Facebook: WhatsApp and In App Payment
December 22, 2018
I noted two developments which Facebook may roll out.
The first is the story in Newsweek “WhatsApp Child Porn Groups Exposed.” WhatsApp is an encrypted messaging service. As pressure on “old school” Dark Web sites continues to escalate, bad actors are looking for new, easy ways to communicate, share, and locate information that is of interest to them. Encryption, according to many investigators, allows bad actors to go dark. The authorities are, therefore, blind to potentially useful information. The write up suggests that Facebook is taking some action. The article said:
Facebook said working with police may be their best option to combat the material.
The second item concerns transacting, buying, and selling within WhatsApp. I noted “Facebook Explores Blockchain Tech For WhatsApp Money Transfers.” According to the write up:
In an effort to help WhatsApp users transfer money, Facebook is reportedly creating a digital currency. Unnamed sources told Bloomberg that the company is at work on a stablecoin, which is a cryptocurrency tied to the value of the U.S. dollar, and is reportedly eyeing India’s remittance market.
How quickly will bad actors interested in salacious or illegal content embrace Facebook’s vision of seamless buying and selling?
I would suggest quickly if the system sort of works.
With Facebook’s record of fine tuning its digital compass, WhatsApp could become the new Dark Web.
On the other hand, maybe Facebook will create a positive, uplifting union of services. Yep, maybe.
Stephen E Arnold, December 22, 2018
King Zuck: Above the Law? Yeah, Maybe
December 20, 2018
Though today’s major tech companies can, willingly or accidentally, make startling impacts on society, corporate executives are still primarily accountable only to their shareholders. And in the case of one of the largest and most beleaguered companies, Vox informs us, “Mark Zuckerberg is Essentially Untouchable at Facebook.”
Reporter Emily Stewart begins by recounting some recent criticisms lobbed at the company. First, the New York Times described Facebook’s deliberate efforts to downplay controversies from the Cambridge Analytica data breach to the spread of Russian propaganda on their platform. Then there is the Wall Street Journal’s report that Zuckerberg considers his company to be “at war,” and that both morale and stock prices are in decline. And yet, the digital king remains untouchable. Stewart writes:
“He reiterated the point in an interview with CNN Business this week, saying that stepping down as chairman is ‘not the plan.’ And the thing is, no one can make him. Even before the latest scandals, there have been questions about whether too much influence within Facebook has been placed with Zuckerberg and, among some investors, pushes for him to renounce his position as chair of the board. But because of the way Facebook’s shareholder structure is set up — and the number of shares Zuckerberg holds — there’s no way for anyone to force him out. Facebook may be a publicly traded company, but Zuckerberg pretty much makes the rules.”
The write-up outlines the reasons Facebook’s corporate structure means Zuckerberg always gets the most votes, and notes most corporations are set up this way. (See the article for those details.) It continues:
“That means that whatever shareholders are voting on — typically at Facebook’s annual meeting, usually in May — Zuckerberg and those closest to him are always going to win out. Bob Pisani at CNBC estimated earlier this year that Zuckerberg and the group of insiders control almost 70 percent of all voting shares in Facebook. Zuckerberg alone controls about 60 percent.”
Not that shareholders are silently accepting this status quo. A number of them have made proposals that would limit their famous CEOs power, including bringing in an “independent” board chair. Mysteriously, though, none of those proposals have received enough votes to pass.
But in the back of my mind is the sharing of private communications, the loss of private images, and the orbital sander approach to helping an ethical compass find true revenue.
Cynthia Murrell, December 20, 2018
Gunning for Google AI
December 19, 2018
With DeepMind teaching itself, can other vendors of smart software catch up to the online advertising giant?
Google is on top of many tech mountains, that’s for certain. However, none may be as big as its far-reaching artificial intelligence sector. That future doesn’t look as solid as it once did, thought, because of some hard charging competition, as we discovered in a recent Eyerys article, “With Google Dominating AI, Microsoft and Facebook Want to ‘Defrag Some of the Complexity.’”
According to the story:
“Microsoft is showing that it would rather help others rather than purely focusing on its own projects. There are reasons behind the partnership…. First of all, Microsoft’s AI has its own strengths. For example, it’s particularly great for building speech recognition systems. Second, Facebook’s PyTorch has gained popularity and has some interesting technical capabilities on its own.”
This is intriguing news, considering a three-horse race between these giants would likely result in some incredible advances. Beyond Search wonders if a closer relationship with Facebook will help or hurt Microsoft’s brand image and AI progress?
But, if you ask Google, you shouldn’t expect the world to change overnight. In fact, the leader in AI actually says artificial intelligence is “very stupid” compared to humans. Is this for real or a misdirection? It’s hard to say, but there’s no doubt that this rivalry is heating up, we predict AI will not be dumb for much longer.
Artificial intelligence appears to be the “go to” buzzword for 2019. Beyond Search thinks it would be helpful if Microsoft could tighten the nuts and bolts on here and now technology like Windows Updates before delivering the future with the likes of Facebook.
Patrick Roland, December 19, 2018
Australia: A Government Watch Dog with Two Companies to Monitor
December 11, 2018
Australia has become the first country to pass a law requiring that encrypted messages have to be unlocked for law enforcement. That means WhatsApp and a gaggle of other secret messaging apps.
Now Australia has another interesting idea, reported by Business Daily in Africa. The Australian government wants a regulator to monitor Facebook and Google. According to the report I saw:
Australia’s competition watchdog on Monday [December 10, 2018] recommended tougher scrutiny and a new regulatory body to check the dominance of tech giants Facebook Inc and Alphabet Inc’s Google in the country’s online advertising and news markets.
The source document cited a familiar refrain:
The two firms have already promised to do more to tackle the spread of fake news and, in submissions to the ACCC, said they provided users access to global news articles while providing advertisers a cheap way of reaching big audiences.
Australia is a member of Five Eyes, and the country may be setting a path which Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US may follow.
In short, the good old days of Wild West digital services may find the prairie managed in part by barbed wire fences, gates, and folks with badges and six shooters and maybe an automatic weapon too.
Stephen E Arnold, December 11, 2018
The Legal Dodgeball Wings Facebook
December 10, 2018
Mark Zuckerberg is a digital circus carnival broker to some people. At least, in England, and like a wanted man in a Western flick, it’s going to take a posse to bring him in for questioning. Unlike his appearance in front of US lawmakers earlier this year, he is not granting the same audience with European officials, as we discovered in a recent Forbes story, “Facebook’s Zuckerberg Ignores ‘The New Reality’ By Skipping Fake News Inquiry in London.”
According to the story:
“A special “Grand Committee“ of nine governments from around the world had come together at the U.K. Houses of Parliament, hoping to ask Facebook’s founder about the spread of fake news on his platform…But lawmakers didn’t get the man with 60% of Facebook’s voting shares and thus ultimate control; they got Richard Allen, Facebook’s vice president of public policy for Europe.”
It comes as no surprise to the bulk of people following this story that Facebook’s profits have recently begun to sag. But, the complicated part is that it’s not because of customers defecting and also not because they are sinking bundles of cash into heightened security (in fairness, they are investing in verification, etc) but simply with the expense of being Facebook. Overhead is beginning to hurt this juggernaut, which is not a great combo with all the controversy. It’ll be interesting to see how Zuckerberg dodges this news.
Patrick Roland, December 10, 2018
Alphabet Google: The Wing Clipping Accelerates
December 9, 2018
It is not a great time to be a tech titan. Facebook and Google and their peers seem to be embroiled in daily dilemmas. These kings of the internet are taking it on the chin regarding privacy, fake news, and more. And, yet, we are still surprised when their names pop up in the news feed. Such was the case with a recent Vulture piece, “Google Accused of GDPR Privacy Violations By Seven Countries.”
According to the article:
“The complaints, which each group has issued to their national data protection authorities in keeping with GDPR rules, come in the wake of the discovery that Google is able to track user’s location even when the “Location History” option is turned off. A second setting, “Web and App Activity,” which is enabled by default, must be turned off to fully prevent GPS tracking.”
As detailed in the New York Times, Mark Zuckerberg’s strategy of “Deflect, Deny, Delay” has been keeping them out of any serious legal hot water. Google’s challenge may rip headlines from the Zuckerberg connection machine.
The reason? Information is now becoming available about Google’s malicious ad network flaws. Since Google found inspiration in GoTo, Overture, and Yahoo’s pay to play system, Google is now talking about ad abuse; for example, “Tackling Ads Abuse in Apps and SDKs.”
What worse? Siphoning data or failing to identify issues which undermine the Madison Avenue way?
Ad fraud? Facebook and Google alike but different except to regulators in Europe.
Stephen E Arnold, December 9, 2018
Patrick Roland, November 30, 2018
Revisiting Facebook Trustiness
December 6, 2018
After news of its most recent data breach hit the headlines, Facebook found itself once again on the defensive. A long apology tour and showcase of efforts to better protect users was rolled out, but was it enough? For one Venture Beat commentator, the answer was “no.” We learned more in the article: “Sorry, Not Sorry. The Problem With Facebook’s Sorry Campaign.”
The piece lays out the social media giant’s many sins and concludes:
“Therefore it is up to us, as consumers to penalize bad behavior and reward good behavior. The two mechanisms available to us are voting with our feet and wallets and voting for representation in our government so that we can enact legislation to safeguard consumer privacy.”
They are not wrong. It is up to consumers to ask more, demand more, and get more from their online platforms. However, we don’t side with negative pundits like Slate who have given up on Facebook. We do have faith in Mark Zuckerberg’s baby and feel like the very public scrutiny is a good thing. It’s only under this heat lamp that real change can happen, because the alternative is to perish. We simply cannot see that happening without aggressive government intervention from entities outside the United States.
In short, hello, EU.
Patrick Roland, December 6, 2018
Facebook: Explaining Again and Wanting Context
December 6, 2018
My grandmother, who raised three children in the Depression, told me again and again, “Never complain, never explain.” Good advice? Probably not. But her mantra makes more sense to me than “Deflect, deny, and spin.”
I thought about my grandmother when I read the Facebook post about the Six4Three explanation crafted by the wordsmiths at Facebook. Yep, Facebook, an outfit which has been in the news of late.
Information generated in the white hot flame of Silicon Valley’s business processes is an art form. Hey, no one appreciated Picasso straight away either. Before heading to Philz, I can visualize furious tapping on a laptop in order to paint word pictures of what could be done to generate revenue, enhance power, and augment one’s bonus. Those types of prose should not count for anything. The words are little more than clumsy ways to give ideas some shape.
I noted this statement:
The set of documents, by design, tells only one side of the story and omits important context.
Right. The fix is to provide more documents and provide more information about the “context.”
Several observations from rural Kentucky:
The documents were released, in my opinion, as a signal to Mr. Zuckerberg that he has annoyed some individuals in the UK government. I am not sure Mr. Zuckerberg grasps the type of hurdles the UK government can erect for him and his verbal parkour experts to navigate.
Next, the documents will act as a bit of a kick to the buttocks of some countries’ regulators, investigators, and investigative authorities. The notion of “cherry picking” and “context” is one that may cause some quite intelligent and capable information centric people to probe. Ah, probe. Interesting idea. Probe deeply. More interesting.
And Facebook is now in reaction mode. The best offense is a good defense, but the defense is coming too late for users. I am not a Facebook “user” although a software script posts pointers to my stories and videos on a page which belongs, I believe, to my late, much missed Tess the dog. With some services losing body count and the general buzz about Facebook drifting into the auditory pain zone, the defending, the deflecting, the apologizing have lost efficacy.
In short, more to come. One does not destabilize without getting dizzy from slaps about the ears. I say, old chum, have you been poked by a brolly? No. Soon perhaps. Soon.
Context? You want to provide context? Poke, probe, prod — whatever the word — the action will roil the social graph.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2018
Facebook and Phone Numbers: Money Is Money
November 27, 2018
There are two ways to log into Facebook. One is to use your email address and the other is to use your phone number. People tend to remember their phone numbers over which email they use for Facebook. Facebook also uses phone numbers as a security feature, so it is not surprising that people use it as their primary login. One of the problems with that is Facebook has sold that piece of information. According to WND’s article, “Facebook Confirms Giving Advertisers Users’ Phone Numbers.”
Facebook confirmed that it allowed advertisers to access users’ phone numbers and contact lists. The social media company’s defense is that by allowing advertisers to access user information, they are creating a more personalized Facebook experience that includes ads. Facebook said:
“ ‘We are clear about how we use the information we collect, including the contact information that people upload or add to their own accounts.’ In a Gizmodo report published Wednesday, two studies found that the social network was giving advertisers access to data sources that users did not explicitly permit could be used.”
Does it really come as a surprise that a billion dollar company sold consumer information for a higher profit margin? If it does, then you really need to do some reading and research. Facebook does not care about relationships and communication. They care about the bottom line. Is Facebook really as secure as we hope to believe it? Also we can thank them for the recent rash of spam calls on cell phones. Ah, Facebook. We admire your business acumen.
Whitney Grace, November 27, 2018
—
Facebook: Learning about Cricket As Played by Parliament
November 26, 2018
I say when one learns cricket, the first concept to grasp is:
When you’re in you’re out; and when you’re out, you’re in.
Jolly good, right?
The British parliament is now playing cricket against Facebook, not India, not Pakistan, and not the quite acceptable Aussies.
Its Parliament versus the high school science club, once in search of companionship.
Facebook is going to have companionship going forward. Cricket matches can last longer than clicking through a Facebook item on a mobile phone.
The scope of the match has been sketched in broad outlines in “Parliament Seizes Cache of Facebook Internal Papers.”
The idea is to put a top bowler on the field versus the youthful geniuses who have sparked some controversy about Brexit, Trump, Russian disinformation, and other other sleeping policemen on the information highway.
The write up mentions that the trove of data includes “confidential emails between senior executives and correspondence with Zuckerburg.”
Yes, email, that omnipresent method of communication which often leaves some buggers gobsmacked.
The motivation for the document seizure was:
MPs leading the inquiry into fake news have repeatedly tried to summon Zuckerberg to explain the company’s actions. He has repeatedly refused. Collins said this reluctance to testify, plus misleading testimony from an executive at a hearing in February, had forced MPs to explore other options for gathering information about Facebook operations.
Will these documents become public? Facebook will try to throw a spanner in the works. Abso-bloody-loot-ly.
Will this slow the speed of the cricket ball? No. But Facebook will try to block because a full blooded swing might allow the bouncer to strike the Facebooker in the twigs and berries.
Can anoraks with gray T shirts be considered proper uniforms?
Stephen E Arnold, November 26, 2018
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
