Tim Cook: Facebook's Cambridge Analytica consumer data debacle forces tech industry beyond...
Speaking on Wednesday, Apple CEO Tim Cook criticized Facebook for its mishandling and commercialization of consumer data, and again concedes that the time may be past for self-regulation of how companies handle personal information.
"I think the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation," Cook said in answer to a question posed about Facebook. "However, I think we're beyond that here."
Cook said that it would not only been better for Facebook, but for the tech industry as a whole had Facebook controlled use of data "patched together from several sources." He also made a point of mentioning that Apple doesn't consider consumer data a source of income.
"The truth is, we could make a ton of money if we monetized our customer -- if our customer was our product," Cook said. "We've elected not to do that."
Cook refused a detailed answer on how he would deal with the problem if he was Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, saying that he "wouldn't be in this situation."
Cook has notably in the past obliquely referred to companies' use of consumer data, noting that if a product was free, then the consumer -- and all associated data -- was the product paying for the service.
Cook was pressed on where the line was for Facebook's behavior as it applies to App Store rules.
In his reply, Cook clarified exactly what Apple's review process is there for -- to ensure that the app itself meets the App Store guidelines, as well as the submitting company's own specified privacy policy. In short, Apple doesn't decide if any other company's privacy policy is good or bad, just as long as they abide by it.
In Facebook's case, they technically followed the privacy policy that they laid out, but users didn't necessarily understand the scope of data that had been collected, nor were the others gathered in the sweep informed. It also appears that Android has far further privacy implications for users than those on iOS, with many Android users having entire call logs recorded, something that Apple's iOS protected users from.
Cook hypothesized that maybe further regulation would be able to better shape Facebook's privacy policy.
The FTC is probing Facebook following the revelation that the UK-based Cambridge Analytica acquired the data of as many as 50 million Facebook users, reports Bloomberg, which may have been misused to influence a number of political events world-wide.
In a post on March 21, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained that Aleksandr Kogan, the researcher at the center of the scandal, had accessed data of 300,000 Facebook users with permission when he created a personality quiz back in 2013. In doing so, the users who took the poll gave up information on millions of connections without their permission with to Cambridge Analytica under the guise of an academic account, and not a commercial one.
Kogan shared that harvested data with Cambridge Analytica, with some debate over whether or not Cambridge Analytica deleted the data even after promising Facebook that it had done so.
In the wake of the revelations, Facebook suspended Cambridge Analytica and parent company Strategic Communications Laboratories for violating the site's Terms of Service, specifically rules about the collection and retention of data.
Cook's remarks on Wednesday were part of an interview with MSNBC's Chris Hayes and Recode's Kara Swisher. The session will form part of the "Revolution" episode airing on April 6, with members of the public also in attendance at the free taping.
The "Revolution" series interviews the leaders of major tech companies, discussing their impact on different areas of life. The first installment took place in January and featured Google CEO Sundar Pichai and YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki talking about their respective Alphabet organizations.
Today's interview location at Lane Tech College Prep High School in Chicago, IL. was the venue for yesterday's Apple's 'Field Trip' event, where the company revealed a number of hardware and software products, including a new iPad, that could help improve the education of students.
"I think the best regulation is no regulation, is self-regulation," Cook said in answer to a question posed about Facebook. "However, I think we're beyond that here."
Cook said that it would not only been better for Facebook, but for the tech industry as a whole had Facebook controlled use of data "patched together from several sources." He also made a point of mentioning that Apple doesn't consider consumer data a source of income.
"The truth is, we could make a ton of money if we monetized our customer -- if our customer was our product," Cook said. "We've elected not to do that."
Cook refused a detailed answer on how he would deal with the problem if he was Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, saying that he "wouldn't be in this situation."
Cook has notably in the past obliquely referred to companies' use of consumer data, noting that if a product was free, then the consumer -- and all associated data -- was the product paying for the service.
Cook was pressed on where the line was for Facebook's behavior as it applies to App Store rules.
In his reply, Cook clarified exactly what Apple's review process is there for -- to ensure that the app itself meets the App Store guidelines, as well as the submitting company's own specified privacy policy. In short, Apple doesn't decide if any other company's privacy policy is good or bad, just as long as they abide by it.
In Facebook's case, they technically followed the privacy policy that they laid out, but users didn't necessarily understand the scope of data that had been collected, nor were the others gathered in the sweep informed. It also appears that Android has far further privacy implications for users than those on iOS, with many Android users having entire call logs recorded, something that Apple's iOS protected users from.
Cook hypothesized that maybe further regulation would be able to better shape Facebook's privacy policy.
The FTC is probing Facebook following the revelation that the UK-based Cambridge Analytica acquired the data of as many as 50 million Facebook users, reports Bloomberg, which may have been misused to influence a number of political events world-wide.
In a post on March 21, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg explained that Aleksandr Kogan, the researcher at the center of the scandal, had accessed data of 300,000 Facebook users with permission when he created a personality quiz back in 2013. In doing so, the users who took the poll gave up information on millions of connections without their permission with to Cambridge Analytica under the guise of an academic account, and not a commercial one.
Kogan shared that harvested data with Cambridge Analytica, with some debate over whether or not Cambridge Analytica deleted the data even after promising Facebook that it had done so.
In the wake of the revelations, Facebook suspended Cambridge Analytica and parent company Strategic Communications Laboratories for violating the site's Terms of Service, specifically rules about the collection and retention of data.
Cook's remarks on Wednesday were part of an interview with MSNBC's Chris Hayes and Recode's Kara Swisher. The session will form part of the "Revolution" episode airing on April 6, with members of the public also in attendance at the free taping.
The "Revolution" series interviews the leaders of major tech companies, discussing their impact on different areas of life. The first installment took place in January and featured Google CEO Sundar Pichai and YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki talking about their respective Alphabet organizations.
Today's interview location at Lane Tech College Prep High School in Chicago, IL. was the venue for yesterday's Apple's 'Field Trip' event, where the company revealed a number of hardware and software products, including a new iPad, that could help improve the education of students.
Comments
300,000 are happy to share their data, but why didn’t their connections get a say?
If it isn't commercial entities, it will be Governments.
The old WW2 slogan
Careless Talk Costs Lives.
a simple re-write gives
Careless Postings Costs YOU!
and, yes, that would seem to be a vast failure/loophole of FaceBook‘s app behavior policy.
Not happening but we should be able to charge Google or Amazon etc. for the use of our personal data. Want my phone number? $5000, please. Want everything forever? How does $100,000 sound?
This is kind of like when I buy a car and the dealer want to but their logo on the car so I can be a free mobile billboard for them. I always tell the dealer it will cost them $500 to put their name on my car. Only once did the dealer think I was joking and I almost walked out after I saw my new car had their name all over the car.
I tend to agree, I do not mind my information being used if I see I am getting value from it. In the case of Google their search is basis toward website they want to promote not towards getting the correct information or best information. Google has cost me money in the past because they are not always doing what is in your best interest, just in what makes them money.
Secondly, yes, you should pay for a repair for an accident. If you didn't want to pay as much, there's AppleCare+, and you'd pay less. The drop is your fault.
Now where does that put Apple? Aren't they selling their customers to Google? What is the difference?
(edited mistake in 1st sentence)
I wrote this a while ago. I’ll repost it again.
Most people on the Internet probably only come in contact with less than a dozen sites. Google, with its Gmail and YouTube, Facebook, perhaps a random community like Tumblr, a couple of image boards, the occasional visit to Amazon, maybe some news websites, and that’s about it. For the vast majority of the population, the Internet is a prepackaged, socially engineered spy grid. It fuels itself on your input and weaponizes the information against you and everyone else. Already the social engineers are dividing us entirely, confusing the tongue, and making it difficult to communicate effectively. On Google and YouTube, comments and videos are filtered such that you only come in contact with certain predetermined material derived by social algorithms. They make it nearly impossible to discover new random channels and points of view. When you click on a video and scroll down, you’re presented with preselected comments that jive with the opinions you tend to agree with and made to jump through hoops of inconvenience to look at all the other discussions taking place.
Since Google is so influential, this sort of strategy is largely finding its way into every facet of the corporate-controlled Internet. This means that when I click on a video, say of the puppet Obama fake crying about Sandy Hook, I will see comments that are critical of his phony bullshit and other comments mocking the counterfeit brainwashing media. Yet when a stereotypical phony “liberal” feminist clicks on the same video, she’ll be presented with comments that agree with her gun-grabbing ideology. In effect, we’re being self-imprisoned on these tiny Internet islands where we can’t reach out to one another. Google can control who and what we interact with and see, and so divide and conquer the mind of the population. It’s a good strategy to quell dissent; when I click on a controversial news video or article, I unwillingly come in contact with opinions that tend to support my own, and so I leave with the sense that there is a consensus on a particular world event like Sandy Hook. This engineering of a false consensus has the effect of pacifying the people, making them content in their beliefs. In being content, they became lazy and stop questioning the world and discussing reality with those around them.
By forcing the ignorant to be separate from the wise, from the stupid, from the trolls, even, this system of division is impeding the social development of humanity at large. The typical person on the Internet is confined within their own little bubble of information–a literal reservation matrix. The vast majority of modern people only interact with the world around them through the lens of the Internet. Everything they know–and much of where their worldview comes from–is directly influenced through what they experience online. By allowing a cabal of government/corporate entities with advanced technologies in their disposal to regulate what an individual interacts with online, they can shape and guide the development of one’s mind.
We are, quite literally, being domesticated through sophisticated weaponized psychology.
Most of human history and its accumulated knowledge is already immersed on the Internet; within our lifetimes all of it will be in the cloud, soon enough the entire population will be hardwired into the Internet, in one way or another. It’s conceivable that our entire species’ recorded collective experience–all of our history and knowledge–can be manipulated and censored by predatory algorithms that can gradually and insidiously edit the data to keep the truths from us. The beast supercomputers can sift through the entire Internet and gradually edit out certain sensitive or undesirable information–even change audio files and manipulate videos. In recent years, everyone’s identity is being lassoed to the Internet, such that there is no longer anonymity and free exchange. Certain people can be effectively silenced. The Internet with which I come into contact might be an entirely different Internet than the one others see. By socially engineering groups and confining certain people within these restricted informational reservations, reality and social/cultural trends can be manufactured. It’s such a passive and insidious strategy. Just as a virus entering a cell coats itself with the host’s own membrane, masquerading as self to elude detection, this beast computer consciousness uses our own information and our own architecture to elude our defenses and gain entrance into our collective mind.
And here’s where we would get into some dirty, nasty, naughty questions about–gasp–politics, in which we would otherwise discuss the difference between marxist collectivism (in which everyone is forcibly kept from hurting themselves) and other, freer forms of government (in which those in power are forcibly kept from hurting the aforementioned mass of idiots).
They hate themselves more than they love their families.
846. Though that was a few decades or so ago; maybe they’ve changed the size/formula.