Facebook Figured Out My Family Secrets, and It Won't Tell Me How(gizmodo.com)
gizmodo.com
Facebook Figured Out My Family Secrets, and It Won't Tell Me How
http://gizmodo.com/facebook-figured-out-my-family-secrets-and-it-wont-tel-1797696163
130 comments
"Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer" in real life, thanks to FB.
It’s possible the kidnapper looked your name up on Facebook after stealing your iPad. Just searching for someone’s name is enough for a recommendation.
This has happened with some of my coworkers who I have no mutual friends with and live in a completely different city (didn’t connect to work internet or have GPS permissions on FB either).
This has happened with some of my coworkers who I have no mutual friends with and live in a completely different city (didn’t connect to work internet or have GPS permissions on FB either).
Facebook attempting to induce Stockholm Syndrome.
Craziest FB story ever though. Glad you are ok.
Craziest FB story ever though. Glad you are ok.
Though very uncanny, this is rather easy to extrapolate even using the basic facets FB has available. But the most overlooked is photos. They are offline beacons and are to offline tracking what websites are to online tracking.
For example you and a group of 10 other people took photos at the same location which FB sees as a small gathering of intimate friends. It will need to qualify the location is not a public restaurant to be sure its an intimate gathering. The chances of you connecting with that person are then really high. And if you are and the other person are in each others photos, then it's almost a certainty you will end up connecting on FB should FB recommend the connection. The more connected FB's network is, the more it can extrapolate based on commonalities from the first degree graph of your network.
It's also the reason why Google is betting so heavy on photos and offering free unlimited storage -- remember, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Google wants to build a social network graph based on location and facial recognition to draw on proximity.
With AI this will get even more uncanny. For example a wedding will have a certain photography profile (number of pics taken, the time of day, the location and venue based on Google Maps or past photographing histroy, the lighting in the photos, etc). Once you throw AI into the mix you realize Google doesn't need to draw out any conclusions. It can throw all these parameters into the AI engine and draw up proximity.
In this case, Google or FB will not be able to tell you how they drew the connection, because even they won't know. All you can assume is the AI engine will take dozens of parameters today and hundreds tomorrow. Google's deep investment in AI infrastructure is a bigger testament to this.
For example you and a group of 10 other people took photos at the same location which FB sees as a small gathering of intimate friends. It will need to qualify the location is not a public restaurant to be sure its an intimate gathering. The chances of you connecting with that person are then really high. And if you are and the other person are in each others photos, then it's almost a certainty you will end up connecting on FB should FB recommend the connection. The more connected FB's network is, the more it can extrapolate based on commonalities from the first degree graph of your network.
It's also the reason why Google is betting so heavy on photos and offering free unlimited storage -- remember, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Google wants to build a social network graph based on location and facial recognition to draw on proximity.
With AI this will get even more uncanny. For example a wedding will have a certain photography profile (number of pics taken, the time of day, the location and venue based on Google Maps or past photographing histroy, the lighting in the photos, etc). Once you throw AI into the mix you realize Google doesn't need to draw out any conclusions. It can throw all these parameters into the AI engine and draw up proximity.
In this case, Google or FB will not be able to tell you how they drew the connection, because even they won't know. All you can assume is the AI engine will take dozens of parameters today and hundreds tomorrow. Google's deep investment in AI infrastructure is a bigger testament to this.
Profound. I don't think this explains the connection in the original post, but everything else you say makes a lot of sense.
I thought that was fairly obvious.
As per the author's aritcle it is definitely not a direct connection. FB relies heavily on first-degree connection analysis. If you and I end up in the same phonebook (which the author mentions) or the same photograph and FB connects us, we'll never know why. The not knowing why part makes it uncanny.
Facebook is to people what Google is to websites. It is in the business of enriching its social graph in every way possible and then running profiling algorithms on that graph. Google by contrast crawls and pageranks the crawled graph.
FB has literally hundreds of data sources to enrich their social graph and profile data.
A good start is their list of acquisitions [1] in the space of offline applications, social networking aggregators, contact importers, photo management, private conversations, travel recommendations, check-ins/status updates, etc.
Then consider the FB partnerships with ride hailing services, retail apps, music apps, etc.
Then consider it's own apps and features around events, calendering, photos and instant messaging.
Also consider the state of technology in NLP, AI and image recognition.
Also consider the FB integrations with tens of thousands of apps for social auth, share buttons and advertising.
Writing this post, I have surprised even myself as to how much data they have access to.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
As per the author's aritcle it is definitely not a direct connection. FB relies heavily on first-degree connection analysis. If you and I end up in the same phonebook (which the author mentions) or the same photograph and FB connects us, we'll never know why. The not knowing why part makes it uncanny.
Facebook is to people what Google is to websites. It is in the business of enriching its social graph in every way possible and then running profiling algorithms on that graph. Google by contrast crawls and pageranks the crawled graph.
FB has literally hundreds of data sources to enrich their social graph and profile data.
A good start is their list of acquisitions [1] in the space of offline applications, social networking aggregators, contact importers, photo management, private conversations, travel recommendations, check-ins/status updates, etc.
Then consider the FB partnerships with ride hailing services, retail apps, music apps, etc.
Then consider it's own apps and features around events, calendering, photos and instant messaging.
Also consider the state of technology in NLP, AI and image recognition.
Also consider the FB integrations with tens of thousands of apps for social auth, share buttons and advertising.
Writing this post, I have surprised even myself as to how much data they have access to.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...
There's at least a theoretical possibility that even Facebook does not exactly know why they make certain recommendations. This could be just a machine doing all the work. All kinds of data goes in, predictions are made. Facebook users give feedback by accepting/rejecting the recommendations and algorithms learn and adjust accordingly.
And who builds this machine and how do they tune/debug/improve it?
Pretty sure any given computation could be traced, though it might take a bit of work and need to be captured fairly quickly...
Pretty sure any given computation could be traced, though it might take a bit of work and need to be captured fairly quickly...
I've been to machine learning talks where the presenters freely admitted they weren't exactly sure how what they made works.
Reminds me of this comic: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2460#comic
Reminds me of this comic: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2460#comic
[deleted]
I'm loving this comic, thanks for the link!
I was thinking this one https://xkcd.com/1838/
Also a good one, which reminds me of devs saying it's really hard to write tests for ML algorithms.
I think much effort went into understanding why AlphaGo makes the decisions it does, and it’s almost a research project in each particular case.
I've just assumed this is through whatsapp. I've logged into whatsapp with my phone number, fb know my phone number (2fa codes), and they've slurped my address book from my phone and then show me connections on fb that are a few degrees of separation. This is the only way I can think that neighbours I barely know show up on the "people you may know" feature -- we're connected through neighbours I know far better.
They probably know your neighbors because you both have the same SSIDs in your vicinity.. I don't see FB not knowing this. Or if you allowed GPS, and neighbors did too, then it's even easier to make the connection.
My co-workers from the office are frequently recommended to me on FB. Since I don't have their number, it must be location based.
You don't need to have their number, if someone else has both of your numbers and has uploaded their contacts list then you're linked in that third party's list. Equally likely it's linked via the wifi SSID or GPS?
If you both use the same wifi, then it could see you as the same IP address and recommend you to each other.
[deleted]
You are 100% correct about this. People have appeared on "People you may know" when I have absolutely zero connection to them other than I have chatted to the on What's App... I'm afraid I may have to stop using the service soon... was great until FB bought it.
I agree - it is amazing how even a small mention of a product in a whatsapp conversation with my friends turns into a barrage of related ads on Facebook. We have even started teasing each other by mention funny products just to indundate each other with irrelevant ads. So sad - my assumption is: anything you say or do in an electronic device is NOT private.
I wonder how this could work when Whatsapp advertises that conversations are encrypted end-to-end.
These kinds of things might be just random. You see probably thousands of ads during the day, but most of them are not registered by your conscious mind. Only when there is a notable connection to something, your brain wakes up and you register the ad.
There's also the option that before bringing up something in conversation, your friend has made some related searches or reacted to a related ad. Facebook could then make the decision to show the ad to you based on your friend past behavior and the fact that you two had a conversation.
There's also the option that before bringing up something in conversation, your friend has made some related searches or reacted to a related ad. Facebook could then make the decision to show the ad to you based on your friend past behavior and the fact that you two had a conversation.
> These kinds of things might be just random. You see probably thousands of ads during the day, but most of them are not registered by your conscious mind. Only when there is a notable connection to something, your brain wakes up and you register the ad.
This is similar to the Cocktail Party Effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocktail_party_effect
This is similar to the Cocktail Party Effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocktail_party_effect
It's end-to-end-encrypted between the proprietary WhatsApp clients, but they might very well scan things inside of the WhatsApp client.
I don't use WhatsApp. Most of the people I know don't. People have appeared on my suggested contacts when I have no other connection with them.
Clearly Facebook uses many, many sources of data.
Clearly Facebook uses many, many sources of data.
> People have appeared on my suggested contacts when I have no other connection with them.
Have you considered the possibility that those other people have been searching for you on FB for some reason?
Have you considered the possibility that those other people have been searching for you on FB for some reason?
>You are 100% correct about this. People have appeared on "People you may know" when I have absolutely zero connection to them other than I have chatted to the on What's App...
Well, isn't it obvious though? Facebook owns WhatsApp and has access to both "social graphs".
(Plus, it can also infer "people you may know" from people your friends in FB and Whatsapp know).
Well, isn't it obvious though? Facebook owns WhatsApp and has access to both "social graphs".
(Plus, it can also infer "people you may know" from people your friends in FB and Whatsapp know).
Im stating to use signal. Except network effect is strong...
Also keep in mind that social media/corps don't just use their own data, they also buys search history, credit card transactions, bank information, etc from other companies as well. Granted most of these are "anonymized" but it wouldn't take much effort to link them all together.
For example, if you CC company sends your transaction history to FB without any identification information, FB could still know that transaction history by linking your smartphone location data to the transaction history.
For example, if they know you were at train station at X time and at a Rite Aid at X time and at a McDonald's at X time, they could go "map" that to a "CC customer data tranche". It is highly doubtful that two people would be at same locations at the same exact times with the same transactions at the same time.
FB is big enough to rely on their own data for most of their needs, but selling of your data is big business and everyone is doing it.
And as creepy as FB adding your neighbors to your "people you may know", the real creepy part is the B2B part where corporations sell their profiles of you to each other or to governments/colleges/etc.
And we are just at the beginnings of "datafication" of everyone. It's truly going to be a brave new world.
For example, if you CC company sends your transaction history to FB without any identification information, FB could still know that transaction history by linking your smartphone location data to the transaction history.
For example, if they know you were at train station at X time and at a Rite Aid at X time and at a McDonald's at X time, they could go "map" that to a "CC customer data tranche". It is highly doubtful that two people would be at same locations at the same exact times with the same transactions at the same time.
FB is big enough to rely on their own data for most of their needs, but selling of your data is big business and everyone is doing it.
And as creepy as FB adding your neighbors to your "people you may know", the real creepy part is the B2B part where corporations sell their profiles of you to each other or to governments/colleges/etc.
And we are just at the beginnings of "datafication" of everyone. It's truly going to be a brave new world.
I would imagine Facebook keeps placeholders for people you know that are not on Facebook. His father had made a contact with one of the relatives not on FB but with the other name. Perhaps the great aunt had him in her contacts as well. A name and/or phone number can represent a person in the graph without being a FB user. Why they made a suggestion so many degrees away is a little curious, but I think they mix those in with the more obvious ones just to check.
TL;DR: I think their graph includes non-FB-using people.
TL;DR: I think their graph includes non-FB-using people.
If non-FB/shadow profiles can be derived from phone numbers, or assumed relationships (e.g. "this person probably has parents"), might they also be derived from the contents of private messages?
Facebook do maintain shaadow profiles:
https://www.dailydot.com/news/facebook-shadow-profiles-priva...
https://www.dailydot.com/news/facebook-shadow-profiles-priva...
This seems like a fairly obvious and good explanation.
Also one of the other relatives could have since joined Facebook to make this a little simpler.
Also one of the other relatives could have since joined Facebook to make this a little simpler.
This is well known, and it's called 'shadow profiles'.
No way to remove PII data that your friends gave to Facebook? I see a lawsuit somewhere in here.
This means a person can never really be "off Facebook"
This means a person can never really be "off Facebook"
And this is why under German law the BDSG §34 exists, which allows every citizen to request, once every 12 months, for free, from every company a list of all data the company has on the citizen, how they got it, whom they gave it to, and all statistical models that were derived from the data, or that had an influence on the data.
It’d be interesting to make a BDSG §34 request about "People you may know", just to see how Facebook responds (and if you have to pull them through court)
It’d be interesting to make a BDSG §34 request about "People you may know", just to see how Facebook responds (and if you have to pull them through court)
If a German HN reader would be so kind as to make that request and report back on what they get, I can absolutely positively guarantee that they will be the happy recipient of One Internet Point from me when they submit the story to HN.
You get a CD with every conversation you ever had, every picture you uploaded, everything you shared on that wall. "Deleted" or not, it's on there. Pretty much every interaction you ever had while browsing Facebook.
Nothing about your shadow profile, though.
Nothing about your shadow profile, though.
You don't have to be German. Anyone outside the US and Canada has the right to access their FB data. See http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Get_your_Data_/get_your_...
Cool. If someone figures out the process let's all do it. I quit FB yeaaaaaaaaaaars ago (~2008?) but would be keen to check the shadow profile. I wonder if you can do that? Incidentally I am German by third citizenship.
How does Facebook report inferred connections or connections deduced by looking at a larger graph? Their obligation to tell you what they know about you shouldn't infringe on my privacy.
But it does impact your privacy, that's the whole point.
Do you know anyone who has requested all this information, seen how it was provided and was able to make sense of it, especially from a platform like Facebook? What format is the information provided as? HTML files with graphs? XML files (gasp)?
> What format is the information provided as? HTML files with graphs? XML files (gasp)?
PDF: https://hayvan-storage-wordpress-master-studiowien.s3.amazon...
That's Max Schrems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems) with his 1222 pages of FB data.
PDF: https://hayvan-storage-wordpress-master-studiowien.s3.amazon...
That's Max Schrems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems) with his 1222 pages of FB data.
[deleted]
> It was not a very convincing excuse. Facebook gets people to hand over information about themselves all the time; by what principle would it be unreasonable to sometimes hand some of that information back?
You are not "handing" them anything with an expectation of reciprocity, you (in most cases) willingly give up information about yourself to them in exchange for their free service. They don't need an "excuse" - you were as free to say "no" as they are to you.
I agree that in cases where others give up information about people they know there's no consent from the person (necessarily) but even that is between the person and their peers. There are people in my life who I don't share information with because I know how fast that information will spread if they know it; the kind of privacy etiquette required to respect people's privacy wishes will likely become more commonplace as it's made clear indexing organizations only know what people tell them.
I've been against facebook for some time yet even I don't agree with writers of sensationalist pieces like this. You have what's coming to you when you use third party services like facebook then complain about the imbalance of power they imply. Turns out the reason people who adamantly don't use those services do so other than just 'hipsterism' or whatever you thought were their reasons.
You are not "handing" them anything with an expectation of reciprocity, you (in most cases) willingly give up information about yourself to them in exchange for their free service. They don't need an "excuse" - you were as free to say "no" as they are to you.
I agree that in cases where others give up information about people they know there's no consent from the person (necessarily) but even that is between the person and their peers. There are people in my life who I don't share information with because I know how fast that information will spread if they know it; the kind of privacy etiquette required to respect people's privacy wishes will likely become more commonplace as it's made clear indexing organizations only know what people tell them.
I've been against facebook for some time yet even I don't agree with writers of sensationalist pieces like this. You have what's coming to you when you use third party services like facebook then complain about the imbalance of power they imply. Turns out the reason people who adamantly don't use those services do so other than just 'hipsterism' or whatever you thought were their reasons.
> You are not "handing" them anything with an expectation of reciprocity, you (in most cases) willingly give up information about yourself to them in exchange for their free service. They don't need an "excuse" - you were as free to say "no" as they are to you.
You are not free to say no to facebook.
You do not hand your information to them, they take it. There's a reason they buy information from "data brokers", and it's because it include information you are not willingly giving to them.
You are not free to say no to facebook.
You do not hand your information to them, they take it. There's a reason they buy information from "data brokers", and it's because it include information you are not willingly giving to them.
What about shadow profiles?
I am not used by FB but it most certainly maintains an account of me.
Additionally, handing over data does not give FB full usage rights to it. At least in the EU, data subjects enjoy the basic right of informational self determination. FB may have to answer in a more comprehensive manner with the GDPR coming into effect.
I am not used by FB but it most certainly maintains an account of me.
Additionally, handing over data does not give FB full usage rights to it. At least in the EU, data subjects enjoy the basic right of informational self determination. FB may have to answer in a more comprehensive manner with the GDPR coming into effect.
I haven't used my Facebook account in years, ever since they recommended I connected with a person I'd known for 20+ years but with whom I shared no connections or commonalities apart from our nationality. As I remember it, neither of us had listed schools, jobs or interests in our profiles.
Maybe it was a coincidence but it made me very anxious so I left the platform.
Maybe it was a coincidence but it made me very anxious so I left the platform.
If someone looks at your facebook account they will suggest that person as a connection. Frequently as simple as that.
Of course, in the background they likely knew you were more connected through mutual friends, contacts, etc
Of course, in the background they likely knew you were more connected through mutual friends, contacts, etc
It's possible that one of you connected Facebook to a service along the way that provided access to contact information like email or phone number and they used that to make the connection.
Could be, but by and large I've always been a late adopter of social media so apart from a hotmail / messenger account, I think FB was the only common service.
Maybe it was a coincidence but it made me very anxious so I left the platform.
What were you anxious about happening as a result?
What were you anxious about happening as a result?
"In practice, the forced revelation of information makes individual privilege and power more important. When everyone has to play with their cards on the table, so to speak, then people who feel like they can be themselves without consequence do so freely -- these generally being people with support groups of like-minded people, and who are neither economically nor physically vulnerable. People who are more vulnerable to consequences use concealment as a method of protection: it makes it possible to speak freely about controversial subjects, or even about any subjects, without fear of harassment."
-- Yonatan Zunger, former chief architect, Google+
https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/WegYVNkZQqq
There are further historical lines of reasoning. Hacker News and its editors don't care to see them discussed:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15105784
-- Yonatan Zunger, former chief architect, Google+
https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/WegYVNkZQqq
There are further historical lines of reasoning. Hacker News and its editors don't care to see them discussed:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15105784
It definitely hooked into Whatsapp. Was chatting to a girl from tinder on there didn't even have last name...next day FB suggested her.
Although on second thoughts that might be via FB messenger app having access to contacts. Either way it figures out the person via the phone number.
Although on second thoughts that might be via FB messenger app having access to contacts. Either way it figures out the person via the phone number.
Or it is just a chance event? As it is not a controlled experiment and the story concerns a single individual I find the conclusion to be rather shaky.
There are roughly 300 million people in the US. A given person has, let's say, ~10,000 tenuous connections.
How often would a random selection of 1000 people from the 300 million be expected to intersect with the 10,000?
How often would a random selection of 1000 people from the 300 million be expected to intersect with the 10,000?
Napkin math: For just 1 person to intersect: Each of those 10000 people have a (10000/30000000)/100 % chance to get selected, or .00000033%. Multiply that by a thousand selections = 0.00033% chance. Those selections are refreshed maybe 100 times a year so 0.033% chance per year.
There are billions of facebook users, so this should be happening all the time by pure chance. But of course it's not pure chance. Facebook will be selecting from a pool much much smaller than 300 million, and the selections won't be random.
There are billions of facebook users, so this should be happening all the time by pure chance. But of course it's not pure chance. Facebook will be selecting from a pool much much smaller than 300 million, and the selections won't be random.
Likely she searched for the name "porter" at some point suggesting that she is interested in people with that name.
Combined with 2nd and 3rd degree phone and email connections that might be a strong indicator for FBs algorithm.
Combined with 2nd and 3rd degree phone and email connections that might be a strong indicator for FBs algorithm.
Yep, the article totally ignores it. The fact that she immediately said that they are related, makes me believe she was looking at his profile earlier, and FB just picked up on it.
"What information had Facebook used, then? The company would not tell me what triggered this recommendation, citing privacy reasons."
Their privacy, not yours.
Their privacy, not yours.
Facebook is a monolithic threat by inducing the world into accepting the relinquishment of privacy for convenience. The abiding thought that all should remember is it is a marketing (ad) platform. Furthermore, given it limits social outreach to 5000 "friends" (with no such limits on "follows", which still prove difficult to utilize), it is assuredly not intended to facilitate social outreach.
facebook does nothing besides match tons of contact list that idiots upload to their servers when they install any facebook app.
why does people think this is rocket science? even the supposedly clever people here try to imagine complex algorithms. geez. its 1:1 text match on phone numbers.
their genius move was getting enough idiots uploading their entire phone address book for free.
why does people think this is rocket science? even the supposedly clever people here try to imagine complex algorithms. geez. its 1:1 text match on phone numbers.
their genius move was getting enough idiots uploading their entire phone address book for free.
I do agree with your sentiment, but Facebook does a lot more than just that.
They put a lot of effort into tracking sites you browse, their phone app slurps up any possible data to improve your profile, starting with location info, and going all the way to uploading photos from your camera gallery to Facebook, to be analyzed for face recognition.
They put a lot of effort into tracking sites you browse, their phone app slurps up any possible data to improve your profile, starting with location info, and going all the way to uploading photos from your camera gallery to Facebook, to be analyzed for face recognition.
Facebook is going way too far in many ways.
The other day, I had a couple of friends at my place. At some point, we decided to order pizzas. We did so online, at my usual pizzeria. 30 minutes later (not sure of the delay, but it was before pizzas were delivered), one of my friend check her facebook on her mobile and see ... an ad for that pizzeria. She said she's never seen the ad before, nor ever ordered at that pizzeria.
The best I could guess about it would probably make use of phones gps, detecting we were close and what I was doing on the net, through social share buttons tracking. Anyway, that's outrageous. Facebook use of personal data is that creepy thing we were all afraid Google would do. It really feels like having a glass of wine in your sofa, and the telephone rings and someone unknown says : "cheers!".
The other day, I had a couple of friends at my place. At some point, we decided to order pizzas. We did so online, at my usual pizzeria. 30 minutes later (not sure of the delay, but it was before pizzas were delivered), one of my friend check her facebook on her mobile and see ... an ad for that pizzeria. She said she's never seen the ad before, nor ever ordered at that pizzeria.
The best I could guess about it would probably make use of phones gps, detecting we were close and what I was doing on the net, through social share buttons tracking. Anyway, that's outrageous. Facebook use of personal data is that creepy thing we were all afraid Google would do. It really feels like having a glass of wine in your sofa, and the telephone rings and someone unknown says : "cheers!".
Actually, it seems like much simpler than that.
Possible, but unlikely: the pizzeria was using a tracking pixel with a purchase event and was targeting ads to friends of purchasers. I don't think you can do this exact kind of targeting (but not sure) and it's pretty sophisticated for some random pizza place.
By far the most likely scenario is a mix of coincidence and confirmation bias. The pizzeria was just running geo and time of day ads and your friend did not notice or remember until this event made it seem significant.
Possible, but unlikely: the pizzeria was using a tracking pixel with a purchase event and was targeting ads to friends of purchasers. I don't think you can do this exact kind of targeting (but not sure) and it's pretty sophisticated for some random pizza place.
By far the most likely scenario is a mix of coincidence and confirmation bias. The pizzeria was just running geo and time of day ads and your friend did not notice or remember until this event made it seem significant.
By the way, a follow up : after that, I installed Disconnect in my browser, removed facebook app from my phone, used a dedicated chrome profile for facebook, installed firefox on my mobile and made it my default browser, and installed disconnect and adblock on it. We'll see if that's enough.
I see all kind of theories about the misterious nature of facebook recommendations. I believe that they use all kind of complex things but most of those unexpected recommendations could be explained by assuming that facebook recommend you people that have being cheking you out. If you saw someone on the street and that person check your facebook, they are recommended to you and it looks like magic because you did nothing. I do not know if this is the case but it is simple and seems to explain a lot of those strange recommendations.
Not entirely relevant to the original story, but Facebook does use machine learning to identify faces as well (similar technology to how Google or Apple uses in their Photo apps).
So even if you've never been tagged in a photo or checked into a location, there is a possibility that just by appearing in a random stranger's Facebook photo, they would be able to place you in the vicinity of said stranger at a particular time, and make more conclusions/connections from there.
So even if you've never been tagged in a photo or checked into a location, there is a possibility that just by appearing in a random stranger's Facebook photo, they would be able to place you in the vicinity of said stranger at a particular time, and make more conclusions/connections from there.
I deleted my FB account 6 years ago.
A couple of weeks ago I bought on Amazon a kit to connect the dish-washing machine (I have uBlock and Ghostery).
I told my wife about the purchase and 10 minutes later she sees the exact same kit that I bought in her FB ads.
Does this mean that Amazon sells/shares this data or I am too paranoid? However it's hard to believe in such a coincidence.
I told my wife about the purchase and 10 minutes later she sees the exact same kit that I bought in her FB ads.
Does this mean that Amazon sells/shares this data or I am too paranoid? However it's hard to believe in such a coincidence.
Your credit card or email provider may sell data to Facebook.
Well, if Facebook won't tell you how, you need to go figure out the connection you have with the other N thousand people it recommended to you. You might be able to find the common links, and do some valuable reporting in the process.
If you search for a person and look at their profile, you will show up on their PYMK list.
I've noticed that, but not sure if the author of the article had it that way as the other person said she didn't know her.
I've noticed that, but not sure if the author of the article had it that way as the other person said she didn't know her.
If the facebook app can identify unique phones in your vicinity -- IE MAC assesses, then it could form links without facebook being installed on the middle devices.
And that is why I only have 1 friend on Facebook - my wife
Funnily enough, I'm not FB friends with my wife, and she never comes up on my "People You May Know". I spend more time with her than anyone, so maybe FB's algorithm isn't so great?
Then why use it?
I don’t except for signing on to other sites (its easier than creating and remembering a password) and for Wi-fi in Barbados (I’m not paying their mobile data rates).
Facebook has free Wi-fi in Barbados? Hey what happen to the other Caribbean >:(
Alice searches for Bob but does not add him.
Facebook shows Bob a suggestion to add Alice.
It doesn't explain all cases, but it does explain quite a few.
Facebook shows Bob a suggestion to add Alice.
It doesn't explain all cases, but it does explain quite a few.
Perhaps they have acquired one of these heritage database websites?
So do we think Facebook and Amazon are just figuring out every relation between things in the world and they'll work out how to monetize it later? Or, what exactly is the hypothesis here? I have seen them accused of some pretty impressive leaps of inference lately.
Cool link.
> I told the spokesperson that it might be in the search giant’s interest to be more transparent about how this feature works so that users are less creeped out by it.
Facebook is a "search giant" now?
Facebook is a "search giant" now?
Perhaps it's well known in the HN circle, but essentially all FB users are just free labor, helping give signals to the machine learning algorithm.
This is what ReCaptcha is too
[deleted]
I'm getting a 404
This link seems to be working
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/facebook-figured-out-my-f...
This link seems to be working
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/facebook-figured-out-my-f...
Thanks, we updated the link from https://www.gizmodo.com/2017/08/facebook-figured-out-my-fami... but kept the .com site.
Thanks, updated!
The history of Jews in the Netherlands during the Nazi Holocaust, many of whom were identified through census records, comes to mind.
https://ww2gravestone.com/holocaust-in-the-netherlands/
For contemporary instances, consider that the present U.S. administration openly supports racist, neo-Nazi, White Supremecist, and similar organisations. Social-graph association of undocumented immigrants, Muslims, gang- (or non-gang-) members, or similar inferences, all come readily to mind.
https://ww2gravestone.com/holocaust-in-the-netherlands/
For contemporary instances, consider that the present U.S. administration openly supports racist, neo-Nazi, White Supremecist, and similar organisations. Social-graph association of undocumented immigrants, Muslims, gang- (or non-gang-) members, or similar inferences, all come readily to mind.
This comment breaks the HN guidelines by taking the thread on a political/ideological flamewar tangent. Would you please not do this?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15105534 and marked it off-topic.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15105534 and marked it off-topic.
You and I have very clearly different views on this.
I'm finding HN's views on this matter increasingly untenable.
I'd suggest you please not do that.
I'm finding HN's views on this matter increasingly untenable.
I'd suggest you please not do that.
There already is a US example. Virginia instituted a "one-drop" law in the 20's and scoured through old census records to label many mixed race people as black, subjecting then to Jim Crow laws.
Add to that accusations that the FBI used census data to build maps of Muslim communities post-9/11. We like to pretend that since such uses of census data are 'illegal' right now, that they won't suddenly become legal on the next national security whim.
Do you have any idea if there were private records that were included in such searches? Church or baptismal, or medical records, perhaps?
Private sources were fine, the memories of your grandparents could classify someone's entire family as black.
[deleted]
> the present U.S. administration openly supports racist, neo-Nazi, White Supremecist, and similar organisations.
Not true, highly offensive, and inflammatory. Citations obviously required.
Not true, highly offensive, and inflammatory. Citations obviously required.
It would be much appreciated if you could leave the political hyperbole somewhere else.
You can make a point without stooping to tenuous, politically motivated, and controversial accusations.
You can make a point without stooping to tenuous, politically motivated, and controversial accusations.
Those are in fact the most relevant elements of this question. They are elements which, as in the case of the Netherlands, don't matter at all, until they mean everything.
Accusing the current administration of openly supporting neo-nazi groups is political flamebait.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion on how "serious" the situation is but I, (and probably others) would appreciate it if you kept the hyperbole and rhetoric minimized. Your original point stands fine without it, and in fact that accusation weakens your entire post and makes it appear little more than a simple troll.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion on how "serious" the situation is but I, (and probably others) would appreciate it if you kept the hyperbole and rhetoric minimized. Your original point stands fine without it, and in fact that accusation weakens your entire post and makes it appear little more than a simple troll.
Sometimes the truth is flamebait. Doesn't make it any less true.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865686908/Sen-Mike-Lee-re...
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/346348-hatch-my-brother-d...
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865686908/Sen-Mike-Lee-re...
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/346348-hatch-my-brother-d...
Hold on. That article says that Trump claimed there was "blame on both sides", followed by open repudiation of neo-Nazis and the KKK as "criminals and thugs". I'm not being intentionally obtuse: failure to condemn neo-Nazis and white supremacists is a pretty huge failing for a president (though no worse than what I expect of Donald Trump), and those who condemned his remarks were absolutely right.
But words have meaning, and calling this "open support" is flat lying. He's unbelievably terrible at the job of president and human being: you don't need to lie in order to make the case that he is.
Just because your bubble (and my own) consists entirely of people who are aware of how terrible he is doesn't mean everyone is, and lying for political reasons is exactly the kind of thing that makes big chunks of the country inhabit alternate realities where all news is fake and the notion of a fact disappears from political discourse. You should be ashamed of yourself.
But words have meaning, and calling this "open support" is flat lying. He's unbelievably terrible at the job of president and human being: you don't need to lie in order to make the case that he is.
Just because your bubble (and my own) consists entirely of people who are aware of how terrible he is doesn't mean everyone is, and lying for political reasons is exactly the kind of thing that makes big chunks of the country inhabit alternate realities where all news is fake and the notion of a fact disappears from political discourse. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Trump pardoned someone who bragged about his self-described "concentration camps" and policing practices targeting people of Latin American descent, then bragged about how he wasn't going to listen to judges who told him to stop doing it. (Among literally hundreds of other instances of corruption, cover-ups, civil rights violations, and humanitarian abuses.)
I don't know how much more explicit you expect his support of white supremacists to be. (Honestly, I doubt you're engaging genuinely at all.)
I don't know how much more explicit you expect his support of white supremacists to be. (Honestly, I doubt you're engaging genuinely at all.)
> I don't know how much more explicit you expect his support of white supremacists to be.
Dude, are you kidding me? You're looking at someone who said:
“Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,”
and you can't think of a way for him to support them less? Are you really that obtuse, or are you just playing dumb?
Here's a really simple, utterly obvious way he could have been closer to "open support" (other than uh, openly expressing support......): _not repudiating them_. I honestly can't believe I just sincerely explained a tautology to someone.
Dude, are you kidding me? You're looking at someone who said:
“Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,”
and you can't think of a way for him to support them less? Are you really that obtuse, or are you just playing dumb?
Here's a really simple, utterly obvious way he could have been closer to "open support" (other than uh, openly expressing support......): _not repudiating them_. I honestly can't believe I just sincerely explained a tautology to someone.
[deleted]
Neither article of which suggests in any way what you posted. Your opinion, and your feelings are not the "truth". I understand you have strong feelings, but please, stop polluting this space.
> Sometimes the truth is flamebait
"Sometimes the truth is X" is not a universally applicable maxim. If you really believe the above, you should probably look up what "flamebait" means.
"Sometimes the truth is X" is not a universally applicable maxim. If you really believe the above, you should probably look up what "flamebait" means.
> the present U.S. administration openly supports racist, neo-Nazi, White Supremecist, and similar organisations
I try not to follow what the guy says too closely, but do you have any source for this? The last thing on the topic I recall him saying was a repudiation of said groups.
I feel like I would've heard about it if he openly supported any of these groups.
I try not to follow what the guy says too closely, but do you have any source for this? The last thing on the topic I recall him saying was a repudiation of said groups.
I feel like I would've heard about it if he openly supported any of these groups.
While I can see how someone could draw similarities in the aggregation of user data, I disagree about that being a comparable system for many reasons. Namely that they aren't government systems, and the political environment doesn't reflect, nor are projected to reflect a state of genocide.
This falls into the same line of thinking as "I need my assault weapon to fight the government when it becomes tyrannical." It's an unreasonable conclusion that comes from a reasonable set of first principals because the landscape is so different now than in the comparing period.
This falls into the same line of thinking as "I need my assault weapon to fight the government when it becomes tyrannical." It's an unreasonable conclusion that comes from a reasonable set of first principals because the landscape is so different now than in the comparing period.
It's not necessary for data systems to belong to governments, or for them to be accessed by the local government jurisdiction.
For examples of each:
AT&T maintain call-level history of its subscribers dating to the 1980s, which has been provided to the US DEA.
Google have disclosed information to both Chinese and Russian nationals, through extralegal, non-discretionary disclosures. The first occured when the accounts of Chinese nationals involved in the Free Tibet movement were hacked. The latter when an email account belonging to Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, was hacked by parties strongly linked to the present Russian government.
"You can't disclose what you don't have" is a well-established principle of data security. You'll find variants of it offered by Gene Spafford, Bruce Schneier, Eben Moglen, Cory Doctorow, and others. Or in the alternative, "data are vulnerability".
Sources:
Google / China / Tibet: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-not-only-target-of-china-...
Podesta / Clinton: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mg7xjb/how-hacker...
AT&T / DEA: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/att-gives-dea-26...
For examples of each:
AT&T maintain call-level history of its subscribers dating to the 1980s, which has been provided to the US DEA.
Google have disclosed information to both Chinese and Russian nationals, through extralegal, non-discretionary disclosures. The first occured when the accounts of Chinese nationals involved in the Free Tibet movement were hacked. The latter when an email account belonging to Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, was hacked by parties strongly linked to the present Russian government.
"You can't disclose what you don't have" is a well-established principle of data security. You'll find variants of it offered by Gene Spafford, Bruce Schneier, Eben Moglen, Cory Doctorow, and others. Or in the alternative, "data are vulnerability".
Sources:
Google / China / Tibet: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-not-only-target-of-china-...
Podesta / Clinton: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mg7xjb/how-hacker...
AT&T / DEA: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/att-gives-dea-26...
Whether you listen to the left or the right, everyone agrees the landscape is, if at all different, worse than ever, and requiring assault weapons to defend from government tyranny. Literally, the left is calling the right Nazis, and the right is calling the left Nazis. Would you prefer the citizenry is unarmed against the Nazis?
If you're in the center, like me, then you recognise there are credible reasons the landscape is similar enough. Any nation can turn fairly quickly as the political tides shift. History is replete with examples. It is usually only a matter of months.
Boy, this got off-track fast.
If you're in the center, like me, then you recognise there are credible reasons the landscape is similar enough. Any nation can turn fairly quickly as the political tides shift. History is replete with examples. It is usually only a matter of months.
Boy, this got off-track fast.
the answer is: what phone numbers you import from your contacts, and who imports your phone number through there contacts.
whatsapp is just a lucky because you have to add a phone numbers to youre phone's contacts to talk on whatsapp.
whatsapp is just a lucky because you have to add a phone numbers to youre phone's contacts to talk on whatsapp.
Separately I'm getting all kinds of people from that town, I can only imagine why, but it's pretty damn scary. And of course I have to wonder who I'm being recommended to and/or my family is being recommended to.