How Calls for Privacy May Upend Business for Facebook and Google
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Yes the "ad-supported internet" may be at risk. So what? Is it unreasonable to think that this model might not actually be sustainable long term?
Why should this business model be any less vulnerable than any other business model? Note to Big Tech - public opinion also has the power to "disrupt."
Ads themselves are not so problematic. But the idea that companies have to collect amounts of data that make the Stasi look like a bunch of privacy activists is very much problematic.
>“With the new European law, regulators for the first time have real enforcement tools,” said Jeffrey Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a nonprofit group in Washington. “We now have a way to hold these companies accountable.”
I'm super excited about the prospect of GDPR in America.
They can block traffic coming from European IP addresses and require a legal document saying that the customer is not European.
"This is a tough one; spend a year rebuilding our backend and terms of services or shut ourselves out from a market of almost 500 million people (not including the UK) probably forever?"
Years ago(in CS degree before professional work), I used to wonder & be amazed by how fast new companies(mainly U.S.) moved so quickly.
It wasn't because they had some secret sauce or 10x devs, it was because all they did was focus solely on features & take shortcuts. Their customers data security was an afterthought - e.g. production DBs open to anyone in company(even the world in some cases(mongo)), no auditing or logging of data access.
Maybe YC(& other accelerators) will make a security expert available to these people...because young adults with 0 professional experience will probably not consider security & rely on the defaults of whatever stack they're using to be good enough. Even less consideration will be given when they're fed & surrounded by a grow fast at all costs mentality.
Good security in their products needs thought & critical analysis put into it & I'm not sure new devs appreciate it.
“Move fast and fix things”
It's reckless to not be careful and deeply think of your actions consequences as an engineer, because you yield so much power.
If it was a requirement (theoretically it is , but it's not enforced), most places would have no electricity at all. Same with cars: these people drive really old junk (literally) cars that are visibly (often seriously) crashed and you wouldn't be able to use them in other places, but they don't have an alternative. They'd like a nice and safe car like everyone does (and they buy them if they have enough money), but it's either this or nothing, no regulator can change that.
"Don't break things. We have millions of partners moving together."
I typed up a response with a few of my experiences, but it's probably wiser to not share those anecdotes at this time.
Suffice to say I've had the exact opposite experience, where the only people who cared about security and stability in any capacity were the youngins, and the veterans dismissed any and all suggestions for improvement regardless of how diplomatically (or not) they were worded.
The one anecdote I do feel comfortable sharing is in regards to stability, not security, but it's fairly similar to what I've encountered security-wise.
Once, I inherited a legacy codebase very tightly coupled to a legacy platform. I managed to shove an abstraction layer in there, which was then used to port the same codebase between three very different platforms.
The biggest problem that I had was in maintaining the very specific, somewhat unintuitive, completely undocumented behavior of the original codebase. Which was of course very tightly coupled to by downstream processes. But after getting the API in there, I was able to run the code on its own and that meant that I could start writing automated tests.
I listed off the biggest pain points whenever changes were made and the most critical behaviors that actually generated revenue, and put them all under test. Everything that commonly went wrong (and there was a lot thanks to some unreliable domain-specific tooling) was now automatically validated whenever changes were made.
When I showed one of my bosses (the owner of the company and someone in a former technical role) he was less than impressed. I was told off for avoiding my job, and instructed to test it manually like a real programmer.
I've worked in startup/mid size companies outside U.S and from what i've seen its totally inaccurate to say that startups outside U.S move slowly because they take privacy/security more seriously.
It doesn't preclude anywhere else in the world from being lax about security. I also have worked for multiple small/mid companies in Western Europe and, anecdotally for me, data & thoughts to security are held in much higher regard.
One way to make customers start caring about security? Regulation. In a very small startup with a serious shortage of resources, we're currently planning our GDPR compliance. And we're not doing it because we think privacy is important (though we do), we're doing it because customers are telling us that we need it before they can sign up. If customers aren't going to think security is important on their own (and they aren't), passing laws that force them to think it's important is the only way to change the situation.
In short: starting startups will become more difficult. One of the things most taxing and scary for people in our society, starting your own business, but also one of the things most needed and useful (who else creates jobs and Big Cos later?!) will become harder to do.
But what did startups ever did for us, no?!
Governmental attempts to short-circuit that process are at best misguided at at worst harmful. They create ossified markets where established players rule and innovation and competition are nonexistent.
Natural consequences - but hard to accept when one just takes the rallying cry du-jour in arms. "Think of the children!"
And then I look at any heavily regulated markets and I shudder at the prices, lack of choice, crappy quality and how horrible stuff happens in spite of regulations supposed to prevent it.
So I draw a logical conclusion: Free Markets beat Regulations pretty much every time.
Because I can think of quite a lot of reasons not to start a search engine or social network. Yet "regulation" is nowhere on that list, because I can't think of a single one that warrants any concern compared to the technical and market challenges.
Take DuckDuckGo as one example of a privacy-focused competitor to the behemoths: Are they loudly complaining that they'd long have dethroned google with their better privacy protections if only regulation X wasn't stopping them?
Your list also doesn't make any sense. Computers, entertainment and software seem to be about as regulated as online platforms, in that I can once again not think of any serious regulation in the US that would stop me from making a movie.
Pharmaceuticals are generally accepted to be among the most regulated products. Yet I would rate their progress to be somewhat comparable to that of "entertainment". Which isn't really a comparison that makes any sense, but if you can just wing it so can I.
It's quite obvious that the vast majority of people think it's a bad idea for political parties to have access to the photos they posted on Facebook just because one of their friends took some quiz. Why, then, should we believe in the magic of the market to find a solution to this clear interest, when we can also avail ourselves of the mechanism invented to solve such collective action problems, namely government? What are the possible downsides to banning invasive advertisement and data analytics by political campaigns, except a mild loss in revenue for the platforms, and whatever loss the campaigns suffer from no longer knowing my sexual orientation?
I know it's not very intuitive, but free markets and competition work. Unless your freeze them with (usually brain-dead) regulations.
Governments have a role, of course, but when you call them to solve everything, to protect us from ourselves and you give them every power imaginable - you are creating a monster.
A monster which will step on every right you thought you had and take anything they want from you "for your own good".
But that is not how the regulatory burden kills startups. It's not one specific thing: it's the sum of all of them.
Have you started a startup? I have, and I can tell you the toughest part of that was before even deciding! The very though of leaving my cushy job and colleagues kept up at night. Every single fear of some bureaucratic burden I had to obey (on top of technical and marketing challenges) pushed the balance to "no".
Every rumor, every tax, every rule I heard about pushed me think this was a bad idea. Any extra task which in itself seems harmless can break the proverbial camel's back...
Funny how the Times is using silly metafilter vernacular now:
"the consumer surveillance model" -- it's the same business model that's been supporting news publication for more than a century.
As for the GDPR it's similar to the recent digital tax proposal and numerous other initiatives by the EU intended to attack US businesses, the US government doesn't share that motivation and it must condemn and push against these EU actions.
I think there's an enormous difference between advertising in print, advertising on the internet, and what is currently the status quo, which is active surveillance of all information consumed and every movement that individuals make across the internet and in the real world by data linked through GPS/ cell phone location, credit card purchases, etc.
I'm aware that this is the new reality, but comparing it to print advertising (or even pop up ads of the early internet) is disingenuous at best.
As for storing data that is generated by their platform that is these companies' prerogative, it's their data as much as it is yours.
Debatable.
The EU has decided that is in fact, yours.
Right. First, print advertising could only target the entire subscriber base. Second, they had a limited amount of data on you based on voluntary surveys and census tracts, not a list of every single thing you read, and where you are every minute of every day. Finally, print publications actually cared about reuse/misuse of their address lists. The list they sold you would include some addresses they controlled, so if you resold or reused it, they would catch you.
There are ways to deliver effective ads with a whole lot less surveillance.
The kgb would have dreamed about having this much intelligence on the American public and thanks to Facebook, the fsb could get it through a stupid personality quiz.
http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2018/03/google-doubleclick-mozi...
Among other things, I wrote about the sharing of remarketing lists.
Facebook android application asks you for the following permissions when you install it:
This app has access to: Device & app history
retrieve running apps
Identity find accounts on the device
add or remove accounts
read your own contact card
Calendar read calendar events plus confidential information
add or modify calendar events and send email to guests without owners' knowledge
Contacts find accounts on the device
read your contacts
modify your contacts
Location approximate location (network-based)
precise location (GPS and network-based)
SMS read your text messages (SMS or MMS)
Phone directly call phone numbers
read call log
read phone status and identity
write call log
Photos/Media/Files read the contents of your USB storage
modify or delete the contents of your USB storage
Storage read the contents of your USB storage
modify or delete the contents of your USB storage
Camera take pictures and videos
Microphone record audio
Wi-Fi connection information view Wi-Fi connections
Device ID & call information read phone status and identity
Other download files without notification
adjust your wallpaper size
receive data from Internet
view network connections
create accounts and set passwords
read battery statistics
send sticky broadcast
change network connectivity
connect and disconnect from Wi-Fi
expand/collapse status bar
full network access
change your audio settings
read sync settings
run at startup
reorder running apps
set wallpaper
draw over other apps
control vibration
prevent device from sleeping
toggle sync on and off
install shortcuts
read Google service configuration
It does literally ask you to grant access to your text messages and call logs. Why would anyone expect Facebook NOT to use that data? You all cant be such native, right?The problem is not allowing a company access to your data. The problem is how it's used.
Just because you allowed another company to handle your data should not give them carte blanche to do whatever with it they want.
This is exactly why Europe created the GDPR.. to prevent your personal data from being processed by companies in unintended ways, or sharing your information with 3rd parties without your consent, and heavy fines for breaking these rules.
Just allowing a company access to your data and giving up at that point is the attitude that people are trying to change, because that's not the way the world should work.
My thought is management gets fired and the company changes course by the time the bottom line gets measurably impacted.
Companies are much more likely to fail by not innovating fast enough.