Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

news.bloomberglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 146 posts

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#31

Post by shakna »

malnourish wrote: post #27
raxxorrax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they are quite effective. My government believes selling customer data is the road to riches. They plan to sell even patient data from mandatory governmental health services. Complete lunatics in my opinion.

If the data is truly anonymized (and that's a big if), would you still have an issue? Could you share which government is doing this? It is very troubling. Edit: thank you all for good responses, I wasn't aware of the risks of de-anonymization but I will do more research into this.

_Can_ any large dataset actually be anonymised effectively?

I'm not yet convinced it can be done in a way that can't trivially be reversed by anyone combining it with other datasets.

And if it can't be anonymised, then it probably shouldn't be saleable.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#32

Post by buboard »

FillardMillmore wrote: post #2

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.

Sadly, people are removed from civil society today (as they are removed from society in general), which leaves a lot of space for various snake oil salesmen selling them "safety" and "truth". We know well that these things can't be bought but earned.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#33

Post by throwawaylolx »

dmos62 wrote: post #3
FillardMillmore wrote: post #2

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.

Sad truth. I'd like to see something label itself as a public-interest group and be able to trust it immediately, but it's not as simple as that.

It's not very difficult either. For most of these organisations, you can just check their Financials page, and it's very clearly stated. Example:

https://www.accessnow.org/financials/

https://cdt.org/financials/

Trusting anything immediately is a bad habit to develop anyway.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#34

Post by mtgx »

malnourish wrote: post #27
raxxorrax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they are quite effective. My government believes selling customer data is the road to riches. They plan to sell even patient data from mandatory governmental health services. Complete lunatics in my opinion.

If the data is truly anonymized (and that's a big if), would you still have an issue? Could you share which government is doing this? It is very troubling. Edit: thank you all for good responses, I wasn't aware of the risks of de-anonymization but I will do more research into this.

"Anonymized data" can always be deanonymized. There have been plenty of studies about this.

It also reminds me of a recent post-Cambridge Analytica story about FB trying to get patient records, for which they said they "wouldn't get the names of the patients".

Okay, but the only reason Facebook would even get that data is to match it with its users' real names through some of their algorithmic reverse engineering of the data. That data is only useful to FB if it can associate various illnesses with real users on its platforms so that then advertisers can market to those people directly.

Don't fall for the "anonymized data" bullcrap. Google was caught doing something similarly recently, too.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#35

Post by erikpukinskis »

buboard wrote: post #32
FillardMillmore wrote: post #2

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.

Sadly, people are removed from civil society today (as they are removed from society in general), which leaves a lot of space for various snake oil salesmen selling them "safety" and "truth". We know well that these things can't be bought but earned.

You’re talking about the “libs” who “destroy lives” such that people with important “truth” are never heard from again, right? Is that what you’re alluding to?

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#36

Post by TallGuyShort »

throwawaylolx wrote: post #33
dmos62 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sad truth. I'd like to see something label itself as a public-interest group and be able to trust it immediately, but it's not as simple as that.

It's not very difficult either. For most of these organisations, you can just check their Financials page, and it's very clearly stated. Example: https://www.accessnow.org/financials/ https://cdt.org/financials/ Trusting anything immediately is a bad habit to develop anyway.

I was once approached by someone representing (or at least claiming to) the Nature Conservancy. They had a worthy-sounding pitch but I told them that as a rule I didn't donate on knee-jerk reactions, but that I would be happy take down their info, have a closer look, and consider a donation. They guy said, "oh like on Charity Navigator", whipped out their phone and showed me near-perfect scores for them on Charity Navigator. I stuck to my rule, got home, and looked them up. At the time they had 2/4 stars on Charity Navigator. Guy was using an old screenshot or something.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#37

Post by cdibona »

SXX wrote: post #24
outime wrote: post #21

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.

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.

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.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#39

Post by personlurking »

malnourish wrote: post #27
raxxorrax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they are quite effective. My government believes selling customer data is the road to riches. They plan to sell even patient data from mandatory governmental health services. Complete lunatics in my opinion.

If the data is truly anonymized (and that's a big if), would you still have an issue? Could you share which government is doing this? It is very troubling. Edit: thank you all for good responses, I wasn't aware of the risks of de-anonymization but I will do more research into this.

Not exactly the same thing, but the following is happening now, in Spain. Citizens can opt-out by either turning off their phones or putting them in airplane mode during the dates mentioned.

"Spain’s National Statistical Institute (INE) plans to track the movements of millions of Spanish citizen’s cellphones to conduct a ‘sociological study’, El Pais and EFE reported. The INE will analyze user’s movements between November 18 to 21, November 24, on December 25 and during July 20 and August 15, using data from the ‘big three’ telecom companies in Spain. Data however will be anonymized before processing, the INE stressed."

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#40

Post by buboard »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #35
buboard wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, people are removed from civil society today (as they are removed from society in general), which leaves a lot of space for various snake oil salesmen selling them "safety" and "truth". We know well that these things can't be bought but earned.

You’re talking about the “libs” who “destroy lives” such that people with important “truth” are never heard from again, right? Is that what you’re alluding to?

no
Post reply on HN