Privacy Laws Giving Big Internet Companies A Convenient Excuse To Avoid Academic Scrutiny

from the that's-unfortunate dept

For years we've talked about how the fact that no one really understands privacy, leads to very bad attempts at regulating privacy in ways that do more harm than good. They often don't do anything that actually protects privacy -- and instead screw up lots of other important things, from competition to free speech. In fact, in some ways, there's a big conflict between open internet systems and privacy. There are ways to get around that -- usually by moving the data from centralized silos out towards the ends of the network -- but that's rarely happening in practice. I mean, going back over thirteen years ago, we were writing about the inherent conflict between Facebook's (then) open social graph and privacy. Yet, at the time, Facebook was cheered on for opening up its social graph. It was creating a more "open" internet, an internet that others could build upon.

But, of course, over the years things have changed. A lot. In 2018, after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Mark Zuckerberg more or less admitted that the world was telling Facebook to lock everything down again:

I do think early on on the platform we had this very idealistic vision around how data portability would allow all these different new experiences, and I think the feedback that we’ve gotten from our community and from the world is that privacy and having the data locked down is more important to people than maybe making it easier to bring more data and have different kinds of experiences.

As we pointed out in response -- this was worrisome thinking, because it would likely take us away from a better world in which the data is more controlled by end users. Instead, so many people have now come to think that "protecting privacy" means making the big internet companies lock down our data rather than the much better approach which would be giving us full control over our own data. Those are two different things, that only sometimes look alike.

I say all of that as preamble in suggesting people read an excellent Protocol article by Issie Lapowsky, which -- in a very thoughtful and nuanced way -- highlights the unfortunate conflict between academic researchers trying to study the big internet companies and the companies' insistence that they need to keep data private. We've touched on this topic before ourselves, in covering the still ongoing fight between Facebook and NYU regarding NYU's Ad Observer project.

That project involves getting individuals to install a browser extension that shares data back to NYU about what ads the user sees. Facebook insists that it violates their privacy rules -- and points to how much trouble it got in (and the massive fines it paid) over the Cambridge Analytica mess. Though, as we explained then, the scenarios are quite different.

Lapowsky's article goes further -- noting how Facebook told her that the Ad Observer project was collecting data without the user's permission, which worried the PhD student who was working on the project. It turns out that was false. The project only collects data from the user who installs it and agrees (giving permission) to collect the data in question.

But the story and others in the article highlight an unfortunate situation: the somewhat haphazard demands on the big internet companies to "protect privacy" are now providing convenient excuses to those same companies to shut down academic research on those companies and their practices. In some cases there are legitimate concerns. For example, as the article notes, there were concerns about how much Facebook is willing to share regarding ad targeting. That information could be really important for those studying disinformation or civil rights issues. But... it could also be used in nefarious ways:

Facebook released an API for its political ad archive and invited the NYU team to be early testers. Using the API, Edelson and McCoy began studying the spread of disinformation and misinformation through political ads and quickly realized that the dataset had one glaring gap: It didn't include any data on who the ads were targeting, something they viewed as key to understanding advertisers' malintent. For example, last year, the Trump campaign ran an ad envisioning a dystopian post-Biden presidency, where the world is burning and no one answers 911 calls due to "defunding of the police department." That ad, Edelson found, had been targeted specifically to married women in the suburbs. "I think that's relevant context to understanding that ad," Edelson said.

But Facebook was unwilling to share targeting data publicly. According to Satterfield, that could make it too easy to reverse-engineer a person's interests and other personal information. If, for instance, a person likes or comments on a given ad, it wouldn't be too hard to check the targeting data on that ad, if it were public, and deduce that that person meets those targeting criteria. "If you combine those two data sets, you could potentially learn things about the people who engaged with the ad," Satterfield said.

Legitimate concern... but also allows the company to shield data that could be really useful to academics. Of course, it doesn't help that so many people are so distrustful of these big companies that no matter what they do it will be portrayed -- sometimes by the very same people -- as evil. It was just a few weeks ago that we saw people screaming both about the big internet companies willing to cave in and pay Rupert Murdoch the Australian link tax... and when they refused to. Both options were painted as evil.

So, sharing data will inevitably be presented by some as violating people's privacy, while not sharing data will be presented as hiding from researchers and trying to avoid transparency. And there's probably some truth in every angle to these stories.

Of course, that all leaves out a better approach that these companies could do: give more power to the end users themselves to control their own data. Let the users decide what data is shared and what is not. Let the users decide where and how that data is stored (even if it's not on the platform itself). But, instead, we just have people yelling about how these companies both have to protect everyone's privacy and give access to researchers to see what they're doing with all this data. I don't think the "middle ground" laid out in the article is all that tenable. Right now it's just to basically create special exceptions in which academics are "allowed" -- under strict conditions -- to get access to that data.

The problem with that framing is that the big internet companies still end up in control of the data, rather than the end users. The situation with NYU seems like a perfectly good example. Facebook shouldn't have to share data from people who don't consent, but with the Ad Observer, it's all people who are actually consenting to handing over their own data, and Facebook shouldn't be in the business of blocking that -- even if it's inevitable that some reporter at some future date will try to spin that into a story claiming that Facebook "violated" privacy because these researchers convinced people to turn over their own info.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: academic research, excuses, privacy, privacy laws
Companies: facebook


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    M Fatta Kleeno, 26 Mar 2021 @ 9:49am

    You and I are consistent, Maz.

    I mean, going back over thirteen years ago, we were writing about the inherent conflict between Facebook's (then) open social graph and privacy.

    The word "writing" does not state any position -- as ever -- but your true position is CORPORATIST "surveillance capitalist enthusiast" through all that time: let Facebook grow without limit, users should be grateful to have their every click recorded and exploited for "advertising" besides available to NSA; they have NO rights at all but can be "de-platformed" whenever the mega-corporation wants to exercise its "First Amendment right" of association; if users don't like it, they can lump it. (And at end of every business day you check the value of its stock and see how much richer you are.)

    Me, for over 13 years, soon as heard of Facebook, been yelling, "BREAK UP THE SURVEILLANCE MONSTER BEFORE GROWS!" -- My position is soundly based on history and that massive detailed surveillance CANNOT be good.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      M Fatta Kleeno, 26 Mar 2021 @ 9:50am

      Re: You and I are consistent, Maz.

      I'm sure that you DO understand privacy, Maz: you want to exploit The Public's Privacy for gain of globalist mega-corporations. -- I think you're lying above, and that too is consistent for you.

      To YOU, surveillance is the key business model of the future.

      While I see surveillance as key to the techno-dystopia that's in sight to anyone not willfully blind.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      M Fatta Kleeno, 26 Mar 2021 @ 9:51am

      Re: You and I are consistent, Maz.

      In this piece, now I've read on from the above (didn't need to, always KNOW the place you're going), you are ONLY blathering around the edges, not condemning the basics of the biz or even hinting that Facebook should be regulated, let alone broken up. You NEVER have even hint of a solution, right or wrong, just KIBBITZ on the problem and hope for ZERO legislative action.

      You've not changed in 13 years, Maz! -- Neither have I! -- You're for corporations and I'm for The People, period. (YES, I support the rights of even you ankle-biters here, though it is difficult when you're so nasty to me and so stupid as to not see that Maz is a corporatist advocating against you! I soldier on.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 26 Mar 2021 @ 10:13am

      your true position is CORPORATIST "surveillance capitalist enthusiast" through all that time

      Please cite actual quotes — with proper links to the articles/comments in question — that back up this claim of fact. Otherwise, you’re a lying sack of shit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 27 Mar 2021 @ 3:36am

      Re: You and I are consistent, Maz.

      As ever, the fantasy strawman version of this site you invented sounds like a bad place. I'm glad it doesn't exist in the world the rest of us live in.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2021 @ 12:59pm

    According to Satterfield, that could make it too easy to reverse-engineer a person's interests and other personal information.

    ORLY? So... It's perfectly safe with Facebook, tho. lol

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.