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

71–80 of 146 posts

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#71

Post by Someone1234 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #58
cj wrote: post #8

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…

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 comb…

So the facts are wrong because rather than selling the data directly they only exploit it themselves for profit? That only holds while ignoring the fact that most of that profit comes from third parties who they're effectively selling data access to (e.g. ads where the profit is from Google's ability to know which ads to put in front of which users, effectively selling that user's privacy for profit).

Pointing out that ISPs are worse is really neither here nor there. Just because big tech isn't the worst does absolve them of criticism nor is a compelling argument for why we cannot talk about them lobbying for the law to allow them to continue to do what they're doing or even expand it.

I'm not even going to try and address why we cannot have privacy because of "legitimate first amendment problem[s]" or because it would result in "law[s] against strong encryption." I don't consider those arguments to even pass the basic sniff test, they feel like throwing out every argument under the sun and seeing what sticks. Almost to Gish Gallop levels.

> This is gotcha journalism

That isn't what "gotcha journalism" means. Collecting facts, presenting those facts, and putting a negative spin on it isn't "gotcha journalism" because the journalist didn't trick Google or Facebook into doing these things, they're simply telling the public that they did. In fact the term doesn't really to apply to journalism outside of interviews, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotcha_journalism

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#72

Post by yihsiu »

burtonator wrote: post #55

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

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

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#73

Post by PeterStuer »

cj wrote: post #8

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…

The more correct headline would be "Facebook, Google Donate Heavily to Privacy Deregulation Advocacy Groups".

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#74

Post by Nasrudith »

Someone1234 wrote: post #71
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comb…

So the facts are wrong because rather than selling the data directly they only exploit it themselves for profit? That only holds while ignoring the fact that most of that profit comes from third parties who they're effectively selling data access to (e.g. ads where the profit is from Google's ability to know which ads to put in front of which users, effectively selling that user's privacy for profit). Pointing out th…

Yes the facts are wrong and there is a major difference between selling the data and using it. It is like the difference between a salesman asking a bartender what type of drinks you prefer and them having a transcript of everything you ever said in the bar.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#75

Post by AnthonyMouse »

amilein7minutes wrote: post #67
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comb…

Could you explain why the restriction over selling user data would be a violation of first amendment rights? Overall, isn't your last point also the source of problems? If the whole idea is to be able to exert regulatory control, to protect users, over companies that seem to have a huge share on decision-making in this space due to their unmatched wealth, how is their parting with a minuscule portion of their wealth…

> Could you explain why the restriction over selling user data would be a violation of first amendment rights?

Start with the premise that you're passing a law against people telling other people anything they know about you (especially if they would otherwise be able to without compensation), then add in the "money is speech" thing, which is existing precedent whether you like it or not.

> If the whole idea is to be able to exert regulatory control, to protect users, over companies that seem to have a huge share on decision-making in this space due to their unmatched wealth, how is their parting with a minuscule portion of their wealth so they can potentially influence a decision made on the topic of restricting them, solve any problems in the first place? It seems like a stretch to suggest that privacy advocacy groups need money from tech giants to support themselves.

Privacy advocacy groups don't just have binary existence where either they exist or they don't. Every dollar is more advocacy.

And you can't have it both ways. Either the amount they receive is insignificant and consequently shouldn't affect their overall policy positions or it is significant and losing it would be a meaningful hit.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#76

Post by jermaustin1 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #71
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comb…

So the facts are wrong because rather than selling the data directly they only exploit it themselves for profit? That only holds while ignoring the fact that most of that profit comes from third parties who they're effectively selling data access to (e.g. ads where the profit is from Google's ability to know which ads to put in front of which users, effectively selling that user's privacy for profit). Pointing out th…

I don't agree that just because 3rd parties are where google profits, means that they are buying the data.

If I ran a newsletter, "selling data" would be me giving a 3rd party my mailing list. Profiting from the data would be me "selling eyeballs" from my list.

That is effectively what Google and Facebook do. They are in the eyeball selling industry, not email selling.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#78

Post by short_sells_poo »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #43
personlurking wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Nov…

Wait what - you can opt out of having any phone or mobile data service for a week? What on earth are they going to learn? People go to work, people go shopping?

I know your question was rhetorical, but let's give it fair consideration. I suspect what they'll learn is whether they have the capability to analyze the movements of their entire population efficiently and if not, what it would take to do so.

Armed with that knowledge, they can prepare for the eventuality where the one-off exercise gets turned on permanently.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#79

Post by zionic »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #36
throwawaylolx wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Na…

Wow, that's pretty sneaky.

Re: Facebook, Google Fund Nonprofits Shaping Privacy Debate

#80

Post by thfuran »

Nasrudith wrote: post #74
Someone1234 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the facts are wrong because rather than selling the data directly they only exploit it themselves for profit? That only holds while ignoring the fact that most of that profit comes from third parties who they're effectively selling data access to (e.g. ads where the profit is from Google's ability to know which ads to put in front of which users, effectively selling that user's privacy for profit). Pointing out th…

Yes the facts are wrong and there is a major difference between selling the data and using it. It is like the difference between a salesman asking a bartender what type of drinks you prefer and them having a transcript of everything you ever said in the bar.

>It is like the difference between a salesman asking a bartender what type of drinks you prefer and them having a transcript of everything you ever said in the bar.

What? That's a difference in scale, not in kind.

Post reply on HN