutiful about warning users that their apps are tracking their location data, instead forcing pop-ups on users to alert them that an app is tracking them, and to turn off that ability if they don't want. "We do a lot of things like that, to ensure that people know what these apps are doing," he added. It's a stance his successor, Tim Cook, still holds. Mossberg then asked Jobs if that applied to Apple's own apps in the cloud. Here's what Jobs said: "Privacy means people know what they're signing up for, in plain English, and repeatedly. I'm an optimist; I believe people are smart, and some people want to share more data than other people do. Ask them. Ask them every time. Make them tell you to stop asking them if they get tired of your asking them. Let them know precisely what you're going to do with their data." If the company had been more forthright about how developers could take data shared with them by Facebook users and sold to third parties, it may not have been in the mess it's in today. Additionally, TechCrunch reports that Zuckerberg was warned about app permissions in 2011 by European privacy campaigner and lawyer Max Schrems. "In August 2011, Schrems filed a complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commission exactly flagging the app permissions data sinkhole (Ireland being the focal point for the complaint because that's where Facebook's European HQ is based)."
"[T]his means that not the data subject but 'friends' of the data subject are consenting to the use of personal data," wrote Schrems in the 2011 complaint, fleshing out consent concerns with Facebook's friends' data API. "Since an average facebook user has 130 friends, it is very likely that only one of the user's friends is installing some kind of spam or phishing application and is consenting to the use of all data of the data subject. There are many applications that do not need to access the users' friends personal data (e.g. games, quizzes, apps that only post things on the user's page) but Facebook Ireland does not offer a more limited level of access than 'all the basic information of all friends.'" [...] "The data subject is not given an unambiguous consent to the processing of personal data by applications (no opt-in). Even if a data subject is aware of this entire process, the data subject cannot foresee which application of which developer will be using which personal data in the future. Any form of consent can therefore never be specific," he added. It took Facebook from September 2012 until May 2014 and May 2015 to implement changes and tighten app permissions.
"Silicon Valley is not monolithic," Jobs responded, "We've always had a very different view of privacy than some of our colleagues in the Valley." Apple, for instance, does not leave it up to developers to decide whether to be dutiful about warning users that their apps are tracking their location data, instead forcing pop-ups on users to alert them that an app is tracking them, and to turn off that ability if they don't want. "We do a lot of things like that, to ensure that people know what these apps are doing," he added. It's a stance his successor, Tim Cook, still holds. Mossberg then asked Jobs if that applied to Apple's own apps in the cloud. Here's what Jobs said: "Privacy means people know what they're signing up for, in plain English, and repeatedly. I'm an optimist; I believe people are smart, and some people want to share more data than other people do. Ask them. Ask them every time. Make them tell you to stop asking them if they get tired of your asking them. Let them know precisely what you're going to do with their data." If the company had been more forthright about how developers could take data shared with them by Facebook users and sold to third parties, it may not have been in the mess it's in today. Additionally, TechCrunch reports that Zuckerberg was warned about app permissions in 2011 by European privacy campaigner and lawyer Max Schrems. "In August 2011, Schrems filed a complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commission exactly flagging the app permissions data sinkhole (Ireland being the focal point for the complaint because that's where Facebook's European HQ is based)."
"[T]his means that not the data subject but 'friends' of the data subject are consenting to the use of personal data," wrote Schrems in the 2011 complaint, fleshing out consent concerns with Facebook's friends' data API. "Since an average facebook user has 130 friends, it is very likely that only one of the user's friends is installing some kind of spam or phishing application and is consenting to the use of all data of the data subject. There are many applications that do not need to access the users' friends personal data (e.g. games, quizzes, apps that only post things on the user's page) but Facebook Ireland does not offer a more limited level of access than 'all the basic information of all friends.'" [...] "The data subject is not given an unambiguous consent to the processing of personal data by applications (no opt-in). Even if a data subject is aware of this entire process, the data subject cannot foresee which application of which developer will be using which personal data in the future. Any form of consent can therefore never be specific," he added. It took Facebook from September 2012 until May 2014 and May 2015 to implement changes and tighten app permissions.
The Brits could turn Zuck into a sitcom "The rise and fall of Mark Zuckerberg ", call him something like Reginald Perrin perhaps...
One of the visionaries of our time. Spot on about privacy in this case.
He was taken from us too soon. While Tim Cook has followed in Jobs' footprints, he is no Jobs. Had Jobs been here today, I'm sure we would hear some scathing rebukes of Facebook, Google, et al. both in terms of the data they steal from users, and the data they cozily provide to government agencies.
Thank you, Steve, for all you did. At least there is a legacy for others to try and follow. Rest in peace.
... sorry.
It was just hanging there.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
warnings usually come with the possibility of consequences. I don't see any forthcoming. The scandal's already blown over with little or not chance of government regulation. The hit they took to stock will evaporate once Walstreet realizes nobody's gonna stop this gravy train.
The only thing of material consequence that might come out of this is that Trump might lose his data analytics. If he doesn't rebuild them (and he might not, he's none too bright and he's fired, pissed off or double crossed all the people who got him elected) then it'll hurt him in 2020.
That said, so far it looks like the Dems are going to run another right of center Hilary style candidate and if that happens I don't think it'll matter.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...because, he's not wrong, really.
Thing is, Apple got rich selling a premium product at premium prices. Google -- Apple's biggest competitor -- got rich giving away a service for free, and plastering targeted advertising in front of their tracked users. Of course Jobs would speak out against the practice.
His stance is hardly surprising or visionary. It was business.
So now Facebook takes it step further, with actual propaganda targeted to the most gullible people.
I don't know what to say. It was predictable. And while I think it is wrong, I don't know how much I can blame Facebook. It comes down to people. As George Carlin said, "Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that."
A PhD in Psychology, Barrie is not a reliable source on medicine or alternative medicine, she is an opportunist, a pyramid climber. I've found a number of technical misstatements in her books. I do think Jobs dallied longer than most average, but it is common, and some people simply say f' it rather than go through the time, pain and expense of risky treatment.
I do think Jobs dallied longer than most average, but it is common, and some people simply say f' it rather than go through the time, pain and expense of risky treatment.
Expense was no problem and there were only two options: treatment or death. He chose death thinking he was smarter than a doctor only to realize that he was wrong but too late for it to matter.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.