It’s time for third-party data brokers to emerge from the shadows



File 20180404 189813 1ihb282.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Personal data has been dubbed the “new oil”, and data brokers are very efficient miners.
Emanuele Toscano/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Sacha Molitorisz, University of Technology Sydney

Facebook announced last week it would discontinue the partner programs that allow advertisers to use third-party data from companies such as Acxiom, Experian and Quantium to target users.

Graham Mudd, Facebook’s product marketing director, said in a statement:

We want to let advertisers know that we will be shutting down Partner Categories. This product enables third party data providers to offer their targeting directly on Facebook. While this is common industry practice, we believe this step, winding down over the next six months, will help improve people’s privacy on Facebook.

Few people seemed to notice, and that’s hardly surprising. These data brokers operate largely in the background.

The invisible industry worth billions

In 2014, one researcher described the entire industry as “largely invisible”. That’s no mean feat, given how much money is being made. Personal data has been dubbed the “new oil”, and data brokers are very efficient miners. In the 2018 fiscal year, Acxiom expects annual revenue of approximately US$945 million.

The data broker business model involves accumulating information about internet users (and non-users) and then selling it. As such, data brokers have highly detailed profiles on billions of individuals, comprising age, race, sex, weight, height, marital status, education level, politics, shopping habits, health issues, holiday plans, and more.




Read more:
Facebook data harvesting: what you need to know


These profiles come not just from data you’ve shared, but from data shared by others, and from data that’s been inferred. In its 2014 report into the industry, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) showed how a single data broker had 3,000 “data segments” for nearly every US consumer.

Based on the interests inferred from this data, consumers are then placed in categories such as “dog owner” or “winter activity enthusiast”. However, some categories are potentially sensitive, including “expectant parent”, “diabetes interest” and “cholesterol focus”, or involve ethnicity, income and age. The FTC’s Jon Leibowitz described data brokers as the “unseen cyberazzi who collect information on all of us”.

In Australia, Facebook launched the Partner Categories program in 2015. Its aim was to “reach people based on what they do and buy offline”. This includes demographic and behavioural data, such as purchase history and home ownership status, which might come from public records, loyalty card programs or surveys. In other words, Partner Categories enables advertisers to use data brokers to reach specific audiences. This is particularly useful for companies that don’t have their own customer databases.

A growing concern

Third party access to personal data is causing increasing concern. This week, Grindr was shown to be revealing its users’ HIV status to third parties. Such news is unsettling, as if there are corporate eavesdroppers on even our most intimate online engagements.

The recent Cambridge Analytica furore stemmed from third parties. Indeed, apps created by third parties have proved particularly problematic for Facebook. From 2007 to 2014, Facebook encouraged external developers to create apps for users to add content, play games, share photos, and so on.




Read more:
Your online privacy depends as much on your friends’ data habits as your own


Facebook then gave the app developers wide-ranging access to user data, and to users’ friends’ data. The data shared might include details of schooling, favourite books and movies, or political and religious affiliations.

As one group of privacy researchers noted in 2011, this process, “which nearly invisibly shares not just a user’s, but a user’s friends’ information with third parties, clearly violates standard norms of information flow”.

With the Partner Categories program, the buying, selling and aggregation of user data may be largely hidden, but is it unethical? The fact that Facebook has moved to stop the arrangement suggests that it might be.

More transparency and more respect for users

To date, there has been insufficient transparency, insufficient fairness and insufficient respect for user consent. This applies to Facebook, but also to app developers, and to Acxiom, Experian, Quantium and other data brokers.

Users might have clicked “agree” to terms and conditions that contained a clause ostensibly authorising such sharing of data. However, it’s hard to construe this type of consent as morally justifying.




Read more:
You may be sick of worrying about online privacy, but ‘surveillance apathy’ is also a problem


In Australia, new laws are needed. Data flows in complex and unpredictable ways online, and legislation ought to provide, under threat of significant penalties, that companies (and others) must abide by reasonable principles of fairness and transparency when they deal with personal information. Further, such legislation can help specify what sort of consent is required, and in which contexts. Currently, the Privacy Act doesn’t go far enough, and is too rarely invoked.

In its 2014 report, the US Federal Trade Commission called for laws that enabled consumers to learn about the existence and activities of data brokers. That should be a starting point for Australia too: consumers ought to have reasonable access to information held by these entities.

Time to regulate

Having resisted regulation since 2004, Mark Zuckerberg has finally conceded that Facebook should be regulated – and advocated for laws mandating transparency for online advertising.

Historically, Facebook has made a point of dedicating itself to openness, but Facebook itself has often operated with a distinct lack of openness and transparency. Data brokers have been even worse.

The ConversationFacebook’s motto used to be “Move fast and break things”. Now Facebook, data brokers and other third parties need to work with lawmakers to move fast and fix things.

Sacha Molitorisz, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre for Media Transition, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Advertisements

Links between Murders in Turkey and ‘Masterminds’ Expected


Witnesses previously barred will be allowed to testify.

ISTANBUL, December 20 (CDN) — Attorneys prosecuting the murder of three Christians in southeastern Turkey are making progress linking the knifemen who slayed them to the masterminds who put them up to it, an attorney representing the family of one of the victims said Friday (Dec.17).

Two witnesses, Veysel Şahin and Ercan Gelni – whose testimony the court previously blocked – will be allowed to testify about the plans behind the killings in Malatya. The judge changed his previous ruling blocking their testimonies because of new evidence that recently became available.

The court will also protect a witness whose testimony would have possibly put him in danger. The latest court hearing was on Dec. 3.

On April 18, 2007, two Turkish Christians, Necati Aydin and Ugur Yuksel, and German Christian Tilmann Geske, were bound, tortured and then murdered at the office of Zirve Publishing Co., a Christian publishing house in Malatya.

The suspects, Salih Guler, Cuma Ozdemir, Hamit Ceker, and Abuzer Yildirim were arrested while trying to escape the scene of the crime, as was alleged ringleader Emre Gunaydin.

 

Establishing Links

Prosecutors have contended that the killings were related to a larger conspiracy by the military and nationalists to destabilize the government by targeting minorities in Turkish society.

“The people responsible are not just confined to the young men caught at the crime scene,” said Orhan Cengiz, one of the attorneys representing the interests of the victim’s families in the case. “Everybody knows the youngsters have connections [to the nationalists].”

The new decision shows the court’s “willingness” to look into possible links between the killers and the gendarmerie, a special police force in Turkey that deals with internal security issues and is allegedly a key player in the destabilization plot, Cengiz said.

Suzanne Geske, widow of Tilmann Geske, said she wants the Malatya murder trial linked with the trial over the Cage Operation Action Plan, believed to be part of the Ergenekon “deep state” operation to destabilize the government.

“I want the Zirve Publishing House killings to be merged with the case into the Cage Operation Action Plan,” Geske told Turkish newspaper Today’s Zaman. “I do not believe that those young men could have carried out the murders on their own. Some de facto links are evident. There are other influences behind these murders.”

Ergenekon is an alleged “deep state” operation referring to a group of retired generals, politicians and other key figures thought by some to be the true power brokers in Turkey.

The Cage Plan centers on a compact disc found a year ago in the house of a retired naval officer. The plan, to be carried out by 41 naval officers, termed as “operations” the Malatya killings, the 2006 assassination of Catholic priest Andrea Santoro and the 2007 slaying of Hrant Dink, Armenian editor-in-chief of the weekly Agos.

Newspapers have reported that the Cage Plan, aimed at Turkey’s non-Muslim minorities, not only contained a list of names of Protestant Christians who would be targeted, but also named some of their children.

“I believe that there is an ulterior motive behind the killings,” Geske reportedly said. “This may be linked to Ergenekon or another criminal group. I believe that the young men who carried out the murders were directed by criminal elements. I want those criminal elements to be exposed. Otherwise, the lives of those young men will be wasted while the real criminals will go unpunished.”

The next Malatya hearing is scheduled for Jan. 20.

Report from Compass Direct News