Thoughts on Facebook's 700 pages of answers to Congress. Very long thread below... 1/
Facebook deny 'creating profiles' on individuals not logged in but browsing websites with FB tracking code... then in the next paragraph, describe how they create profiles on non registered users (e.g. the 'hundreds of sites' they have visited recently). 2/ 
Facebook elaborate on Clear History. Yes, they plan to keep sensitive data such as browsing history but just scrub the identifier from it. Easy to reidentify. We describe why this is legally problematic in a recent paper academic.oup.com/idpl/advance-a… 3/
FB refuse to release their internal consent decree audit, but might share with Committee privately. 4/
FB keen to claim they are not joint controller when apps are involved (but keen to claim they are the sole controller when their own Pages are involved, see CJEU Wirtschaftsacademie) 5/
On the device integration partnerships, unclear why Amazon will continue to have access. 6/
We don't publish tracking software... we just log when individual devices visit pages with our software published on. 7/
Legally... no. 8/
Very keen to say that interests are not 'true': part of the strategy to claim they are not in any world special category data under Article 9, GDPR. 9/
FB to extend right to contest automated removals of content to more types. Also potentially motivated by European law? 10/
Some sections of answers relevant to upload filtering and the EU draft Copyright Directive 11/
Information about FB's automated systems to detect wildlife abuse and poaching of interest to @Marenka 12/
FB claim they use differential privacy but decline to say how. 13/
Expecting 250 staff solely working on election integrity 14/
Information FB claims it collects from devices it has apps on. 16/
The fantastic question about the right to object by @RepGeneGreen was ignored completely. Facebook consider the right to object a threat and do not want to talk about it. 17/
Ha. 18/
Facebook very careful to state that they never actually, uh, believed the 'interested in' section was intended to indicate sexual orientation (and therefore special category data). Some people did, though, they admit! How could that have happened 19/
Civil rights law firm to investigate ranking system 20/
PhotoDNA contains 88000 hashes 21/
Diversity data about FB staff 22/
Info (not much) about FB and ICE disclosures 23/
Again... interests do not 'reflect personal characteristics'. So what are they then? 24/
ok! the end... for now. 25/25
