Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Documents Reveal Facebook's Global War On Data Privacy Laws (theguardian.com)
"Facebook threatened to pull investment projects from Europe and Canada if lobbying demands from COO Sheryl Sandberg were not met," reports Business Insider, adding "Canada buckled immediately."
And that's just the beginning. The Observer reports: Facebook has targeted politicians around the world -- including the former UK chancellor, George Osborne -- promising investments and incentives while seeking to pressure them into lobbying on Facebook's behalf against data privacy legislation, an explosive new leak of internal Facebook documents has revealed. The documents, which have been seen by the Observer and Computer Weekly, reveal a secretive global lobbying operation targeting hundreds of legislators and regulators in an attempt to procure influence across the world, including in the UK, US, Canada, India, Vietnam, Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia and all 28 states of the EU...
The documents appear to emanate from a court case against Facebook by the app developer Six4Three in California, and reveal that Sandberg considered European data protection legislation a "critical" threat to the company. A memo written after the Davos economic summit in 2013 quotes Sandberg describing the "uphill battle" the company faced in Europe on the "data and privacy front" and its "critical" efforts to head off "overly prescriptive new laws...." John Naughton, a Cambridge academic and Observer writer who studies the democratic implications of digital technology, said the leak was "explosive" in the way it revealed the "vassalage" of the Irish state to the big tech companies. Ireland had welcomed the companies, he noted, but became "caught between a rock and a hard place... Its leading politicians apparently saw themselves as covert lobbyists for a data monster."
A spokesperson for Facebook said the documents were still under seal in a Californian court and it could not respond to them in any detail: "Like the other documents that were cherrypicked and released in violation of a court order last year, these by design tell one side of a story and omit important context."
And that's just the beginning. The Observer reports: Facebook has targeted politicians around the world -- including the former UK chancellor, George Osborne -- promising investments and incentives while seeking to pressure them into lobbying on Facebook's behalf against data privacy legislation, an explosive new leak of internal Facebook documents has revealed. The documents, which have been seen by the Observer and Computer Weekly, reveal a secretive global lobbying operation targeting hundreds of legislators and regulators in an attempt to procure influence across the world, including in the UK, US, Canada, India, Vietnam, Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia and all 28 states of the EU...
The documents appear to emanate from a court case against Facebook by the app developer Six4Three in California, and reveal that Sandberg considered European data protection legislation a "critical" threat to the company. A memo written after the Davos economic summit in 2013 quotes Sandberg describing the "uphill battle" the company faced in Europe on the "data and privacy front" and its "critical" efforts to head off "overly prescriptive new laws...." John Naughton, a Cambridge academic and Observer writer who studies the democratic implications of digital technology, said the leak was "explosive" in the way it revealed the "vassalage" of the Irish state to the big tech companies. Ireland had welcomed the companies, he noted, but became "caught between a rock and a hard place... Its leading politicians apparently saw themselves as covert lobbyists for a data monster."
A spokesperson for Facebook said the documents were still under seal in a Californian court and it could not respond to them in any detail: "Like the other documents that were cherrypicked and released in violation of a court order last year, these by design tell one side of a story and omit important context."
Whenever it is more profitable for a company to invest in corrupting the political process instead of improving its services, it will invest in corrupting the political process.
This process is unstoppable when the added benefit of unequal cost/benefit distribution makes it expensive for the other players in the market to oppose such political "investment", and multiplies the profits of the corrupting entity many times over.
If someone has a Facebook account at this point they are a fucking moron.
I love the rationale of: "That is the only way I can stay in touch with family and friends".
Yeah, really, then you are an even bigger moron, and you deserve everything that comes from your stupidity.
-- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
"Facebook threatened to pull investment projects from Europe and Canada if lobbying demands from COO Sheryl Sandberg were not met," reports Business Insider, adding "Canada buckled immediately."
If I had the means, I'd have asked FaceBook to take a hike.
I guess thy would have taken one anyway. A number of nations continue to survive [and thrive] without FaceBook. Besides, our youngsters would be more sane to a degree without it.
This news should have people all over the world protesting in the streets against corporate interference in governance, and Facebook should wake up tomorrow to find at least 90% of their user base simply gone. If people had any sense, knew what was good for them, and had the will to act on the knowledge, Facebook would be a fucking ghost town within a month and entirely dead within a year.
What's almost certain to happen instead is two or three news cycles of feigned outrage on the part of governments, a similar period of feigned contrition on the part of Facebook, people swearing off Facebook for a week, and then... nothing. Business as usual will continue; what should be a brick wall that stops Mark Fuckerberg dead in his tracks, will be a minor speed bump on the road to complete abolition of personal privacy.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
... on Feb 7 of this year. It won't go into effect until Mar 9 and I must not log back in because the beast will escape the steely knife.
I used a program (FBP) to purge ALL of my Facebook data (it was time-consuming) and deleted leftover data manually.
Then I deleted ... not deactivated. I just know those motherfuckers didn't delete a goddam thing, but I can't control them.
I'm an amateur photographer, guitar player and singer, and a retired IT guy who can help other people.
Facebook was a good place to share my work and keep in touch with family, friends, and like-minded strangers.
I have no replacement. Other social media are not as high profile, but they are just as evil.
I know that my disengagement doesn't mean a goddam thing to Facebook, but it means something to me.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
... the worse Facebook looks.
Let me help fill in that missing context, facebook wants to collect as much data as its servers can hold on everyone on the planet, even those not signed up to facebook. They want to use this data to further their own aims, be it sell adverts, or ensure facebook retains its position in the market through all means available to them...
I normally like the Guardian, but I'm annoyed they didn't mention the names of the ministers in Malaysia and Canada who immediately buckled.
If someone has a Facebook account at this point they are a fucking moron.
Not having a Facebook account doesn't stop them from tracking you all over the internets. Noscript or ublock does that. I use both, plus a separate cookie mangler.
I use Facebook because that's where discussion groups I want to participate in are located. I don't share incriminating personal information there, I just talk about bus conversions and shit. The state already knows I drive a bus conversion.
I also block ads, so Facebook can only make money on me by what, selling my personality profile? So what, people will find out I'm interested in buses, cb radios, and auto paint? Oh noes!
You can refuse to use Facebook, that's not stupid. But nor is using it, or at least, no dumber than using any other site you don't control personally. Most websites track and monetize you. You might as well say the same thing about using Slashdot. Noscript suggests there's four+ different trackers on the page I'm typing this comment into right now.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's a bit more than that. Facebook makes interfences about you based on similarities between the data it has on you and other people. That projection data profile is what it sells. If that assessment suggests to your insurer that you are a higher risk, there's nothing you can do about it, even if the alert is false.
This is where the privacy battle is going to be. If you have a smart meter, your high resolution consumption pattern may suggest that you're growing or manufacturing something illegal - so probable cause. The ensuing no-knock invasion could leave you dead due to a false positive. Without that smart meter, no suspicion, no probable cause, no warrant.
Without that smart meter, no suspicion, no probable cause, no warrant.
Wrong. Refusing the smart meter installation is itself suspicious. At minimum, you're untrusting and/or anti-authoritarian. Or maybe you're trying to hide your usage patterns. The same is true of a Facebook account. If you don't have one, many will take that as a suspicious sign. The fix isn't to refuse to use Facebook, it's to seek legislation to make it illegal to base decisions which will affect your life on Facebook metrics.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Business Insider: "Facebook threatened to pull investment projects from Europe and Canada if lobbying demands from COO Sheryl Sandberg were not met," ...
Facebook: "Like the other documents that were ... released ... these by design tell one side of a story and omit important context."
Missing Context: Facebook also threatened the politician's families -- including their dogs.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Yup. None of their business. Like most of my lifestyle details. There is a difference between 'privacy' and 'secrecy'.
Police were using electricity consumption to look for grow houses long before smart meters were invented. The electric company always had the information so they could bill you, and thus it's a "business record" over which you have no privacy interest and the police could freely access thanks to our courts penchant for shitting all over whatever "right" gets in the way of police.