Authorization

Seized cache of Facebook docs raise competition and consent questions

A UK parliamentary committee has published the cache of Facebook documents it dramaticallyseized last week.
The documents were obtained by a legal discovery process by a startup thats suing the social network in a California court in a case related to Facebook changing data access permissions back in 2014/15.
The court had sealed the documents but the DCMS committee used rarely deployed parliamentary powers to obtain them from the Six4Three founder, during a business trip to London.
You can read the redacted documents here all 250 pages of them.
In a series of tweetsregarding the publication, committee chair Damian Collins says he believes there is considerable public interest in releasing them.
They raise important questions about how Facebook treats users data, their policies for working with app developers, and how they exercise their dominant position in the social media market, he writes.
We dont feel we have had straight answers from Facebook on these important issues, which is why we are releasing the documents. We need a more public debate about the rights of social media users and the smaller businesses who are required to work with the tech giants. I hope that our committee investigation can stand up for them.
The committee has been investigating online disinformation and election interference for the best part of this year, and has been repeatedly frustrated in its attempts to extract answers from Facebook.
But it is protected by parliamentary privilege hence its now published the Six4Three files, having waited a week in order to redact certain pieces of personal information.
Collins has included a summary of key issues, as the committee sees them after reviewing the documents, in which he draws attention to six issues.
Here is his summary of the key issues:



White Lists Facebook have clearly entered into whitelisting agreements with certain companies, which meant that after the platform changes in 2014/15 they maintained full access to friends data. It is not clear that there was any user consent for this, nor how Facebook decided which companies should be whitelisted or not.




Value of friends data It is clear that increasing revenues from major app developers was one of the key drivers behind the Platform 3.0 changes at Facebook. The idea of linking access to friends data to the financial value of the developers relationship with Facebook is a recurring feature of the documents.




Reciprocity Data reciprocity between Facebook and app developers was a central feature in the discussions about the launch of Platform 3.0.




Android Facebook knew that the changes to its policies on the Android mobile phone system, which enabled the Facebook app to collect a record of calls and texts sent by the user would be controversial. To mitigate any bad PR, Facebook planned to make it as hard of possible for users to know that this was one of the underlying features of the upgrade of their app.




Onavo Facebook used Onavo to conduct global surveys of the usage of mobile apps by customers, and apparently without their knowledge. They used this data to assess not just how many people had downloaded apps, but how often they used them. This knowledge helped them to decide which companies to acquire, and which to treat as a threat.




Targeting competitor Apps The files show evidence of Facebook taking aggressive positions against apps, with the consequence that denying them access to data led to the failure of that business



The publication of the files comes at an awkward moment for Facebook which remains on the back foot after a string of data and security scandals, and has just announced a major policy change ending a long-running ban on apps copying its own platform features.
Albeit the timing of Facebooks policy shift announcement hardly looks incidental given Collins said last week the committee would publish the files this week.
The policy in question has been used by Facebook to close down competitors in the past, such as two years ago when it cut off style transfer app Prismas access to its live-streamingLive API when the startup tried to launch a livestreaming art filter (Facebook subsequently launched its own style transfer filters for Live).
So its policy reversal now looks intended to diffuse regulatory scrutiny around potential antitrust concerns.
But emails in the Six4Three files suggesting that Facebook took aggressive positions against competing apps could spark fresh competition concerns.
In one email dated January 24, 2013, a Facebook staffer, Justin Osofsky, discusses Twitters launch of its short video clip app, Vine, and says Facebooks response will be to close off its API access.
As part of their NUX, you can find friends via FB. Unless anyone raises objections, we will shut down their friends API access today. Weve prepared reactive PR, and I will let Jana know our decision, he writes.
Osofskys email is followed by what looks like a big thumbs up from Zuckerberg, who replies: Yup, go for it.
Also of concern on the competition front is Facebooks use of a VPN startup it acquired, Onavo, to gather intelligence on competing apps either for acquisition purposes or to target as a threat to its business.
The files show various Onavo industry charts detailing reach and usage of mobile apps and social networks with each of these graphs stamped highly confidential.
Facebook bought Onavo back in October 2013. Shortly after it shelled out $19BN to acquire rival messaging app WhatsApp which one Onavo chart in the cache indicates was beasting Facebook on mobile, accounting for well over double the daily message sends at that time.


Onavo charts are quite an insight into facebooks commanding view of the app-based attention marketplace pic.twitter.com/Ezdaxk6ffC
David Carroll ? (@profcarroll) December 5, 2018
See also:
Leave a comment
News
  • Latest
  • Read
  • Commented
Calendar Content
«     2018    »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31