WEBVTT - The Facebook Privacy Problem 0:00:04.120 --> 0:00:07.160 Get in touch with technology with tech Stuff from how 0:00:07.200 --> 0:00:13.920 stuff works dot com. Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. 0:00:13.960 --> 0:00:17.759 I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with 0:00:17.800 --> 0:00:20.439 How Stuff Works, and I heart radio and I love 0:00:20.600 --> 0:00:26.239 all things tech. And today we're going to dive into 0:00:26.440 --> 0:00:31.280 a recent story. On March sixth, two thousand nineteen, Facebook 0:00:31.360 --> 0:00:36.280 co founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted a very long 0:00:36.520 --> 0:00:42.639 essay titled a Privacy Focused Vision for Social Networking on Facebook. 0:00:42.680 --> 0:00:46.960 Of course, the post has prompted a lot of discussion 0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:49.720 in the tech space as well as the political space, 0:00:50.360 --> 0:00:54.800 over what Zuckerberg actually means, both for Facebook users and 0:00:54.920 --> 0:00:58.760 for the company itself, and it raises some interesting questions. 0:00:58.880 --> 0:01:02.040 So today I thought I dedicate an episode to Facebook 0:01:02.240 --> 0:01:06.360 and the concept of privacy, because the two things have 0:01:06.640 --> 0:01:11.280 long been at odds with one another. You wouldn't necessarily 0:01:11.760 --> 0:01:17.080 associate Facebook with privacy, and that's part of the problem. Now, 0:01:17.560 --> 0:01:20.560 before I dive into the essay, and I'm going to 0:01:20.800 --> 0:01:23.560 quote the essay quite a bit, but don't worry, I'm 0:01:23.560 --> 0:01:27.440 not reading out the whole three thousand, six hundred word thing. 0:01:28.000 --> 0:01:30.520 But let me set the stage a little bit. We're 0:01:30.520 --> 0:01:34.960 gonna dial back the clock to January twenty ten. Facebook 0:01:34.959 --> 0:01:38.200 had been around for several years and Michael Arrington of 0:01:38.240 --> 0:01:43.560 tech Crunch interviewed Mark Zuckerberg in January to talk all 0:01:43.600 --> 0:01:46.280 about Facebook. And this is what Zuckerberg had to say 0:01:46.280 --> 0:01:49.840 about the concept of privacy back then. So this is 0:01:50.040 --> 0:01:54.440 nine years ago. People have gotten really comfortable not only 0:01:54.560 --> 0:01:58.720 sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and 0:01:58.760 --> 0:02:02.240 with more people. That social norm is just something that's 0:02:02.240 --> 0:02:05.240 evolved over time. We view it as a role in 0:02:05.280 --> 0:02:08.840 the system to constantly be innovating and be updating. Water 0:02:08.960 --> 0:02:12.600 system is to reflect what the current social norms are. 0:02:14.200 --> 0:02:17.960 So essentially, Zuckerberg was saying that things have changed culture, 0:02:18.760 --> 0:02:21.760 you know, values had changed, where things that might have 0:02:21.880 --> 0:02:26.519 been considered private in the past now we're public. People 0:02:26.560 --> 0:02:33.239 were eagerly sharing private thoughts on social media platforms, and 0:02:33.320 --> 0:02:37.120 they were sharing more and more with more people, people 0:02:37.200 --> 0:02:40.919 who might not be close friends, they might be further 0:02:41.200 --> 0:02:45.440 out in that person's social network, they might even be strangers. 0:02:45.480 --> 0:02:48.560 So in that discussion, Zuckerberg was essentially making the claim 0:02:48.760 --> 0:02:52.400 that Facebook's policies and operations were a reaction to the 0:02:52.520 --> 0:02:57.440 changing values of the culture at large that this was happening, 0:02:57.560 --> 0:03:01.680 so Facebook was changing to cater to that. Now, not 0:03:01.800 --> 0:03:07.960 everyone agreed with that particular assertion, including yours, truly, I 0:03:08.040 --> 0:03:13.000 also didn't think that this was a totally genuine response. 0:03:13.320 --> 0:03:18.359 I would argue instead that Facebook is dependent upon people 0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:21.960 issuing privacy and that the company has done a great 0:03:22.000 --> 0:03:27.160 deal to encourage this kind of oversharing behavior. I'm not 0:03:27.200 --> 0:03:30.600 saying that Facebook is fully responsible for it, merely that 0:03:30.639 --> 0:03:34.640 the company has greatly encouraged it. I mean, that's what 0:03:34.800 --> 0:03:38.240 the company is based around. So rather than react to 0:03:38.640 --> 0:03:41.680 a cultural shift, I would argue Facebook has done a 0:03:41.680 --> 0:03:46.600 lot to boost or push for that shift. So again, 0:03:46.680 --> 0:03:50.640 not fully responsible. I wouldn't say that Facebook is the 0:03:50.720 --> 0:03:56.119 culture king, that's the kingmaker of culture, but rather they 0:03:56.160 --> 0:03:59.800 saw the opportunity and they pushed really hard for that 0:04:00.040 --> 0:04:03.960 to become the social norm. And the reason for doing 0:04:04.000 --> 0:04:09.400 that is really really simple, because it's cash, cash money, y'all. 0:04:09.920 --> 0:04:13.880 Facebook provides a service to users, right, It's a social 0:04:13.920 --> 0:04:17.599 media platform we can use, but the way the company 0:04:17.680 --> 0:04:22.200 makes money is largely through advertising. So you can think 0:04:22.200 --> 0:04:26.480 of Facebook's product as being your data, assuming that you 0:04:26.560 --> 0:04:30.680 use Facebook, of course, and your data might include specific 0:04:30.720 --> 0:04:35.000 facts about your identity, like your home address, your phone number, 0:04:35.279 --> 0:04:38.560 your name, your age, your occupation, the schools you attended. 0:04:39.240 --> 0:04:41.960 It might also include information about people you know and 0:04:42.000 --> 0:04:45.479 your relation to those people. So it might have the 0:04:45.520 --> 0:04:48.760 identity of your spouse or family members, and it may 0:04:48.800 --> 0:04:51.880 even identify them as such because you can, you know, 0:04:51.960 --> 0:04:56.479 designate people as having a specific relationship to you. That's 0:04:56.520 --> 0:05:00.279 valuable to you to have these particular circle is like 0:05:00.320 --> 0:05:02.080 if you want to message just people who are in 0:05:02.160 --> 0:05:05.440 your family, that's valuable to you, but it's also valuable 0:05:05.760 --> 0:05:09.040 to Facebook to have that information. So Facebook also has 0:05:09.040 --> 0:05:12.479 a record of all your activities on the platform and 0:05:12.640 --> 0:05:15.480 the posts you tend to interact with. So as you 0:05:15.600 --> 0:05:20.400 use Facebook, you generate information. You provide a more complete 0:05:20.520 --> 0:05:24.240 picture of who you are, what you like, what you 0:05:24.400 --> 0:05:28.800 value and more and what Facebook doesn't outright no from 0:05:28.839 --> 0:05:31.760 your input and behavior, it might be able to guess 0:05:31.800 --> 0:05:37.320 at based upon similar behaviors they've seen, so essentially pattern recognition. 0:05:37.640 --> 0:05:40.240 It might notice that lots of people who happen to 0:05:40.320 --> 0:05:45.640 like certain types of posts also like other posts, and 0:05:45.680 --> 0:05:49.039 maybe you haven't liked this other post yet, but because 0:05:49.080 --> 0:05:52.160 you fall into the first category, chances are you'd also 0:05:52.160 --> 0:05:56.400 fall into the second one. Now let's shift our attention 0:05:56.440 --> 0:06:01.520 to advertisers. Advertisers want to get the most for their money, 0:06:01.600 --> 0:06:05.839 which is I mean, that's just easy business, right. Everyone 0:06:05.960 --> 0:06:09.560 wants that, and this doesn't make advertisers bad people. But 0:06:10.000 --> 0:06:12.280 they want to get the most bang for their buck. 0:06:12.480 --> 0:06:15.440 They need to get the word out about products or services, 0:06:15.680 --> 0:06:18.040 and they want to focus on people who are most 0:06:18.120 --> 0:06:21.599 likely to respond to those advertisements and make a purchase. 0:06:21.960 --> 0:06:24.760 It doesn't do you any good to send ads to 0:06:24.839 --> 0:06:29.080 somebody and those ads have nothing in common with that person. 0:06:29.440 --> 0:06:31.760 If the person is never going to buy your product 0:06:31.839 --> 0:06:34.520 or service just because of who they are, it's a 0:06:34.560 --> 0:06:37.560 waste of time and resources to send that add to them. 0:06:37.880 --> 0:06:42.120 So the more information advertisers have about a potential target 0:06:42.320 --> 0:06:46.400 or customer, the better campaigns could even be tailored for 0:06:46.480 --> 0:06:49.760 specific types of people. You could have a really good 0:06:49.760 --> 0:06:54.320 advertising company craft different ads, all meant for the same 0:06:54.360 --> 0:06:59.200 product or service, but intended to target different types of people. 0:06:59.640 --> 0:07:02.800 So you might see one version of an ad for 0:07:02.839 --> 0:07:06.000 a product and your buddy sees a totally different version 0:07:06.040 --> 0:07:09.039 of an ad for that same product, but the two 0:07:09.080 --> 0:07:12.800 different versions of the ads were selected because of differences 0:07:12.800 --> 0:07:16.080 between you and your buddy. Maybe you really like hiking 0:07:16.480 --> 0:07:19.120 and your buddy really likes the beach, and this is 0:07:19.160 --> 0:07:23.320 an outdoor sporting event type company. Maybe it's uh, you know, 0:07:23.400 --> 0:07:28.960 a sports equipment type company, And so they send one 0:07:29.000 --> 0:07:32.840 ad to you that is geared more towards hiking, camping 0:07:32.880 --> 0:07:35.040 and that kind of thing, and one to your buddy 0:07:35.240 --> 0:07:38.240 that's more about beach life kind of stuff. It's both 0:07:38.280 --> 0:07:41.440 for the same company or service, but the ad has 0:07:41.520 --> 0:07:46.600 been selected specifically because of differences in your preferences that 0:07:46.680 --> 0:07:49.920 Facebook is able to keep track of. If that means 0:07:49.960 --> 0:07:52.720 that either of you are more likely to make a purchase, 0:07:52.840 --> 0:07:56.240 then that's a valuable expense for the advertiser. So you 0:07:56.240 --> 0:07:59.600 start to see how all these little pieces of data 0:08:00.000 --> 0:08:02.800 start to add up to become incredibly valuable. And then 0:08:02.800 --> 0:08:06.480 you think about Facebook being a data broker with all 0:08:06.640 --> 0:08:10.200 this information about you and all these potential advertisers to 0:08:10.240 --> 0:08:13.240 work with, and you really see how the money rolls in. 0:08:13.720 --> 0:08:18.240 So Facebook has a vested interest and people sharing information publicly. 0:08:18.760 --> 0:08:21.880 The more people share about themselves, the more data Facebook 0:08:21.920 --> 0:08:25.360 has about them. So from posts to about you know, 0:08:25.480 --> 0:08:29.800 pets too, pictures of meals, invitations to parties, requests for 0:08:29.920 --> 0:08:33.040 help to seek out a job. Facebook's paying attention to 0:08:33.080 --> 0:08:36.880 all of this, and it has on occasion gone even 0:08:36.920 --> 0:08:40.160 further than that, such as when the site launched the 0:08:40.200 --> 0:08:43.319 Beacon program back in around two thousand eight. I believe 0:08:43.320 --> 0:08:46.480 it was that's what allowed companies that were partnering with 0:08:46.520 --> 0:08:51.360 Facebook they could share activities that Facebook users were doing 0:08:51.520 --> 0:08:54.440 on their sites. So let's say that you are a 0:08:54.559 --> 0:08:59.840 ticket broker company. You you sell tickets to live events, 0:09:00.559 --> 0:09:05.080 and you have this Facebook Beacon partnership, and then I, 0:09:05.240 --> 0:09:08.480 a Facebook user, go to that site and I purchased 0:09:08.480 --> 0:09:13.079 a ticket, then the site could have published that activity 0:09:13.160 --> 0:09:15.600 to my Facebook feed, whether I wanted it or not, 0:09:15.679 --> 0:09:17.600 and a lot of people felt like this was a 0:09:17.760 --> 0:09:21.680 terrible violation of privacy. So maybe you just happened to 0:09:21.679 --> 0:09:24.520 go and buy tickets to go see my little pony 0:09:24.600 --> 0:09:27.079 on Ice, and maybe you don't need all your friends 0:09:27.120 --> 0:09:29.679 on Facebook to know that and then to use that 0:09:29.760 --> 0:09:31.559 information as a way to make fun of you for 0:09:31.600 --> 0:09:35.080 the next decade, for example. But then Beacon goes and 0:09:35.160 --> 0:09:37.800 posts your purchase for all to see on your profile. 0:09:38.440 --> 0:09:40.480 Not that this has happened to anyone I know, and 0:09:41.120 --> 0:09:43.679 it definitely did not happen to me, but you get 0:09:43.679 --> 0:09:48.240 the idea. So Facebook is in the information business, the 0:09:48.280 --> 0:09:50.920 same as Google and lots of other companies that we 0:09:50.960 --> 0:09:53.920 tend to associate with some other type of business. Right, 0:09:54.000 --> 0:09:57.079 most of us think of Facebook as a social network platform. 0:09:57.440 --> 0:09:59.920 We tend to think of Google as a search engine, 0:10:00.120 --> 0:10:05.440 and then increasingly other stuff remotely related to search engines. 0:10:05.720 --> 0:10:09.839 But both companies actually depend heavily on leveraging data about 0:10:09.840 --> 0:10:14.400 their users to entice advertisers. They really are advertising companies 0:10:14.920 --> 0:10:19.120 or companies that host advertising. So it was completely in 0:10:19.120 --> 0:10:22.320 the interests of Facebook for Zuckerberg to declare that the 0:10:22.360 --> 0:10:25.880 notion of privacy was no longer a cultural norm back 0:10:25.920 --> 0:10:29.360 in twenty Whether that was true or not as a 0:10:29.400 --> 0:10:32.720 matter of debate. And certainly, some people appear to have 0:10:32.840 --> 0:10:36.240 little concern for their privacy, and I'm not passing judgment 0:10:36.280 --> 0:10:38.719 on them either, but I suspect there are a lot 0:10:38.720 --> 0:10:41.600 of folks out there who feel otherwise, that privacy still 0:10:41.679 --> 0:10:44.440 is important and still should play a part in our 0:10:44.480 --> 0:10:49.160 interactions online and otherwise, And some pretty high profile incidents 0:10:49.440 --> 0:10:52.640 have brought the topic into sharp focus. If you've been 0:10:52.679 --> 0:10:54.679 listening to my show for a while, you probably heard 0:10:54.720 --> 0:10:58.040 the episodes about Cambridge Analytica and how the data analytics 0:10:58.080 --> 0:11:01.120 company relied upon information and that was pulled from an 0:11:01.160 --> 0:11:04.120 app that left many feeling that they had had their 0:11:04.160 --> 0:11:07.880 privacy violated. The app was a survey that would pay 0:11:08.040 --> 0:11:11.280 users a small fee for completing the survey, and part 0:11:11.280 --> 0:11:14.680 of the process involved granting the survey app access to 0:11:14.800 --> 0:11:18.199 the survey takers Facebook page, so the app could pull 0:11:18.240 --> 0:11:21.839 down information about the person taking the survey. But so far, 0:11:21.920 --> 0:11:24.720 so good, right, I mean, the person taking the survey 0:11:24.880 --> 0:11:28.920 is presumably aware of this process and is getting compensated 0:11:28.960 --> 0:11:32.440 to boot. But then we go a step further. It 0:11:32.480 --> 0:11:35.560 turned out the app was also pulling down information about 0:11:35.679 --> 0:11:39.120 the friends connected to the survey takers, so not just 0:11:39.200 --> 0:11:43.520 the taker him or herself, but that person's friends. The 0:11:43.559 --> 0:11:47.200 app's permission allowed the administrator of the app to view 0:11:47.280 --> 0:11:51.280 the survey taker's friends profiles as if the app were 0:11:51.320 --> 0:11:54.280 a friend of those people itself. So let's say you 0:11:54.360 --> 0:11:57.640 and I are friends on Facebook. Sometimes you make a 0:11:57.679 --> 0:12:00.800 public post on Facebook and anyone in your feed can 0:12:00.840 --> 0:12:04.720 read that public post. Anybody, No problem there? Right? That 0:12:04.720 --> 0:12:07.200 That makes perfect sense. But sometimes let's say that you 0:12:07.280 --> 0:12:10.840 post so that only your friends can see those status updates. 0:12:10.880 --> 0:12:14.280 The general public never sees them. However, I'm your friend, 0:12:14.440 --> 0:12:17.839 so I can see those posts. Then I decide I'm 0:12:17.840 --> 0:12:20.280 gonna go take this survey, and I agree to the 0:12:20.280 --> 0:12:24.079 apps terms, not knowing what all is entailed with that, 0:12:24.400 --> 0:12:27.840 And now the app can see your profile as if 0:12:27.880 --> 0:12:30.680 the app were me, meaning it can get access to 0:12:30.760 --> 0:12:35.000 all those status updates you made using the friends only option, 0:12:35.280 --> 0:12:38.480 and you never agreed to that. You're you are an 0:12:38.559 --> 0:12:42.040 unknowing party. You never gave permission to the app or 0:12:42.080 --> 0:12:46.680 to me, You just had all that information accessed. Facebook 0:12:46.679 --> 0:12:49.440 would address that problem after people brought it to the 0:12:49.480 --> 0:12:52.600 company's attention, and this was actually years before the Cambridge 0:12:52.640 --> 0:12:56.640 Analytica scandal really broke out in public knowledge, but the 0:12:56.720 --> 0:12:59.800 damage was already done. And once the scandal did break 0:13:00.160 --> 0:13:03.720 many people were rightfully upset at Facebook. But that's just 0:13:03.840 --> 0:13:06.920 one example of how Facebook has been less than perfect 0:13:06.960 --> 0:13:11.120 when it comes to protecting users safety. Another recent example 0:13:11.400 --> 0:13:15.200 came to light in late two thousand eighteen, Gizmoto published 0:13:15.200 --> 0:13:19.160 a report that revealed Facebook had done something fairly shady, 0:13:19.280 --> 0:13:22.280 pretty shady I would say with users who had opted 0:13:22.320 --> 0:13:26.080 into two factor authentication with the service. Now see the 0:13:26.080 --> 0:13:29.559 purpose of two factor authentication is to make online profiles 0:13:29.600 --> 0:13:32.400 more secure. That's the whole reason for it, and the 0:13:32.440 --> 0:13:35.800 ideas that you require users to submit proof of identity 0:13:35.960 --> 0:13:40.719 from two categories or factors. The factors we typically look 0:13:40.760 --> 0:13:44.640 at our things you know, things you own, and things 0:13:44.760 --> 0:13:48.920 you are. Facebook was looking at the first two factors. 0:13:48.960 --> 0:13:51.800 The thing you know would be your password. You know 0:13:51.880 --> 0:13:53.719 your password, so you put it in when you log in. 0:13:54.080 --> 0:13:56.800 The thing you own would be a cell phone, a 0:13:56.880 --> 0:14:00.120 cell phone that you have registered with your account. So 0:14:00.240 --> 0:14:04.079 when you enabled two factor authentication, logging into Facebook on 0:14:04.120 --> 0:14:06.720 a new machine would prompt you to provide your password, 0:14:06.960 --> 0:14:09.520 and then Facebook would send you a one time code 0:14:09.720 --> 0:14:14.280 to your phone, which you would then enter into Facebook's site. 0:14:14.760 --> 0:14:17.680 And by proving you had both the password and the phone, 0:14:17.920 --> 0:14:20.360 you're essentially proving you are who you claim to be. 0:14:20.720 --> 0:14:22.840 It's supposed to cut down on the chance that someone 0:14:22.880 --> 0:14:26.320 else might have access your account just by guessing or 0:14:26.360 --> 0:14:28.560 otherwise getting access to your password. If they don't have 0:14:28.600 --> 0:14:31.800 your phone, they can't complete the two factor authentication and 0:14:31.800 --> 0:14:34.920 they're locked out of your account. But Gizmodo found out 0:14:35.040 --> 0:14:38.800 Facebook was also using this process to do something else, 0:14:39.240 --> 0:14:43.520 something not so awesome. The company was using the data 0:14:44.360 --> 0:14:48.800 from these two factor authentication phones to target those users 0:14:48.800 --> 0:14:52.360 with more specific ads. So the system, which was supposed 0:14:52.360 --> 0:14:55.560 to be about providing users with a sense of confidence 0:14:55.560 --> 0:14:59.120 that their accounts were secure, was simultaneously being used to 0:14:59.120 --> 0:15:03.400 generate revenue you for Facebook with targeted advertising. And Facebook 0:15:03.440 --> 0:15:07.800 was doing this by collecting contact information from users phones 0:15:08.160 --> 0:15:11.440 to further fill out the links between social contacts who 0:15:11.440 --> 0:15:15.480 were on Facebook. The Gizmoto report gave a pretty interesting 0:15:15.520 --> 0:15:19.080 account of this. Cashmir Hill, who wrote the piece, did 0:15:19.120 --> 0:15:23.280 an experiment by paying for an ad on Facebook that 0:15:23.360 --> 0:15:26.800 would target a specific phone number, and that phone number 0:15:26.800 --> 0:15:30.600 belonged to the landline for a computer science professor named 0:15:30.640 --> 0:15:34.560 Alan Mislove, and this was with miss Love's consent. He 0:15:34.640 --> 0:15:38.080 was in on this, so miss Love had never provided 0:15:38.120 --> 0:15:42.960 this particular phone number to Facebook. Hill suspected that Facebook 0:15:43.040 --> 0:15:46.600 had made the association between the phone number and Mislove 0:15:46.960 --> 0:15:50.560 by combing through the contact information on phones being used 0:15:50.560 --> 0:15:55.160 for two factor authentication purposes, because after she placed this ad, 0:15:55.280 --> 0:15:59.000 within a couple of hours, miss Love saw it, and again, 0:15:59.200 --> 0:16:01.960 miss Love had never put this particular phone number into 0:16:02.440 --> 0:16:06.840 his profile on Facebook, and yet within two hours of 0:16:06.880 --> 0:16:11.480 the ad being placed, it popped up on his Facebook feed, 0:16:12.120 --> 0:16:14.960 So that meant the company had to get that phone 0:16:15.040 --> 0:16:19.080 number from somewhere, So that sets the stage for this 0:16:19.160 --> 0:16:22.160 privacy concern. Next, we'll take a look at what Mark 0:16:22.240 --> 0:16:25.960 Zuckerberg said about privacy in that essay, and then we'll 0:16:25.960 --> 0:16:29.600 look into some analysis and criticism of that essay. But 0:16:29.720 --> 0:16:40.280 first let's take a quick break. Now you can find 0:16:40.560 --> 0:16:43.880 the full essay that Zuckerberg wrote on Facebook, but I'd 0:16:43.880 --> 0:16:47.400 like to pull some segments to talk about specifically, and 0:16:47.440 --> 0:16:51.120 we're gonna start with the first two paragraphs after the introduction. Now, 0:16:51.160 --> 0:16:53.240 like I said earlier, I'm not going to read out 0:16:53.240 --> 0:16:55.400 the whole thing that would take up nearly an entire 0:16:55.480 --> 0:16:59.200 episode just by itself. But once Zuckerberg is done with 0:16:59.280 --> 0:17:02.480 his introduct and paragraph, he has this to say. Quote. 0:17:03.240 --> 0:17:06.880 Over the last fifteen years, Facebook and Instagram have helped 0:17:06.920 --> 0:17:10.440 people connect with friends, communities, and interests in the digital 0:17:10.480 --> 0:17:14.879 equivalent of a town square. But people increasingly also want 0:17:14.960 --> 0:17:19.080 to connect privately in the digital equivalent of the living room. 0:17:19.119 --> 0:17:21.359 As I think about the future of the Internet. I 0:17:21.400 --> 0:17:25.320 believe a privacy focused communications platform will become even more 0:17:25.359 --> 0:17:29.560 important than today's open platforms. Privacy gives people the freedom 0:17:29.600 --> 0:17:33.080 to be themselves and connect more naturally, which is why 0:17:33.160 --> 0:17:38.040 we build social networks today. We already see that private messaging, 0:17:38.160 --> 0:17:42.080 ephemeral stories, and small groups are by far the fastest 0:17:42.119 --> 0:17:45.480 growing areas of online communication. There are a number of 0:17:45.520 --> 0:17:48.840 reasons for this. Many people prefer the intimacy of communicating 0:17:48.920 --> 0:17:51.560 one on one with just a few friends. People are 0:17:51.560 --> 0:17:54.879 more cautious of having a permanent record of what they've shared, 0:17:55.200 --> 0:17:57.400 and we all expect to be able to do things 0:17:57.440 --> 0:18:02.680 like payments privately and securely. End quote. All right, so far, 0:18:03.200 --> 0:18:08.200 so good. These are not super deep insights, of course, 0:18:08.240 --> 0:18:12.600 they're mostly common sense, But this is Zuckerberg laying down 0:18:12.600 --> 0:18:16.680 the foundation for his position moving forward. There's a growing 0:18:16.760 --> 0:18:21.560 interest in separating out our personal interactions from the public space, 0:18:21.960 --> 0:18:24.720 and there's not really a point here in which Zuckerberg 0:18:24.760 --> 0:18:28.399 addresses targeted advertising, which I would argue is one of 0:18:28.440 --> 0:18:31.480 the big reasons people are interested in moving off of 0:18:31.560 --> 0:18:35.720 public online communications channels. But then I would have been 0:18:35.760 --> 0:18:38.920 surprised to see so candid a statement from him on 0:18:38.960 --> 0:18:42.720 that subject. The statement also seems to ignore the fact 0:18:42.760 --> 0:18:45.520 that Facebook may have played a part in making people 0:18:45.600 --> 0:18:48.120 feel like they need to move to a more private, 0:18:48.240 --> 0:18:52.280 secure platform. So, in other words, Zuckerberry saying, I'm noticing 0:18:52.320 --> 0:18:56.880 this trend, but he's not saying we're responsible for kind 0:18:56.920 --> 0:19:02.440 of creating this desire um, just as he wasn't saying 0:19:02.480 --> 0:19:07.159 that they were responsible for promoting the concept of oversharing 0:19:07.320 --> 0:19:11.399 in the first place. Zuckerberg goes on to assert that 0:19:11.480 --> 0:19:15.720 social networking platforms will remain important moving forward and argues 0:19:15.800 --> 0:19:18.960 that their value and how they connect people together can't 0:19:19.000 --> 0:19:24.040 be understated, that they provide a service that is valuable, 0:19:24.080 --> 0:19:27.399 and therefore they will continue to survive. And he says, quote, 0:19:27.600 --> 0:19:31.080 I understand that many people don't think Facebook can or 0:19:31.119 --> 0:19:34.480 would even want to build this kind of privacy focused 0:19:34.520 --> 0:19:39.200 platform because frankly, we don't currently have a strong reputation 0:19:39.280 --> 0:19:43.520 for building privacy protective services, and we've historically focused on 0:19:43.640 --> 0:19:47.639 tools for more open sharing end quote. Now there's an 0:19:47.640 --> 0:19:51.879 illusion both to the company's privacy related woes and a 0:19:52.000 --> 0:19:56.320 sort of tangential nod to its business model without explicitly 0:19:56.400 --> 0:19:59.960 calling it out. He goes on to say he see 0:20:00.040 --> 0:20:04.440 communications shifting to private and encrypted services, and he says, 0:20:05.000 --> 0:20:09.000 we plan to build this the way we've developed WhatsApp. 0:20:09.320 --> 0:20:13.399 Focus on the most fundamental and private use case, messaging, 0:20:13.640 --> 0:20:17.000 and make it as secure as possible, and then build 0:20:17.040 --> 0:20:19.840 more ways for people to interact on top of that, 0:20:20.200 --> 0:20:26.479 including calls, video chats, groups, stories, businesses, payments, commerce, and 0:20:26.560 --> 0:20:30.200 ultimately a platform for many other kinds of private services. 0:20:30.480 --> 0:20:34.280 End quote, and he lists six principles that he says 0:20:34.280 --> 0:20:37.959 will be important for this new focus to come true. First, 0:20:38.200 --> 0:20:41.120 that people should be able to have private interactions with 0:20:41.160 --> 0:20:45.439 clear controls for who can access those interactions. Next, that 0:20:45.520 --> 0:20:49.480 these methods should incorporate end to end encryption to protect 0:20:49.480 --> 0:20:54.480 the communication from prying eyes. Third is reducing permanence uh, 0:20:54.600 --> 0:20:57.439 something made famous by Snapchat. This is the idea that 0:20:57.480 --> 0:21:01.359 communications would have sort of an effective self destruct mechanism 0:21:01.480 --> 0:21:05.119 after a particular amount of time, presumably enough time for 0:21:05.160 --> 0:21:08.840 the other party to have seen the message, no permanent record. 0:21:08.840 --> 0:21:11.199 In other words, though I should point out that some 0:21:11.280 --> 0:21:15.240 of the services famous for providing this kind of experience weren't, 0:21:15.960 --> 0:21:21.240 you know, actually deleting the content right away. So while 0:21:21.280 --> 0:21:24.680 it sounds like it would be this kind of one 0:21:24.720 --> 0:21:27.080 time only thing, and then the data has gone forever. 0:21:28.000 --> 0:21:31.320 There's a chance the data is not really gone forever. Next, 0:21:31.400 --> 0:21:34.199 Zuckerberg stresses the system will have to be safe and 0:21:34.200 --> 0:21:37.159 that people will entrust Facebook with their data. Then he 0:21:37.280 --> 0:21:40.399 calls for an interoperable approach, pointing out that lots of 0:21:40.400 --> 0:21:44.000 people rely on different services to connect with one another. 0:21:44.359 --> 0:21:47.000 So you might be a whiz on Facebook Messenger, but 0:21:47.080 --> 0:21:51.040 maybe your best buddy prefers using WhatsApp, and then another 0:21:51.080 --> 0:21:54.320 friend of yours, a friend in common is really only 0:21:54.440 --> 0:21:57.560 using Instagram, and all three of those, by the way, 0:21:57.960 --> 0:22:01.840 belong to Facebook. Zuckerberg wants a method that could work 0:22:01.880 --> 0:22:06.400 across apps, as long as they are Facebook's apps. More 0:22:06.400 --> 0:22:09.080 on that point in just a bit. The last principle 0:22:09.200 --> 0:22:13.480 Zuckerberg mentions is secure data storage, which ties back into safety. 0:22:13.680 --> 0:22:17.560 Though perhaps Zuckerberg was actually differentiating a person's physical safety 0:22:17.840 --> 0:22:20.680 and the security of their data, or maybe the physical 0:22:20.720 --> 0:22:25.359 safety of data centers. It's not entirely clear in that part. 0:22:25.400 --> 0:22:28.520 He does later go into data centers in particular, so 0:22:28.560 --> 0:22:31.480 maybe that's where really what he meant. Then Zuckerberg goes 0:22:31.520 --> 0:22:33.960 on to flesh out these points a little more, and 0:22:34.000 --> 0:22:36.399 I'm not going to dwell on all of them, because 0:22:36.440 --> 0:22:38.119 again it would just take too long, but I do 0:22:38.200 --> 0:22:42.240 want to focus on a few. So under encryption and safety, 0:22:42.640 --> 0:22:45.880 he has this to say, quote, there is a growing 0:22:46.000 --> 0:22:49.919 awareness that the more entities that have access to your data, 0:22:50.240 --> 0:22:53.399 the more vulnerabilities there are for someone to misuse it, 0:22:53.600 --> 0:22:57.439 for a cyber attack to expose it. There is also 0:22:57.560 --> 0:23:01.560 a growing concern among some um that technology may be 0:23:01.680 --> 0:23:07.160 centralizing power in the hands of governments and companies like ours, 0:23:07.200 --> 0:23:10.960 and some people worry that our services could access their 0:23:11.000 --> 0:23:14.280 messages and use them for advertising or in other ways 0:23:14.560 --> 0:23:18.000 they don't expect. End to end encryption is an important 0:23:18.040 --> 0:23:23.679 tool in developing a privacy focused social network. Encryption is decentralizing. 0:23:23.680 --> 0:23:27.760 It limits services like ours from seeing the content flowing 0:23:27.880 --> 0:23:30.520 through them and makes it much harder for anyone else 0:23:30.560 --> 0:23:34.560 to access your information. End quote. So here we have 0:23:34.640 --> 0:23:37.600 Zuckerberg pointing out that using data for the purposes of 0:23:37.680 --> 0:23:41.080 advertising is a concern for some users, and he's also 0:23:41.160 --> 0:23:44.520 explaining that end to end encryption would mean Facebook would 0:23:44.520 --> 0:23:48.040 be unable to see the content of the messages themselves, 0:23:48.320 --> 0:23:52.680 making that content awful limits for monetization, at least directly, 0:23:53.320 --> 0:23:55.720 And that sounds pretty good to me on the surface 0:23:55.800 --> 0:23:57.840 of it. I like the idea of a means of 0:23:57.840 --> 0:24:01.720 communication that keeps things truly private between parties and isn't 0:24:01.880 --> 0:24:05.840 used as currency between Facebook and advertisers, So kudos to 0:24:05.880 --> 0:24:08.760 that idea. But then he turns around and points out 0:24:08.800 --> 0:24:12.320 that end to end encryption also creates opportunities for people 0:24:12.359 --> 0:24:16.280 to use the communication tools to do bad or harmful things, 0:24:16.680 --> 0:24:19.679 such as planning a terrorist attack, and he states, quote, 0:24:19.920 --> 0:24:22.919 we have a responsibility to work with law enforcement and 0:24:22.960 --> 0:24:26.560 to help prevent these wherever we can end quote. So 0:24:27.000 --> 0:24:29.920 this opens up a question that people have asked for ages, 0:24:30.000 --> 0:24:36.000 how do you balance individual privacy with collective security. Zuckerberg 0:24:36.000 --> 0:24:39.200 says that Facebook would use other means to detect possible 0:24:39.240 --> 0:24:44.200 harmful use, including looking for usage patterns among people communicating 0:24:44.240 --> 0:24:48.280 through this private, end to end encrypted service. This is 0:24:48.320 --> 0:24:51.520 a good reminder that sometimes a spy doesn't even have 0:24:51.640 --> 0:24:54.560 to be able to read or hear a message to 0:24:54.680 --> 0:24:58.160 draw some pretty accurate conclusions about what is being said 0:24:58.240 --> 0:25:02.200 between different parties. Just ask the n S A. Actually, 0:25:02.720 --> 0:25:04.960 you don't have to ask the n S a they're 0:25:05.000 --> 0:25:10.760 already listening. Zuckerberg then moves on to talk about interoperability 0:25:10.840 --> 0:25:13.480 and talks about how, in his vision, users will be 0:25:13.520 --> 0:25:17.480 able to communicate across Facebook apps through an opt in feature, 0:25:17.840 --> 0:25:23.679