A year ago, we first learned that data on the movements of millions secretly harvested from apps is not just exploited by myriads of shady data firms but even bought by FBI/DEA/DHS and the US military.
"The mobile app economy became a cesspool of data exploitation. The only way to fix this is to finally enforce data protection law in the EU, and to introduce strong legislation in the US and in other regions"
And:
“Location data brokers use many ways to source data from apps. They can make apps embed their data collection code, harvest it from the bidstream in digital advertising, source it directly from app vendors, or just buy it from other data brokers”
Google won't stop this.
Google doesn't really care, because if it would, it would have to ban half of the apps from its app store.
Google has co-created today's broken mobile data harvesting economy, it has control of its most important part (device IDs) and its business relies on it in different ways.
Most app vendors also don't care. Why should they? It doesn't matter. Nobody cares. And in many cases, they benefit from it.
Btw. this is hilarious (and telling):
"Kulemba told Recode that it’s having trouble accessing the code to remove the SDKs from Android apps"
Admittedly, app vendors are often in the same situation as users: they just don't have a choice. Because the whole ecosystem is broken.
This is why I think that regulation (and its enforcement) is the only way to fix this.
Also, Google must be broken up.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"it was only in late April 2018 — weeks before the regulation came into force — that Amazon created a dedicated team in the information-security department to address the [GDPR]"
“If you wanted to do a 'right to be forgotten,' it would be next to impossible for Amazon to identify all of the places where your data resides within their system”
“Amazon has grown so fast, it doesn't know what it owns … They don't know where their data is at ..."
Prebid rather than TTD becoming a (joint) data controller for email and profile data on hundreds of millions?
I mean even the adtech trade press writes they have 'control' of it.
That being said, I still don't get how adtech shops, marketers and publishers can believe they'll get away with replacing cookie IDs with identifiers based on EMAIL ADDRESSES. This is so cynical and broken.
"With SharedID, cookie syncing becomes unnecessary as every party in the ecosystem will utilize the same shared identifier"
Also, SharedID. And 'Publisher Common ID', a 'widely used first-party identifier' that can end up in the bidstream. prebid.org/product-suite/…
First, the "GDPR, ePrivacy Directive, and CCPA, have impacted, and we expect will continue to impact, our ability to use such signals in our ad products".
Second, Apple/Google already do or may soon "limit the ability of application developers to collect and use these signals".
This is why Facebook is fighting browsers like Safari and Firefox introducing tracking protections and Apple's restrictions on mobile app tracking so hard.
And this is why Facebook has been fighting the GDPR, its enforcement and similar laws for years, and still does.
While we're discussing how to hold Facebook accountable for messing with our social relationships and global public debate for profit, the company is silently yet constantly taking its aggressive data, attention and 'engagement' business to the next level. s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/file…
Facebook still doesn't even have a category for expenses related to content moderation in its earnings reports.
Most likely, because expenses related to content moderation are just not significant for its business.
Instead, Facebook is trying to further maximize revenue per user by constantly optimizing user 'engagement', i.e. what we see and what we click, purely towards its business goals, without any significant consideration of how this affects people, groups, communities, societies.
"We are trying to build a fundamental privacy model for the web with much stronger guarantees of privacy than existed before. I can't speak from the Ads perspective because I've never worked at Ads"
"Privacy policies are written in the broadest sense and what the privacy policy says is not intended to be, 'This is what it does,' it's, 'This is what could be done.' That part is outside my purview"
Unfortunately, he doesn't know much about Google's data practices.
"I do not know about plans regarding first-party advertising. We are building a system that is intended that all third-party advertising will rely on it"
Will G itself still use the full depth of individual-level data after restricting the third-party ecosystem? Probably yes.