Is the Oura Ring Thing a Handy Dandy Data Sucker Upper?
June 5, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I read a zero-slop article titled “Oura Says It Gets Government Demands for User Data. Will It Share How Many?” The Oura is a fitness device that gathers data about its wearer. The idea is that wearing a smart ring is better than wearing a big, clunky watch, toting a super sized mobile phone, or just being a person of interest with a black SUV following along as you go from home to Starbuck’s to your workplace in Managua.
The article includes some interesting factoids; for example:
- In 2026, “… health wearable maker Oura became embroiled in a social media shitstorm after inking a deal with the Department of Defense and Palantir.”
- …”many (if not most) companies design their systems to allow their staff to access user data, perhaps for troubleshooting customer issues or because it was the easiest and cheapest setup for a once cash-strapped startup.”
- … “Oura data is not end-to-end encrypted.”
- “Oura has sold over 5.5 million rings to date” …
But the most intriguing comment in the article, in my opinion, is this passage:
A spokesperson told me at the time [September 2025] that while Oura does not publish a transparency report, the company said it was “actively evaluating how to share aggregate data in a way that maintains security and does not introduce risk to our members.” It’s been eight months, dear reader. I recently reached out to Oura again to see if it would release a transparency report, and after several follow-up emails, the once-responsive Oura has not yet replied to any of my inquiries, or committed to releasing the numbers.
The pattern of taking an inquiry and offering a vague comment and then going radio silence is not unusual when [a] a firm is working with certain government entities, [b] lacks the PR savvy to spin a response that does not create more problems for a company, or [c] has something it does not want to be known by its 5.5 million customers, investigative journalists, or its staff.
Which is it? I have no clue. But like South Korea, each step in data acquisition seems to lead to an us versus them. The “us” are the organizations and professionals working for or in government entities. The “them” is any individual or group that allows paranoia or a threat to a mission to exist.
The longest journey begins with a single data broker. Where does it end? Ponder that.
Stephen E Arnold, June 5, 2026
OpenAI Gets Ads and Users May Not Know the Implications
June 1, 2026
In January 2025, OpenAI indicated that ads were coming to ChatGPT. The service became available to advertisers in January 2026. Ads went live a few weeks later. These message are appearing in the free and the $8.00 per month access level. For now, the Plus, Pro, and Enterprise subscriptions appear to be ad free.
By opening its AI platform to ads, OpenAI will gain major a new review stream. In January 2026 CNBC opined in “OpenAI To Begin Testing Ads On ChatGPT In The U.S”:
“The company [OpenAI] inked more than $1.4 trillion worth of infrastructure deals in 2025, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said in November that the startup was on track to generate $20 billion in annualized revenue run rate last year. Introducing ads to ChatGPT could help OpenAI meet its ambitious spending commitments, as digital advertising has long been the cash cow for other big tech companies like Google and Meta."
Ads will not appear for identified “children”and certain specific topics; for instance, politics and health. Don’t political action committees and pharmaceutical companies spend big money to reach potential voters and customers? When money meets and AI outfit, I am not convinced that the policies are set in stone.
What some users of AI with ads may not understand is the value of tracking data and the usefulness of cross correlating seemingly unrelated items of information. Toss in some AI-powered predictive analytics, and I think many users of ad supported AI services or seemingly free YouTube-type services would be fascinated by what information becomes available. When one mixes contextual “signals” with a tracked user’s behavioral data, magic happens for the analyst with access to the information.
Does anyone care? Yes, advertisers care. Companies like OpenAI are keenly interested. Is a government regulator concerned? That’s a good question to which I don’t have an answer.
Whitney Grace, June 1, 2026
Microsoft and Its Magic Touch: Slurp, Slurp, Slurp
April 28, 2026
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold. I find it interesting that AI detectors identify my writing style as AI output. I suppose I should be flattered, but I just don’t care.
I read “LinkedIn Is Illegally Searching Your Computer.” No, I don’t know if the write up is a confection or concrete. The publisher is “BrowserGate”. The title is snappy. I want to take a quick look at what the essay (news report?) asserts. I personally believe everything I read on the Internet. You may take a a different road in the “yellow woods.”
The main point of the article strikes me as:
Microsoft is running one of the largest corporate espionage operations in modern history. Every time any of LinkedIn’s one billion users visits linkedin.com, hidden code searches their computer for installed software, collects the results, and transmits them to LinkedIn’s servers and to third-party companies including an American-Israeli cybersecurity firm. The user is never asked. Never told. LinkedIn’s privacy policy does not mention it. Because LinkedIn knows each user’s real name, employer, and job title, it is not searching anonymous visitors. It is searching identified people at identified companies. Millions of companies. Every day. All over the world.
This is a thought provoking series of statements, and my first thought is that the legal eagles in Microsoft / LinkedIn hangers are putting on their flight suits. Ground crews are checking the verbal ammunition. The air traffic control professionals are clearing air space. The lawyers will be going aloft.
Moving the cash from data sales is a big business but boring. Thanks, Venice.ai, aside from one employee going the wrong way the image is good enough.
I noted the statement “one of the largest corporate espionage operations in modern history.” I would agree that Microsoft is in the data collection business. But if the firm is using these data for corporate espionage, one must act, “With all that information, how could the estimable firm foul up its artificial intelligence service, image, and mindshare? Something does not compute for me.
The second point is that a distinctly American company is not outputting information about what it does, is doing, did do, and will do. Evidence of this approach may be gleaned from the firm’s former president’s testimony in a trial in Europe and the marketing information about the firm’s relationship with its Number One AI partner, OpenAI.
The third point is that cross correlation is as commonplace as hitting a drive-through for a cup of coffee on the way to work. Of course, those with access to data find relationships, map them, and process the analytics outputs for signals. Now at first glance, the entire process seems sketchy. I assure you that it is the equivalent of hitting speed dial to see if a lunch date with a colleague is okay for today. No big deal. Why make a standard operating procedure a hair-on-fire event. Folks, cross correlation has been a thing for decades in policeware, intelware, and regular software. I know these statements may be surprising to some people, but that’s where the idea of life-long learning shows that most people do not keep up.
The write up continues with yellow lights blinking and sirens sounding. It offers up this gems:
LinkedIn’s scan reveals the religious beliefs, political opinions, disabilities, and job search activity of identified individuals…. Under EU law, this category of data is not regulated. It is prohibited. LinkedIn has no consent, no disclosure, and no legal basis. Its privacy policy does not mention any of this.
Okay, what’s the problem? For those in the EU, just embrace Linux as France is doing and stop using US social media. Most of the US outfits really don’t recognize countries, blocs, and royal edicts. The US companies do what is necessary to generate revenue, capture and hold user attention, and sell advertising. Believe me, the data slurpers know that selling advertising is a darned good business.
The link reveals that this “essay” is quite a lengthy white paper. I will leave it to you to work through the entire document. I had to break my reading into separate segments. I know that my interest in reports that BAIT outfits (big AI tech firms) are making people unhappy. Sure, some kids kill themselves because of certain outputs. Sure, US messaging services allow bad actors to coordinate. (Keep in mind that the coded-in-the-snow Telegram Messenger is in this game too.) Of course, the price gouging, dark patterns, and “Senator, thank you for that question” transparency puts some fire in the eyes of otherwise rational people. But the process has been chugging along for a quarter of century, and what do we have. BAIT.
One assertion is:
LinkedIn’s code uses a three-stage fallback chain to detect whether a specific extension is installed in your browser.
Stage 1: Direct communication. The code attempts to contact the extension directly using Chrome’s
externally_connectablemessaging API. If the extension developer has explicitly disabled this channel in theirmanifest.json, this method fails, and LinkedIn moves to stage 2.Stage 2: Resource probing. The code attempts to fetch a known file from the extension using its
web_accessible_resources. This is the equivalent of checking whether a door is unlocked by trying the handle. If the extension developer has not exposed any web-accessible resources, this also fails, and LinkedIn moves to stage 3.Stage 3: DOM mutation detection. The code monitors for changes to the page structure that are characteristic of specific extensions injecting elements into LinkedIn’s interface. This catches extensions that modify what you see on the page.
This strikes me as a variant on the methods used by some Telegram Messenger bots. I don’t want to label the method malware, but one might be able to find some similarities. In fact, in my upcoming Telegram lecture I walk through one approach that performs similar functions just within the mini app and dApp environments. My example is a fake job posting but operates via a smart contract with the payloads stored in the TON blockchain. The approach makes detection and removal somewhat more difficult that the approach used by Microsoft LinkedIn. I suppose their approach can be upgraded, but for now, it’s lagging behind the state of the art in sporty container activity.
The essay ends with a call for action. There’s a list of “extensions.” There is a — heaven help me — WhatsApp group. There is a call for the readers of the essay to talk with a journalist. But the big request is “Support the Browsergate Legal Fund.”
Several observations:
- What data are public facing AI companies acquiring and monitoring when a person needs hallucinating smart software to be more productive and increase one’s chances for brain fry?
- What data are cross correlated in most major cities by government agencies, financial institutions, private companies, and capable black hat hackers? Where do those data end up?
- What is the revenue generated by repackaging such collected data and offered to marketers on different financial terms via third party data brokers or subsidiaries of BAIT outfits that provide advertisers with market data?
I appreciate and enjoy the reaction to a reality that has been chugging along for decades. My question is, “Where have you been?” The Browser Gate Web site provides a link. Click it and you get updates. That’s called “sticky.”
Stephen E Arnold, April 28, 2026
Which Browsers Devour the Most User Data?
May 19, 2025
Those concerned about data privacy may want to consider some advice from TechRadar: “These Are the Worst Web Browsers for Sucking Up All Your Data, So You May Want to Stop Using Them.” Citing research from Surfshark, writer Benedict Collins reports some of the most-used browsers are also the most ravenous. He tells us:
“Analyzing download statistics from AppMagic, Surfshark found Google’s Chrome and Apple‘s Safari account for 90% of the world’s mobile browser downloads. However, Chrome sucks up 20 different types of data while being used, including contact info, location, browsing history, and user content, and is the only browser to collect payment methods, card numbers, or bank account details. … Microsoft‘s Bing took second place for data collection, hoovering up 12 types of data, closely followed by Pi Browser in third place with nine data types, with Safari and Firefox collecting eight types and sharing fourth place.”
Et tu, Firefox? Collins notes the study found Brave and Tor to be the least data-hungry. The former collects identifiers and usage data. Tor, famously, collects no data at all. Both are free, though Brave sells add-ons and Tor accepts donations. The write-up continues:
“When it comes to the types of data collected, Pi Browser, Edge, and Bing all collected the most tracking data, usually sold to third parties to be used for targeted advertising. Pi Browser collects browsing history, search history, device ID, product interaction, and advertisement data, while Edge collects customer support request data, and Bing collects user ID data.”
For anyone unfamiliar, Pi Browser is designed for use with decentralized (blockchain) applications. We learn that, on mobile devices in the US, Chrome captures 43% of browser usage, while Safari captures 50%. Collins reminds readers there are ways to safeguard one’s data, though we would add none are total or foolproof. He also points us to TechRadar’s guide to the best VPNs for another layer of security.
Cynthia Murrell, May 19, 2025
Will AI Data Scientists Become Street People?
November 4, 2024
Over at HackerNoon, all-around IT guy Dominic Ligot insists data scientists must get on board with AI or be left behind. In “AI Denialism,” he compares data analysts who insist AI can never replace them with 19th century painters who scoffed at photography as an art form. Many of them who specialized in realistic portraits soon found themselves out of work, despite their objections.
Like those painters, Ligot believes, some data scientists are in denial about how well this newfangled technology can do what they do. They hang on to a limited definition of creativity at their peril. In fact, he insists:
“The truth is, AI’s ability to model complex relationships, surface patterns, and even simulate multiple solutions to a problem means it’s already doing much of what data analysts claim as their domain. The fine-grained feature engineering, the subtle interpretations—AI is not just nibbling around the edges; it’s slowly encroaching into the core of what we’ve traditionally defined as ‘analytical creativity.’”
But we are told there is hope for those who are willing to adapt:
“I’m not saying that data scientists or analysts will be replaced overnight. But to assume that AI will never touch their domain simply because it doesn’t fit into an outdated view of what creativity means is shortsighted. This is a transformative era, one that calls for a redefinition of roles, responsibilities, and skill sets. Data analysts and scientists who refuse to keep an open mind risk finding themselves irrelevant in a world that is rapidly shifting beneath their feet. So, let’s not make the same mistake as those painters of the past. Denialism is a luxury we cannot afford.”
Is Ligot right? And, if so, what skill-set changes can preserve data scientists’ careers? That relevant question remains unanswered in this post. (There are good deals on big plastic mugs at Dollar Tree.)
Cynthia Murrell, November 04, 2024
Lark Flies Home with TikTok User Data, DOJ Alleges
August 7, 2024
An Arnold’s Law of Online Content states simply: If something is online, it will be noticed, captured, analyzed, and used to achieve a goal. That is why we are unsurprised to learn, as TechSpot reports, “US Claims TikTok Collected Data on Users, then Sent it to China.” Writer Skye Jacobs reveals:
“In a filing with a federal appeals court, the Department of Justice alleges that TikTok has been collecting sensitive information about user views on socially divisive topics. The DOJ speculated that the Chinese government could use this data to sow disruption in the US and cast suspicion on its democratic processes. TikTok has made several overtures to the US to create trust in its privacy and data controls, but it has also been reported that the service at one time tracked users who watched LGBTQ content. The US Justice Department alleges that TikTok collected sensitive data on US users regarding contentious issues such as abortion, religion and gun control, raising concerns about privacy and potential manipulation by the Chinese government. This information was reportedly gathered through an internal communication tool called Lark.”
Lark is also owned by TikTok parent company ByteDance and is integrated into the app. Alongside its role as a messaging platform, Lark has apparently been collecting a lot of very personal user data and sending it home to Chinese servers. The write-up specifies some of the DOJ’s concerns:
“They warn that the Chinese government could potentially instruct ByteDance to manipulate TikTok’s algorithm to use this data to promote certain narratives or suppress others, in order to influence public opinion on social issues and undermine trust in the US’ democratic processes. Manipulating the algorithm could also be used to amplify content that aligns with Chinese state narratives, or downplay content that contradicts those narratives, thereby shaping the national conversation in a way that serves Chinese interests.”
Perhaps most concerning, the brief warns, China could direct ByteDance to use the data to “undermine trust in US democracy and exacerbate social divisions.” Yes, that tracks. Meanwhile, TikTok insists any steps our government takes against it infringe on US users’ First Amendment rights. Oh, the irony.
In the face of US government’s demand it sell off TikTok or face a ban, ByteDance has offered a couple of measures designed to alleviate concerns. So far, though, the Biden administration is standing firm.
Cynthia Murrell, August 7, 2024
VPNs, Snake Oil, and Privacy
July 2, 2024
This essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.
Earlier this year, I had occasion to meet a wild and crazy entrepreneur who told me that he had the next big thing in virtual private networks. I listened to the words and tried to convert the brightly-covered verbal storm into something I could understand. I failed. The VPN, as I recall the energizer bunny powered start up impresario needed to be reinvented.
Source: https://www.leviathansecurity.com/blog/tunnelvision
I knew that the individual’s knowledge of VPNs was — how shall I phrase it — limited. As an educational outreach, I forwarded to the person who wants to be really, really rich the article “Novel Attack against Virtually All VPN Apps Neuters Their Entire Purpose.” The write up focuses on an exploit which compromises the “secrecy” the VPN user desires. I hopes the serial entrepreneur notes this passage:
“The attacker can read, drop or modify the leaked traffic and the victim maintains their connection to both the VPN and the Internet.”
Technical know how is required, but the point is that VPNs are often designed to:
- Capture data about the VPN user and other quite interesting metadata. These data are then used either for marketing, search engine optimization, or simple information monitoring.
- A way to get from a VPN hungry customer a credit card which can be billed every month for a long, long time. The customer believes a VPN adds security when zipping around from Web site to online service. Ignorance is bliss, and these VPN customers are usually happy.
- A large-scale industrial operation which sells VPN services to repackagers who buy bulk VPN bandwidth and sell it high. The winner is the “enabler” or specialized hosting provider who delivers a vanilla VPN service on the cheap and ignores what the resellers say and do. At one of the law enforcement / intel conferences I attended I heard someone mention the name of an ISP in Romania. I think the name of this outfit was M247 or something similar. Is this a large scale VPN utility? I don’t know, but I may take a closer look because Romania is an interesting country with some interesting online influencers who are often in the news.
The write up includes quite a bit of technical detail. There is one interesting factoid that took care to highlight for the VPN oriented entrepreneur:
Interestingly, Android is the only operating system that fully immunizes VPN apps from the attack because it doesn’t implement option 121. For all other OSes, there are no complete fixes. When apps run on Linux there’s a setting that minimizes the effects, but even then TunnelVision can be used to exploit a side channel that can be used to de-anonymize destination traffic and perform targeted denial-of-service attacks. Network firewalls can also be configured to deny inbound and outbound traffic to and from the physical interface. This remedy is problematic for two reasons: (1) a VPN user connecting to an untrusted network has no ability to control the firewall and (2) it opens the same side channel present with the Linux mitigation. The most effective fixes are to run the VPN inside of a virtual machine whose network adapter isn’t in bridged mode or to connect the VPN to the Internet through the Wi-Fi network of a cellular device.
What’s this mean? In a nutshell, Google did something helpful. By design or by accident? I don’t know. You pick the option that matches your perception of the Android mobile operating system.
This passage includes one of those observations which could be helpful to the aspiring bad actor. Run the VPN inside of a virtual machine and connect to Internet via a Wi-Fi network or mobile cellular service.
Several observations are warranted:
- The idea of a “private network” is not new. A good question to pose is, “Is there a way to create a private network that cannot be detected using conventional traffic monitoring and sniffing tools? Could that be the next big thing for some online services designed for bad actors?
- The lack of knowledge about VPNs makes it possible for data harvesters and worse to offer free or low cost VPN service and bilk some customers out of their credit card data and money.
- Bad actors are — at some point — going to invest time, money, and programming resources in developing a method to leapfrog the venerable and vulnerable VPN. When that happens, excitement will ensue.
Net net: Is there a solution to VPN trickery? Sure, but that involves many moving parts. I am not holding my breath.
Stephen E Arnold, July 2, 2024
The TikTok Flap: Wings on a Locomotive?
March 20, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I find the TikTok flap interesting. The app was purposeless until someone discovered that pre-teens and those with similar mental architecture would watch short videos on semi-forbidden subjects; for instance, see-through dresses, the thrill of synthetic opioids, updating the Roman vomitorium for a quick exit from parental reality, and the always-compelling self-harm presentations. But TikTok is not just a content juicer; it can provide some useful data in its log files. Cross correlating these data can provide some useful insights into human behavior. Slicing geographically makes it possible to do wonderful things. Apply some filters and a psychological profile can be output from a helpful intelware system. Whether these types of data surfing take place is not important to me. The infrastructure exists and can be used (with or without authorization) by anyone with access to the data.
Like bird wings on a steam engine, the ban on TikTok might not fly. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. How is your security revamp coming along?
What’s interesting to me is that the US Congress took action to make some changes in the TikTok business model. My view is that social media services required pre-emptive regulation when they first poked their furry, smiling faces into young users’ immature brains. I gave several talks about the risks of social media online in the 1990s. I even suggested remediating actions at the open source intelligence conferences operated by Major Robert David Steele, a former CIA professional and conference entrepreneur. As I recall, no one paid any attention. I am not sure anyone knew what I was talking about. Intelligence, then, was not into the strange new thing of open source intelligence and weaponized content.
Flash forward to 2024, after the US government geared up to “ban” or “force ByteDance” to divest itself of TikTok, many interesting opinions flooded the poorly maintained and rapidly deteriorating information highway. I want to highlight two of these write ups, their main points, and offer a few observations. (I understand that no one cared 30 years ago, but perhaps a few people will pay attention as I write this on March 16, 2024.)
The first write up is “A TikTok Ban Is a Pointless Political Turd for Democrats.” The language sets the scene for the analysis. I think the main point is:
Banning TikTok, but refusing to pass a useful privacy law or regulate the data broker industry is entirely decorative. The data broker industry routinely collects all manner of sensitive U.S. consumer location, demographic, and behavior data from a massive array of apps, telecom networks, services, vehicles, smart doorbells and devices (many of them *gasp* built in China), then sells access to detailed data profiles to any nitwit with two nickels to rub together, including Chinese, Russian, and Iranian intelligence. Often without securing or encrypting the data. And routinely under the false pretense that this is all ok because the underlying data has been “anonymized” (a completely meaningless term). The harm of this regulation-optional surveillance free-for-all has been obvious for decades, but has been made even more obvious post-Roe. Congress has chosen, time and time again, to ignore all of this.
The second write up is “The TikTok Situation Is a Mess.” This write up eschews the colorful language of the TechDirt essay. Its main point, in my opinion, is:
TikTok clearly has a huge influence over a massive portion of the country, and the company isn’t doing much to actually assure lawmakers that situation isn’t something to worry about.
Thus, the article makes clear its concern about the outstanding individuals serving in a representative government in Washington, DC, the true home of ethical behavior in the United States:
Congress is a bunch of out-of-touch hypocrites.
What do I make of these essays? Let me share my observations:
- It is too late to “fix up” the TikTok problem or clean up the DC “mess.” The time to act was decades ago.
- Virtual private networks and more sophisticated “get around” technology will be tapped by fifth graders to the short form videos about forbidden subjects can be consumed. How long will it take a savvy fifth grader to “teach” her classmates about a point-and-click VPN? Two or three minutes. Will the hungry minds recall the information? Yep.
- The idea that “privacy” has not been regulated in the US is a fascinating point. Who exactly was pro-privacy in the wake of 9/11? Who exactly declined to use Google’s services as information about the firm’s data hoovering surfaced in the early 2000s? I will not provide the answer to this question because Google’s 90 percent plus share of the online search market presents the answer.
Net net: TikTok is one example of a software with a penchant for capturing data and retaining those data in a form which can be processed for nuggets of information. One can point to Alibaba.com, CapCut.com, Temu.com or my old Huawei mobile phone which loved to connect to servers in Singapore until our fiddling with the device killed it dead. 
Stephen E Arnold, March 20, 2024
Worried about TikTok? Do Not Overlook CapCut
March 18, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I find the excitement about TikTok interesting. The US wants to play the reciprocity card; that is, China disallows US apps so the US can ban TikTok. How influential is TikTok? US elected officials learned first hand that TikTok users can get messages through to what is often a quite unresponsive cluster of elected officials. But let’s leave TikTok aside.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
What do you know about the ByteDance cloud software CapCut? Ah, you have never heard of it. That’s not surprising because it is aimed at those who make videos for TikTok (big surprise) and other video platforms like YouTube.
CapCut has been gaining supporters like the happy-go-lucky people who published “how to” videos about CapCut on YouTube. On TikTok, CapCut short form videos have tallied billions of views. What makes it interesting to me is that it wants to phone home, store content in the “cloud”, and provide high-end tools to handle some tricky video situations like weird backgrounds on AI generated videos.
The product CapCut was named (I believe) JianYing or Viamaker (the story varies by source) which means nothing to me. The Google suggests its meanings could range from hard to paper cut out. I am not sure I buy these suggestions because Chinese is a linguistic slippery fish. Is that a question or a horse? In 2020, the app got a bit of shove into the world outside of the estimable Middle Kingdom.
Why is this important to me? Here are my reasons for creating this short post:
- Based on my tests of the app, it has some of the same data hoovering functions of TikTok
- The data of images and information about the users provides another source of potentially high value information to those with access to the information
- Data from “casual” videos might be quite useful when the person making the video has landed a job in a US national laboratory or in one the high-tech playgrounds in Silicon Valley. Am I suggesting blackmail? Of course not, but a release of certain imagery might be an interesting test of the videographer’s self-esteem.
If you want to know more about CapCut, try these links:
- Download (ideally to a burner phone or a PC specifically set up to test interesting software) at www.capcut.com
- Read about the company CapCut in this 2023 Recorded Future write up
- Learn about CapCut’s privacy issues in this Bloomberg story.
Net net: Clever stuff but who is paying attention. Parents? Regulators? Chinese intelligence operatives?
Stephen E Arnold, March 18, 2024
Meta Never Met a Kid Data Set It Did Not Find Useful
January 5, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Adults are ripe targets for data exploitation in modern capitalism. While adults fight for their online privacy, most have rolled over and accepted the inevitable consumer Big Brother. When big tech companies go after monetizing kids, however, that’s when adults fight back like rabid bears. Engadget writes about how Meta is fighting against the federal government about kids’ data: “Meta Sues FTC To Block New Restrictions On Monetizing Kids’ Data.”
Meta is taking the FTC to court to prevent them from reopening a 2020 $5 billion landmark privacy case and to allow the company to monetize kids’ data on its apps. Meta is suing the FTC, because a federal judge ruled that the FTC can expand with new, more stringent rules about how Meta is allowed to conduct business.
Meta claims the FTC is out for a power grab and is acting unconstitutionally, while the FTC reports the claimants consistently violates the 2020 settlement and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. FTC wants its new rules to limit Meta’s facial recognition usage and initiate a moratorium on new products and services until a third party audits them for privacy compliance.
Meta is not a huge fan of the US Federal Trade Commission:
“The FTC has been a consistent thorn in Meta’s side, as the agency tried to stop the company’s acquisition of VR software developer Within on the grounds that the deal would deter "future innovation and competitive rivalry." The agency dropped this bid after a series of legal setbacks. It also opened up an investigation into the company’s VR arm, accusing Meta of anti-competitive behavior."
The FTC is doing what government agencies are supposed to do: protect its citizens from greedy and harmful practices like those from big business. The FTC can enforce laws and force big businesses to pay fines, put leaders in jail, or even shut them down. But regulators have been decades ramping up to take meaningful action. The result? The thrashing over kiddie data.
Whitney Grace, January 5, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
