FTC PENALISES FACEBOOK AND INDIA IS SILENT

MAHENDRA LIMAYE ASSOCIATES’S TAKE ON FACEBOOK FTC JUDGEMENT

It is one of the biggest penalties inflicted in History of USA or anywhere in world on Social Media Company. Surprisingly it was neither debated nor discussed in India as if India has nothing to do with it. Most of the digital intellectuals as well as legal luminaries didn’t utter a word either praising or criticizing the FTC judgement, which is a compromise settlement. Neither the more vocal supporters of Digital India made any comments on the same favouring their blue eyed boy Marc. When most of the Indian population is trapped in CATCH 22 situation created by Digital Revolution in India and Whatsapp trying to enter Indian payment market, this FTC judgement needs to be carefully scrutinised and must be understood by one and all, irrespective of whether you are concerned or not !!!!! And specially when meeting of Whatsapp Global Head Will Cathcart meeting Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad making headlines in India.

This silence is the strange and startling and hence more dangerous!!!

Nothing in human history has reached 2.4 billion people, roughly one out of every three living humans, with the regularity and influence of Facebook. The only company close to that influence is Google, which controls YouTube and its nearly 2 billion regular users. Both of these companies have developed advertising platforms that deliver carefully targeted messages more effectively and efficiently than anything else in the world. On this backdrop recent compromise judgement of FTC becomes more relevant.

When USA Federal Trade Commission has found the much beloved Marc Zuckerberg’s Facebook guilty on various counts including “Misrepresenting the Extent to Which Users Could Control the Privacy of Their Data and the Extent to Which Facebook Made User Data Accessible to Third Parties” and “ Failure  to Implement and Maintain a Reasonable Privacy Program”, the country having maximum number of users on Mark Zuckerberg’s FB/WA/Insta taken together, none is concerned. Rather it is extending red carpet welcome to Whatsapp global CEO Will Cathcart.

DOES IT INDIVIDUALLY AFFECT ME?

WHY SHOULD I BE CONCERNED AND CARING ABOUT SOCIETY?

This is why we prefer to remain silent on many issues happening in the society and that’s where we are being exploited by these anti-social elements.FTC decision’s likely impact on Indian netizens is far reaching and if we don’t debate it now, future generation will never excuse us!!!!!

“ The parties have reached a settlement of the Complaint’s allegations and the Order requires Facebook to pay a $5 billion civil penalty and imposes significant injunctive relief, primarily in the form of an amended administrative order that will be entered by the FTC” is the order in brief which needs more debate.

This judgement of FTC was by 3-2 margin and if we just go through excerpts of dissenting statement of federal trade commissioner REBECCA KELLY SLAUGHTER, it will be easier for us to understand and we may be compelled to introspect.

1)       “During the years of Facebook’s continuous alleged lawlessness, its gross annual revenue increased from $5 billion to over $55 billion. Facebook’s collection and use of personal data have grown in unprecedented, unchecked, and often unseen ways.”

2)       My principal objections are: (1) the negotiated civil penalty is insufficient under the applicable statutory factors we are charged with weighing for order violators: injury to the public, ability to pay, eliminating the benefits derived from the violation, and vindicating the authority of the FTC. (2) While the order includes some encouraging injunctive relief, I am sceptical that its terms will have a meaningful disciplining effect on how Facebook treats data and privacy. Specifically, I cannot view the order as adequately deterrent without both meaningful limitations on how Facebook collects uses, and shares data and public transparency regarding Facebook’s data use and order compliance. (3) Finally, my deepest concern with this order is that its release of Facebook and its officers from legal liability is far too broad. Rather than accepting this settlement, I believe we should have initiated litigation against Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The Commission would better serve the public interest and be more likely to effectively change Facebook by fighting for the right outcome in a public court of law. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

3)      I will not recite the facts before the Commission, other than to note that there was extremely compelling evidence of a series of significant, substantial order violations and law violations. In addition to the evidence the Commission reviewed against Facebook, I believe there was sufficient evidence to name Mr. Zuckerberg in a lawsuit.

4)      I believe litigation was the best course of action in this matter. Litigation would have provided public transparency and accountability for the company, its leaders, and the Commission. It would send a message to the market and the public that the Commission is willing to go to the mat to ensure compliance with its orders. Under the jurisdiction and mandate of a federal court, the Commission would have been able to seek, and if necessary move to compel, discovery of important documents and testimony to inform a court’s assessment of liability. A finding of liability at the end of litigation would deter the company from further violations of the law even without substantial monetary or injunctive relief. If a hard-fought litigation against Facebook produced a result that fell short of public expectations, the public would have every incentive to demand that Congress take steps to address deficiencies in the law.

5)      Five billion dollars represents an astronomical penalty compared to prior Commission settlements or to the financial position of most individuals and firms. In the context of Facebook’s financial position and scope of violations, it is a substantially less significant sum. From the time of the original 2012 Facebook order to 2018, Facebook’s gross annual revenue increased more than 1000% from $5 billion to over $55 billion. Its 2019 revenues indicate continued growth, posting first-quarter earnings of over $15 billion. Put another way, as of this year, Facebook brings in around $5 billion on a monthly basis.

6)       In this case, the injury to the public, the defendant’s ability to pay, the desire to eliminate the benefits derived from the violations, and the necessity of vindicating the FTC’s authority—all drive the conclusion that $5 billion is an insufficient civil penalty. Injury to the public can be difficult to quantify in monetary terms in the case of privacy violations. That said, I regard the injury to the public and the institutions of our democracy to be quite substantial. Facebook’s conduct that the Commission alleges violated the order also facilitated Cambridge Analytica’s expropriation of data and manipulation of voters.

7)       My colleagues in the majority note that civil penalties have exceeded $5 billion only in instances of serious environmental disaster or widespread financial fraud. I believe that the injury to the public from damaging the integrity of our elections is as serious if not more serious than environmental and financial harms because it threatens the very systems that stand to protect Americans from those harms. Concern over this fact pattern should be bipartisan; the manipulative tactics weaponized in favour of a particular party in one election can just as easily be turned against it in the next.

8)       The order the Commission voted to accept does not impose any limitations on whether Facebook can transfer information to third parties or to other Facebook subsidiaries. Instead, the order requires Facebook to demand certain purpose and use certifications from third parties that request information, giving Facebook free rein to maintain control over what constitutes a permissible purpose and use. In other words, if Facebook wants third parties to have certain data, it can permit that under its Platform Terms; if Facebook wants to withhold access to that data, it can do so. But there may be a gulf between what is good for Facebook and what is good for its users. I believe that the order itself should limit third-party data access to information necessary to provide or operate the product or service for which the third party is requesting the information—it should not just rely on Facebook’s malleable developer standards.

9)      Finally, the order also fails to impose any substantive restrictions on Facebook’s collection and use of data from or about users (and non-users). This failure, in addition to allowing Facebook to aggregate rich data stores across its platform unfettered, may exacerbate competition as well as privacy concerns. We should strive to ensure that all our enforcement efforts are cognizant of, and not inconsistent with, both our consumer protection and competition missions.

10)  In sum, many of the problems identified in our investigation and in the related Cambridge Analytica investigation arose from the use of data beyond consumers’ expectations or permissions to enhance Facebook’s partnerships and therefore its bottom line. I believe that it is important and appropriate for the order to apply stringent limitations to how Facebook collects, uses, and shares data.

If we go through few reactions about this judgement we can be more enlightened.

House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ):  “While $5 billion is a record fine for the FTC, monetary damages are not enough. Facebook has repeatedly demonstrated that it prioritizes profit over people. Tough oversight is needed to prevent the abuse of consumer information by Facebook and other companies. Comprehensive privacy legislation is necessary to strengthen the FTC’s authorities and give it more enforcement tools and resources so that violating consumers’ privacy and breaking public trust isn’t just the cost of doing business.”
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS): “The settlement between the FTC and Facebook further stresses the need for a strong federal data privacy law. The details of Facebook’s conduct that were illuminated by the FTC’s investigation are troubling. This investigation and settlement, including a fine significantly larger than has ever been assessed by a privacy enforcer anywhere in the world, are examples of the great work the FTC can do. However, without a robust, comprehensive federal privacy law covering data collectors and consumers, bad actors will be able to continue to abuse data in the online marketplace.
Charlotte Slaiman, Competition Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge: "Today we see the result of over a year of investigation and negotiation by the FTC. It is frustrating that the FTC was not able to achieve more significant changes to Facebook’s behaviour going forward. Facebook users cannot count on being protected as a result of this settlement. Under this settlement, Facebook does not have to meaningfully change how it collects and uses your data. Facebook retains complete control over when to share your data outside of Facebook, as long as the company complies with the privacy policy that it gets to write. The settlement also protects Facebook from further enforcement on other potential violations that we may not even know exist. The settlement does not impose any pro-competition terms, such as interoperability requirements or limiting data-sharing between Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp to the same terms used with third-parties so that competitors can compete fairly. While the settlement does require additional auditing processes and reporting requirements as well as a very large fine, the settlement is weak given the repeated violations and the severity of the harm. We must pass new and more effective privacy laws, as well as broader platform regulation aimed at improving competition in the sector so that consumers can more easily switch to an alternative product if they are not happy.”
Eric Null, senior counsel at New America’s Open Technology Institute: “With the Facebook settlement, the FTC appears to be stepping up its privacy enforcement. But consumers should be sceptical that the settlement will lead to any effective change in online privacy protections or Facebook’s business practices—the company was rewarded on the stock market for the settlement, the settlement imposed no meaningful restrictions on Facebook’s data collection and sharing practices, and structural changes require a tenacious overseer to ensure compliance or they may lead to nothing. Today’s settlement exemplifies the need for strong privacy legislation, which could better protect consumers everywhere by making many practices, including those Facebook engaged in, explicitly unlawful. The FTC only achieved as much as it did because it had a prior consent decree in place. Without comprehensive privacy legislation, consumers will likely end up with more of the same.”
Free Press Policy Counsel Gaurav Laroia: “While the $5-billion fine is one of the largest in the FTC’s history, it still falls far too short. As Commissioners Chopra and Slaughter explained in their dissents, the FTC’s $5-billion fine is unlikely to change the company’s behaviour. It represents just one month’s worth of earnings for Facebook and is a tiny fraction of the company’s growth in revenue since it entered into a consent decree with the agency in 2012 for violating its users’ privacy. Far more serious consequences are needed to curb the tech industry’s behaviour and its amoral pursuit of growth at our expense. This settlement doesn’t change that underlying dynamic. The FTC order places no meaningful limits on Facebook’s collection of users’ personal information. The settlement also fails to address the business model that incentivizes the invasive and manipulative practices the company was fined for. The Cambridge Analytica scandal rightfully motivated the FTC’s to reopen its investigation into Facebook. The company’s lax privacy controls enabled the manipulation of voters in the 2016 election and damaged our democracy. Without corrective action, the business of behavioural advertising is bound to harm our social, political and private lives again and again. It’s now up to Congress to pass legislation to protect our privacy, our democracy and our civil rights.”
Marta Tellado, President and CEO of Consumer Reports: “As expected, the size of the settlement is historic, but these attempts to hold Facebook accountable are not enough to make a real difference. With a weak and under-resourced FTC, and a glaring need for far more comprehensive privacy laws, Congress must raise the standards for consumers and hold Big Tech accountable. Lawmakers have a responsibility to pass laws that offer real protections, giving consumers control of their data and the FTC the power it needs to rein in Big Tech. The details of this settlement make it brutally clear that this isn’t just about Facebook’s privacy policies.  Facebook made a concerted effort to control and manipulate consumer choices, by misrepresenting how they do business, and how they treat their users.”
Open Markets Institute: "The Open Markets Institute denounces the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) official $5 billion settlement with Facebook. Even as the FTC’s complaint alleges that Facebook committed major privacy violations, the FTC still failed to question Mark Zuckerberg and has not required an admission of guilt by the corporation, protecting Facebook from legal liability.

The Guardian-- No collection of scandals, errors, embarrassments, hearings, threats of regulation, fines, or public scolding’s like this one seem to able to stall these two companies in their quest to become the operating systems of our lives. The world has never seen anything like Google. The world has never seen anything like Facebook.

By going through the tone of dissenting judgement it becomes clear that many in this world holds view that Marc Zuckerberg should have been personally held liable for the data breach in its criminal capacity because it is this person who is cheating the entire world with his false promises and assurances. The 2012 assurances from the Facebook to FTC and thereafter breaches of the same by FB are now in public domain and how this serial offender can be believed for his future assurances and promises?

As of 2018, Facebook had more than 2.2 billion monthly active users worldwide. Personal information, such as user’s real name, date of birth, hometown, current city, employer, relationship status, and spouse’s name, as well as sensitive personal information, such as political views, sexual orientation, photos of minor children, and membership in health-related and other support groups is used by FB for its marketing purpose. Users can also provide information about themselves by indicating that they “like” public Facebook pages. Research suggests that a user’s “likes” of public Facebook pages can be used to accurately predict that user’s personality traits, sometimes better than the user’s own friends and family. In addition, Facebook users may install and use applications (“apps”) developed by third-parties (“third-party developers”) that allow the users to share information with their Facebook Friends.

In 2012, after an FTC investigation, Facebook settled allegations that its practice of sharing Affected Friends’ data with third-party developers of apps was deceptive. The resulting Commission Order, among other things, prohibited Facebook from misrepresenting the extent to which consumers can control the privacy of their information, the steps that consumers must take to implement such controls, and the extent to which Facebook makes user information accessible to third parties. But even in 2018 it was found by FTC, after revelations in Cambridge Analytica’s case, that FB is sharing its user’s data to its app developers who in turn are misusing/commercially exploiting the same. So can such company be called trustworthy? If the company can cheat the nation in which it is born, can such company will remain faithful to other nation? Can such company be blindly relied upon is the core issue.

Between November 2015 and March 2018, Facebook asked its users to provide personal information to take advantage of security measures on the Facebook website or mobile application, including a two-factor authentication measure that encouraged provision of users’ phone numbers. But Facebook did not effectively disclose that such information would also be used for advertising. This shows the mens rea of the policy makers of the company and specially its CEO Marc Zuckerberg’s intentions to defraud and cheat the people by mere lip services. We are overwhelmed by the red carpet welcome My Dear Marc received in Modi 1.0 tenure and assurances he made to make global citizens lives simpler and easier with the POWER TO CONNECT. But the real face behind this POWER TO CONNECT was to sell their sensitive personal data and information to mint money!!!!!

One of the significant disclosures by FB in FTC investigations is, “The full scale of unauthorized collection, use, and disclosure of consumer information resulting from Facebook’s conduct is unknown due, at least in part, to the company’s lack of recordkeeping.”

Can anyone believe that FB not having proper record keeping regarding who accessed which information and how many times any information was accessed? To my mind this evasive reply is just to make the penalty quantum very less as it will create confusion in minds of commissioners regarding the real valuation of the sensitive personal data compromised. This quantum of undervalued compromise decree to the tune of 5 Billion Dollars can be guessed from the reaction of the US stock markets in which FB stock gained after this compromise decree was announced. It means markets were expecting much higher penalties on FB than the inflicted one.

To my mind India should be more concerned and watchful about the FTC findings and the manner in which India is welcoming FB group in India. A company with highest following in terms of user base is working on the diametrically opposite principles followed in India which is TRUTH. The company’s decision of accepting US FTC’s offer of compromise settlement rather than challenging the same in Court of Law itself establishes than company has more to lose in civil suit than 5 Billion dollars. So it was easy escape route offered to one of the biggest Social Media giants in the world.

Have you ever seen any example of such meagre surrender by the respondents in any law suits especially when 5 Billion is at the stake?

As a country we must be ready to read between the lines of this FTC Judgement and be more careful while dealing with such companies in future.

If FTC can act then why not any Indian Statutory Bodies like Competition Commission of India or Indian Courts by way of Suo Motu PIL act when FB is openly compromising privacy of the Indian Citizen, is the million dollar question.

 

AND MAHENDRA LIMAYE ASSOCIATES WANTS TO KNOW THE ANSWER.

This article is just to provide the spark needed for much bigger debate amongst intellectuals in India, especially those who are concerned about sovereignty and security of the nation!!!!

JAI HIND.

Reply us on mahendralimaye@yahoo.com or call 09422109619

 

Indian Government should not allow Whatspp to start payment feature

In recent Q2, 2018 post meeting conference, Mark Zuckerberg said Facebook is waiting for a green signal from the government of India to roll out peer-to-peer payments feature for over 200 million users on the instant mobile messaging platform. 

Its my sincere appeal to Government of India for not providing any such permissions to Facebook/Whatsapp. There are various issues clubbed together in this appeal.

The first and foremost objection for such opposition is the way Facebook as principal and whatsapp as its subsidiary is dealing with Government of India.In matters of finding out various solutions for curbing fake news issues,this company has came out openly rejecting Government's request stating its against privacy laws in USA. If this company's main alignment is towards following the laws of USA then what is the guarantee that in matters of financial transactions this company will obey and follow laws laid down by Reserve Bank of India or any other institution in India? Are these companies submitting themselves to Indian Jurisdiction? How many Facebook and Whatsapp users presently know about their submission to which country's laws.The way Marc Zuckerberg is responding in US Senate as well as in EU it makes this fact clear that BREAK THE RULES is motto of this company and which has only one motto of ruling the world through social media then and through economic ruling now.

We must understand the ill-intentions behind this payment feature.A company having its monopoly over most of the population of world through social media and which can influence the mindsets to topple the various regimes and change the entire mindset of the population, if got opportunity to handle the finances of the population it will give huge amount of weaponry in its hands which no government in world would be able to fight.

A company having its budget equivalent with almost  70% countries in the world if get opportunity to enter financial sector in India will further become more stronger and practically will influence choices/thinking/liking habits of 85% of the worlds population.

We have been proudly saying that we are fastest growing economy in world and I certainly foresee a threat to this fastest growing economy by this company called Facebook.

There would be certainly questions to this logic ,as I am no authority on Economic affairs but my limited study taught me that "POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY".

A company with its dominant position in social media if got the booster of financial transactions from country like India,it would be disaster for democracies in the world and those democracies could be mere puppets dancing on tunes of Facebook.

Its very positive and appropriate move by Government of India to deny the permission. Zuckerberg's stock lost almost $17 billion within an hour after the company reported slow users' growth in Q2 2018, said "we've broadened our focus to building this [Payments feature] for other countries so we can give more people this ability faster". 

So the ambition is very clear to rule the world through social media as well as Payment feature and Government of India should think in directions of not encouraging monopoly of this Foreign company in Payment sector.

Another objection to this company is in regards with Data security and Privacy.Time and again issues of Data Breach have been surfaced about Facebook and they have accepted.acknowledged the same and remained non-committal about the protection of Data. This company is facing huge legal battles for Data Breaches and may be required to pay huge compensations. So when financial feature was not integral part of this company,so many data breaches occurred,How this company can be trusted when it will be operating solely on Financial Data?

A company,whose sole foundation in based on Data sale,whats guarantee that it will not sale the Financial Data and revert back to its apology strategy?

Advocate Mahendra Limaye

Cyber Legal consultant

  

MORE APPS LOOTING OUR DATA THROUGH FACEBOOK

Was Cambridge Analytica data breach of 87 million users, less shocking? Here is another shocker from Facebook.

Ime Archibong, VP of Product Partnerships Facebook has reported yesterday, 14 May 2018, that FB has suspended 200 more Apps functioning on Facebook apprehending data misuse by them. Earlier Marc Zuckerberg has made clear before US Senators, that FB had concerns about individual apps and they would audit them — and any app that either refused or failed an audit would be banned from Facebook.

According to FB, the investigation and audit process is in full swing, and it has two phases. First, a comprehensive review to identify every app that had access to Facebook user’s data. And second, where FB have concerns, FB will conduct interviews, make requests for information (RFI) — which ask a series of detailed questions about the app and the data it has access to — and perform audits that may include on-site inspections.

The release further reports, “We have large teams of internal and external experts working hard to investigate these apps as quickly as possible. To date thousands of apps have been investigated and around 200 have been suspended — pending a thorough investigation into whether they did in fact misuse any data. Where we find evidence that these or other apps did misuse data, we will ban them and notify people via FB website. It will show people if they or their friends installed an app that misused data before 2015 — just as FB did for Cambridge Analytica. There is a lot more work to be done to find all the apps that may have misused people’s Facebook data – and it will take time. We are investing heavily to make sure this investigation is as thorough and timely as possible. We will keep you updated on our progress.”

So it’s clear that 200 more apps have been primarily identified by FB investigation team involved in unethical practises and still all the apps investigation is not complete. This number is certainly to increase. Now if one single app of Mr. Kogan can threaten 87 millions users’ data out of 200 million users of FB, then what could be number of users, whose data might be compromised, through these 200 apps?
This acknowledgment of FB should be seen as an eye-opener by governments across the world and they should immediately review their privacy laws and act proactively for protection of data of the citizen. In pursuit of free information we have made huge mistake by using these social media apps and now will be required to pay heavy price in coming days.
And the real question is, if these 200 apps have also sold our data then what happens? Whom should we held liable for the data breach? Civil and Criminal action should be initiated against whom? How can we consider ourselves safe in cyberspace? Who will ensure safety and security of our data in cyberspace?

Hope we are able to find out answers to above questions.

Mark Zuckerberg answers before U S Congress and some food for thought by Adv. Mahendra Limaye.

Let me give you brief idea about the analysis of this Marc Zuckerberg interaction with Senators in U S Senate. On backdrop of Cambridge Analytica scandal every digital citizen is concerned about the security of his data but in reality unable to understand on whom to trust? U S Congress initiated a proactive move and called founder of Facebook to explain about these data leak concerns and many more related data ownership issues. We may be thinking that these issues are concerning U S scenario and irrelevant in Indian context. So to make Indian as well as global netizens aware about what was the take away of entire proceedings in Indian as well as global context, this analysis is done by advocate Mahendra Limaye, a renowned Cyber Legal Consultant and Faculty for Cyber Laws. Let me be very candid and clear about the analysis. The majority of the replies by Mr. Zuckerberg, to various pointed and well articulated questions by 44 U S senators were answered very evasively and infertile manner. Mr. Zuckerberg tried to be more like a politician than a Technocrat by diverting the attention of entire questioning to some other non-relevant issue or promising to get back with the answer with concerned person after some time.

A technocrat was expected to provide more definite, conclusive and logical answers on the backdrop of his opening remarks that, “We didn’t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake. It was my mistake, and I’m sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here.” But in reality what I observed was that these were all tutored answers by battery of legal luminaries at his discretion, who advised him not to commit any more mistakes and provide any evidences against him to be sued.

Let’s start with analysis of the answers by Mr. Zuckerberg to questions by the senators.

1) Senator NELSON: “Yes, you did that, and you apologized for it. But you didn't notify them. And do you think that you have an ethical obligation to notify 87 million Facebook users?”

ZUCKERBERG: “Senator, when we heard back from Cambridge Analytica that they had told us that they weren't using the data and had deleted it, we considered it a closed case. In retrospect, that was clearly a mistake.”

Now here question was specific about whether notification was given to 87 million FB users whose Data was compromised and answer was not to the point. So by admitting the mistake whether notifications to 87 million users were sent remained unanswered and in my view it needs to be answered and if answer is negative then strict action should be taken against FB.

NELSON: Well, the recent scandal is obviously frustrating, not only because it affected 87 million, but because it seems to be part of a pattern of lax data practices by the company, going back years.So, back in 2011, it was a settlement with the FTC. And, now, we discover yet another incidence where the data was failed to be protected. When you discovered that Cambridge Analytica — that had fraudulently obtained all of this information, why didn't you inform those 87 million?

ZUCKERBERG: No, senator, for the same reason — that we'd considered it a closed — a closed case.

It is evident that Facebook was guilty of non-protection of user’s data in 2011 and there was settlement with FTC and this is not the first incidence wherein FB is accused of data breaches. It means FB seems to be habitual offender or in mild words bit casual as far as data security is concerned. And again Mr. Zuckerberg gives evasive answer that we thought it to be closed case. So simple doubt which may come in anyone’s mind is if a company like FB can be so casual in ascertaining whether data is permanently deleted or not and also not concerned about intimation to 87 million users about data compromise; is this company really resolute, willing and capable of protecting data of 200 million users across the globe? Whether people should rely on the capabilities of FB to protect their data? Is FB really concerned about security?

2) FEINSTEIN: “If you knew in 2015 that Cambridge Analytica was using the information of Professor Kogan's, why didn't Facebook ban Cambridge in 2015? Why'd you wait?”

ZUCKERBERG:  “Senator, that's a — a great question. Cambridge Analytica wasn't using our services in 2015, as far as we can tell. So this is — this is clearly one of the questions that I asked our team, as soon as I learned about this — is why — why did we wait until we found out about the reports last month to — to ban them. It's because, as of the time that we learned about their activity in 2015, they weren't an advertiser. They weren't running pages. So we actually had nothing to ban.”

This answer clearly establishes how much FB was concerned about Data leak and tried to hide it from entire world. Had it not been revealed by the WHISTLE-BLOWER Mr. Christopher Wylie, FB would have tried to keep it under carpet and it proves the mindset of the people working at top-management with FB. They knew well in 2015 that Data breach has happened but tried to underplay entire incident in hope that it will never see a light and will be buried under the time. But the people at the helm of affairs at FB seem to have forgotten the golden rule that DATA NEVER SLEEPS. In my views FB also attracts the penal provisions for wilfully hiding the facts and being a part of criminal conspiracy. And though CA were not using services of FB, it was established that Kogan’s app has provided the requisite data and he could have been very well acted upon by FB. FB didn’t initiate the legal action against Kogan and this act substantiates that FB must have received some monitory penalties from Kogan and might have hushed up the matter.

3) SEN. ORRIN G. HATCH : Why Facebook and Google don’t charge for access? Nothing in life is free. Everything involves trade-offs. If you want something without having to pay money for it, you're going to have to pay for it in some other way, it seems to me. And that's where — what we're seeing here. And these great websites that don't charge for access — they extract value in some other way. It’s consumer choice. Do users understand what they're agreeing to — to when they access a website or agree to terms of service? Are websites upfront about how they extract value from users, or do they hide the ball? Do consumers have the information they need to make an informed choice regarding whether or not to visit a particular website? To my — to my mind, these are questions that we should ask or be focusing on. Well, if so, how do you sustain a business model in which users don't pay for your service?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, we run ads.

The question by senator itself explains more than what was answered by Mr. Zuckerberg. If you are getting something free then you have to pay for it in some other form and in the case of FB, it’s your data which you upload on FB. It’s also queried that whether users are aware about how value is extracted from their posts, for which Mr. Zuckerberg preferred silence and remained answerless. His only answer to entire direct question was we run ads. He has never come up with the details about revenue received from ads and targeted ads revenue. I need to explain what I mean by ads and targeted ads for readers understanding. I presume that FB ad tariff is based on the number of audience you want to cater and the time and geographical demography. The more precise your target audience, the higher would be the ad rates as FB would be putting more efforts in Data mining for targeted ads. So it can be certainly presumed that the more data you put on FB, it’s more advantageous for FB to exploit you for targeted advertisement. By running simple ads which can be open for all the users of FB, FB is not earning much revenue but by providing facility of targeted audience FB is making most of its money and it may be concluded that by exploiting Data of the users FB is making money. If we understand traditional advertising like newspapers, electronic or hoardings, the tariffs vary mostly on circulation and page location in case of newspapers; viewership and time slot in case of electronic media; location, size and number of footfalls in case of hoardings. And these tariffs are same for all the advertisers and the important data like circulation of newspaper or viewership of electronic media are available for general public to access. All these advertising media’s cannot assure the desired outcome of the advertising but FB, having huge analysed Data of users at its discretion, can certainly assure targeted audience by more precision and have monopoly over the data. Another major difference is other ads are open to all the audience who happen to come across the same whereas targeted ads by Facebook are displayed to pre-selected set of people. So these running of ads by FB can’t be covered under category of simple ads but needs to be redefined and regulated under certain different category where innocent user’s personal information is commercially exploited. In reality user’s innocence and ignorance about what happens to their data after its put on social media platforms is cleverly exploited by Mr. Zuckerberg on pretext of offering the services for free. This needs to be certainly debated at length and regulated as FB has failed miserably to protect that Data and thereby caused huge loss to the users.

4) WICKER- Is it true that — as was recently publicized, that Facebook collects the call and text histories of its users that use Android phones?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, we have an app called Messenger for sending messages to your Facebook friends. And that app offers people an option to sync their — their text messages into the messaging app, and to make it so that — so basically so you can have one app where it has both your texts and — and your Facebook messages in one place. We also allow people the option of ...

WICKER: You can opt in or out of that?

ZUCKERBERG: It is opt-in. You — you have to affirmatively say that you want to sync that information before we get access to it.

This revelation shows that the default settings of most of the features of FB are public and unless you allow FB for ownership and use of the basic information shared on platform, FB doesn’t permit to use those features. It is expected that all the users must select the audience to whom they like to share their information but default settings are such that all the information is made public. It also highlights that FB collects the call as well as text histories of its users when accessed by android phones. It may be possible for FB to gain access to your android phone’s phone book, photos and other audio as well as video files.

WICKER: One other thing: There have been reports that Facebook can track a user's Internet browsing activity, even after that user has logged off of the Facebook platform. Can you confirm whether or not this is true?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator — I — I want to make sure I get this accurate, so it would probably be better to have my team follow up afterwards.

WICKER: You don't know?

ZUCKERBERG: I know that the — people use cookies on the Internet, and that you can probably correlate activity between — between sessions. We do that for a number of reasons, including security, and including measuring ads to make sure that the ad experiences are the most effective, which, of course, people can opt out of. But I want to make sure that I'm precise in my answer, so let me...

Now here Mr. Zuckerberg has clearly ducked the straight forward question about cookies and replies that my team will follow up the same. But after being asked whether he don’t know the answer he acknowledges that FB utilises cookies for assessing the ad experiences, and this affirms my previous assessment that FB’s ad’s can’t be termed as  simple ad’s but those are targeted ad’s after commercially exploiting the free information shared through FB platform by the users. So this again reaffirms that FB is not offering anything free to users but rather making fool of the people by commercially exploiting them.

5) GRAHAM: Do you think the average consumer understands what they're signing up for?

ZUCKERBERG: I don't think that the average person likely reads that whole document.

Now this open acknowledgment that average person does not understand what they are signing up for poses very serious issues about Data privacy and Data security. If people world over don’t understand what they are committing is right or wrong then its respective State’s responsibility and duty to educate people and make them aware about traps and pitfalls laid through social media, as most of the governments are making use of social media in promoting its welfare schemes. It must be considered as primary duty of State to make its citizen digital literate and educated in this era of digitalisation. The social media platforms should not be given free licence to exploit digital illiteracy of the citizen across globe and thereby making people’s data more vulnerable.

6) BLUNT: Do you track devices connected to the device used by individual for their Facebook connection, but (those devices) not necessarily connected to Facebook?

ZUCKERBERG: Yes. There — there may be some data that is necessary to provide the service that we do. But I don't — I don't have that on — sitting here today. So that's something that I would want to follow up on.

This answer is more than an admission that the connected or networked devices are also not safe as far as Data safety and security is concerned. In other words it may be possible that someone may be using mobile phone for accessing FB but the connectivity of that mobile phone is through some hotspot to which more than one device is connected and then FB is capable of extracting some data from all those connected devices or FB may be used on mobile on which other banking apps may be operated and it may be possible for FB to get hold of your banking transactions information. If this understanding is true then just imagine the fate of information residing on all the devices which are in network with the computer or laptop or mobile being used to access FB. The more significant issue is how many users understand these complexities in technologies? There mere understanding is I can access the whole world in privacy. BUT IS THIS UNDERSTANDING TRUE? We certainly have collective responsibility to educate such digital illiterates and make them aware that their privacy is like a glass room where whole world with the help of connected devices can get hold of all his activities done in presumed privacy. And I think this could be greatest service we can offer to mankind in digital era.

7) BLUMENTHAL: I want to show you the terms of service that Alexander Kogan provided to Facebook and note for you that; in fact, Facebook was on notice that he could sell that user information. Have you seen these terms of service before?

ZUCKERBERG: I have not.

BLUMENTHAL: Doesn't that term of service conflict with the FTC order that Facebook was under at that very time that this term of service was, in fact, provided to Facebook. And you'll note that— the FTC order specifically requires Facebook to protect privacy. Isn't there a conflict there?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, it certainly appears that we should have been aware that this app developer submitted a term that was in conflict with the rules of the platform.

BLUMENTHAL: Well, what happened here was, in effect, wilful blindness. It was heedless and reckless, which, in fact, amounted to a violation of the FTC consent decree. Would you agree? Your business model is to monetize user information to maximize profit over privacy. And unless there are specific rules and requirements enforced by an outside agency, I have no assurance that these kinds of vague commitments are going to produce action.

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, we have already a “download your information” tool that allows people to see and to take out all of the information that Facebook — that they've put into Facebook or that Facebook knows about them. So, yes, I agree with that. We already have that. Cambridge Analytica actually did start as an advertiser later in 2015. So we could have in theory banned them then.

The Facebook again stands exposed by the pointed questions by senator and affirmative answers from Marc Zuckerberg. As per terms of service provided by Kogan, it was known to FB that the App developed by Kogan is going to extract data from FB and which could be sold further. And these terms of app of Kogan were accepted by FB prior to issuing installation to Kogan’s app on FB platform. But in spite of knowing the terms of Kogan’s app, FB preferred to remain silent and thereby is partner in crime of Data breach of 87 million FB users. The fact that you are aware about violation of privacy terms by another app developer on your platform and you maintaining silence and in a way consenting for such violation makes FB equally liable for penalties of Data breach. When FB was under obligation of FTC order for maintaining Data privacy of FB users, all this happened and thus makes FB wilful and consenting partner in crime and should be penalised according to the due process of law. FB has clearly displayed its scant respect for rule of law and should be held liable for Data privacy breach.   

8) SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TEX): Thank you, Mr. Zuckerberg, for being here. I know in — up until 2014, a mantra or motto of Facebook was move fast and break things. Is that correct? Do you think some of the misjudgements, perhaps mistakes that you've admitted to here, were as a result of that culture or that attitude, particularly as it regards to personal privacy of the information of your subscribers?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I do think that we made mistakes because of that. But the broadest mistakes that we made here are not taking a broad enough view of our responsibility. And while that wasn't a matter — the “move fast” cultural value is more tactical around whether engineers can ship things and — and different ways that we operate. But I think the big mistake that we've made looking back on this is viewing our responsibility as just building tools, rather than viewing our whole responsibility as making sure that those tools are used for good.

This question by Senator Cornyn about the attitude of FB to move fast and in process break the things and thereby lot of mistakes or misjudgements on part of FB and being acknowledged by Marc Zuckerberg is really an eye-opener for one and all, who are blindly relying on available technologies only on the pretext that these technologies are used in US and hence most authenticate and reliable one. The ardent supporters of these technologies never ever doubted the intentions or pitfall behind creation of these technologies and in process defended these technologies very passionately and vehemently. But these admissions that , “big mistake that we've made looking back on this is viewing our responsibility as just building tools, rather than viewing our whole responsibility as making sure that those tools are used for good” should come as a rude shock to these supporters. By only focusing on building the tools without understanding the capabilities of the hands holding and exploiting these tools is proving to be disastrous and catastrophic now. This ignorance towards the responsibilities of educating and making the society mature and aware before handing over the tools to them and changed moral values of the generation which has created these  technology based tools can not be simply pardoned by mere apology. The repercussion of these mistakes will be witnessed by the world in coming years and which will be more devastating and shattering. Unfortunately many of us are still not ready to believe on these shocking effects which we are about to witness in near future and are ready to forgive and Forget Mr. Marc Zuckerberg. But that will be a huge mistake for mankind. The role of social media in destabilising regimes in Middle East is witnessed by us. Though there is no concrete evidence, still the role played by CA in US elections remains undisputed. There are many State’s elections across the world which will be held in coming months and these tools can be certainly (mis)used by the politicians/multi-national companies for their betterment though detrimental in collective national interest. So for a small mistake on part of FB , how much price world will be required to pay, collectively, will be assessed in coming years and I only hope that It could be affordable to collective population of the world.

 9) HELLER: How long do you keep a user's data, once they — after — after they've left? If they — if they choose to delete their account, how long do you keep their data?

ZUCKERBERG: I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. I know we try to delete it as quickly as is reasonable. We have a lot of complex systems, and it work — takes awhile to work through all that. But I think we try to move as quickly as possible, and I can follow up or have my team follow up.

This is what I say an evasive answer. Can anyone believe that a person who developed the entire app and is at the helm of affairs of the company doesn’t know the answer of the question asked by Senator Heller? Everyone knows that FB never deletes the entire data because that Data is the lifeline of FB business module. Still Mr. Zuckerberg can’t recollect data retention policy of his company after the user has left FB.

10) HARRIS--During the course of this hearing, these last four hours, you have been asked several critical questions for which you don't have answers. And those questions have included whether Facebook can track user's browsing activity even after the user has logged off of Facebook, whether Facebook can track your activity across devices even when you are not logged into Facebook. Who is Face book’s biggest competition? Whether Facebook may store up to 96 categories of user's information? Whether you knew whether Kogan's terms of service and whether you knew if that Kogan could sell or transfer data.

So my question is, did anyone at Facebook have a conversation at the time that you became aware of this breach, and have a conversation where in the decision was made not to contact the users?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I don't know if there were any conversations at Facebook overall because I wasn't in a lot of them. But ...

Here again it was reiterated by the Senator Harris that Mr. Marc Zuckerberg was asked critical questions to which he don’t have answers or he preferred to remain silent. So these observations must compel the readers to draw their own conclusions about the manner in which FB conducted itself in US senate. Why Mr. Zuckerberg was so evasive to answer critical and very significant questions asked in senate? Answering to direct question by Senator Harris, he says there were no discussions regarding Kogan’s confession about Data sale. So it’s really shocking to know that a CEO of company doesn’t think it important to discuss issue like Data breach through his platform and tries to undermine importance of the act. The more basic question is should the world trust such organisations who are so casual about the Data Security issue? Should there be more stringent punishments for such civil and criminal wrongs?

11) KENNEDY: Do you have the right to put my data, a name on my data and share it with somebody?

ZUCKERBERG: I do not believe we have the right to do that.

KENNEDY: Do you have the ability?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, the data is in the system. So ...

KENNEDY: Do you have the ability?

ZUCKERBERG: Technically, I think someone could do that. But that would be a massive breach. So we would never do that.

This is clear admission that the system owner where data resides has the ability to share that data to anybody and use it the way he likes.

12)  JOHNSON --Do you have any idea how many of your users actually read the terms of service, the privacy policy, the statement of rights and responsibilities? I mean, actually read it?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I do not.

JOHNSON: Would you imagine it's a very small percentage?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, who read the whole thing? I would imagine that probably most people do not read the whole thing. But everyone has the opportunity to and consents to it.

The arrogant answer from Mr. Marc Zuckerberg that, “who read the whole thing” is self explanatory. How the trap is laid by such social media apps gathering information and how much they are confident about digital illiteracy of the social media users is evident from these answers. He says everyone has opportunity to read the same but is convinced that most people don’t read the same.

  

This is work of Advocate Mahendra Limaye. You may contact the author by calling 09422109619 or mail mahendralimaye@yahoo.com.