{"id":13466,"date":"2023-05-04T01:46:42","date_gmt":"2023-05-04T01:46:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scannn.com\/upholding-our-commitment-to-protecting-your-privacy-what-the-ftc-gets-wrong\/"},"modified":"2023-05-04T01:46:42","modified_gmt":"2023-05-04T01:46:42","slug":"upholding-our-commitment-to-protecting-your-privacy-what-the-ftc-gets-wrong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/scannn.com\/lv\/upholding-our-commitment-to-protecting-your-privacy-what-the-ftc-gets-wrong\/","title":{"rendered":"Upholding Our Commitment to Protecting Your Privacy: What the FTC Gets Wrong"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> <br \/>\n<\/p>\n<div>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Today, in what could only be described as a political stunt, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accused us of not adequately protecting people\u2019s privacy based on events that occurred and were disclosed years ago and an assessment which looked at just the first six months of a 20-year agreement. None of these issues warrant the drastic changes the FTC is seeking just three years into our decades-long agreement\u2013and that the FTC lacks unilateral authority to impose. We have not violated the agreement and operate an industry-leading privacy program.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The timing is striking. These events occurred years ago, and we continuously update the FTC, yet today\u2019s action comes without any opportunity for us to address their concerns. In fact, this action was brought just before an independent assessor was scheduled to update them on our compliance work and program enhancements we made over the past two years \u2014 y<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">et the FTC chose to proceed without waiting to hear the results of that work<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">. The action also comes after the Commision lost its bipartisan membership, and extraordinarily, even one of the remaining <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Democratic<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"> FTC Commissioners has already publicly questioned the FTC\u2019s authority for the relief it is seeking.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">We are focused on working productively with the agency to protect peoples\u2019 privacy, but such gamesmanship suggests an agency more focused on getting headlines than protecting Americans\u2019 privacy<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Let\u2019s be clear about what the FTC is trying to do: usurp the authority of Congress to set industry-wide standards and instead single out one American company while allowing Chinese companies, like TikTok, to operate without constraint on American soil. FTC Chair Lina Khan\u2019s insistence on using any measure \u2014 however baseless \u2014 to antagonize American business has reached a new low.<\/span><\/p>\n<h2>The FTC\u2019s Latest Action Ignores Key Facts<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><b>We have invested in a comprehensive privacy program that is working well. <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u00a0Since 2019, we have completely overhauled our approach to protecting people\u2019s privacy \u2014 having made massive investments to build a comprehensive privacy program. We plan to end 2023 having invested more than $5 billion in a rigorous privacy program that includes teams and technology designed not only to identify and address privacy risks early but to embed privacy into our products from the start.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>We\u2019re held accountable for our privacy practices. <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The depth and breadth of the 20-year order we have with the FTC exceeded all other FTC orders. It is subject to both a continuous internal assessment and audit as well as external assessments for 20 years. We prioritize this work and have transformed our approach to protecting people\u2019s privacy. For example, more than 200,000 audit hours have already been spent on the current biennial assessment.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Today we build every product with privacy at the forefront. <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">We review an average of 1,200 products and features per month across the company before they ship to assess and mitigate privacy risks. We have allocated over 800 engineers to rebuild portions of our infrastructure to improve data protection. We\u2019ve improved the transparency and controls we give people over their privacy settings.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>We were in compliance with all of the FTC Order requirements following the first assessment and we\u2019ve only continued to invest and improve on them since then. <\/b><a href=\"https:\/\/about.fb.com\/news\/2021\/09\/independent-privacy-assessment\/\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">The first assessment report<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">, covering just the first six months of the program required by our 20-year Order, found our program to be \u201cappropriately comprehensive\u201d with \u201ckey foundational elements necessary for an effective program in place\u201d with improvement opportunities they would expect for a new program at this level of breadth and complexity. But this initial report was always meant as a beginning, not an end. Since then, we\u2019ve undertaken an intensive, comprehensive effort to address the assessment\u2019s findings, while simultaneously building upon the existing program. We\u2019re also continuing to invest in tools and technology to add automation to manual processes to ensure even better outcomes. With the second assessment period having just concluded, we expect that the assessor will find that we have made substantial progress.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>The coding errors highlighted by the FTC occurred years ago. We found and quickly fixed them on our own and voluntarily informed the FTC and users about them. <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">We of course work hard to prevent bugs in our code and take this seriously, but it\u2019s impossible for any company to prevent them entirely as the FTC has itself long recognized. This is not evidence of a violation of the Order.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>We take seriously the need to safeguard people on Messenger Kids<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">: The coding errors related to Messenger Kids were ones we disclosed to the FTC and parents in 2019. They sometimes resulted in Messenger Kids users being able to communicate with friends of their parent-approved contacts who were not themselves parent-approved contacts. We found that these were all friends-of-friends, and when we notified the parents of the impacted users, we shared details of who was chatting with whom and additional resources on parental controls and online safety. The technical errors impacted a very small subset of group chat and video threads due to the overlapping controls we have in place to protect against errors like this. In the years since the errors happened, we have built even more state-of-the-art protections in Messenger Kids to prevent coding errors and their impacts. We fully cooperated with the FTC\u2019s inquiries. We acted in good faith throughout that process. Now the FTC is applying a standard of perfection to Meta that is patently unreasonable, that it does not apply to others, and that is not the law.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>We have strong safeguards for the apps that you give permission to use your data<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">: We\u2019ve long had controls in place that prevent an app from accessing a user\u2019s nonpublic data on Facebook without their consent. These include a restriction that prevents an app from obtaining non-public information about a user\u2019s friends unless those friends are users of the same app and have already agreed to share the information with the app directly. In April 2018, we went beyond these user controls by <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">automatically <\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">preventing an app from continuing to access a user\u2019s data if it appeared the user had not used the app in the prior 90 days. This was not something we were required to do but was an additional control that we put in place to enhance already-strong privacy protections. The coding oversight did not result in any apps accessing data contrary to peoples\u2019 privacy settings; it only resulted \u2014 in certain, limited circumstances \u2014 of apps having access to data for longer than our additional 90-day limitation measure. In 2020, we found, fixed and told people about this issue.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none\"\/>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Privacy has been and remains our priority. We work with the FTC, not only in the interest of being extremely transparent with them but also to ensure that we\u2019re engaging with them regularly as we work to protect peoples\u2019 privacy and constantly improve our program. We have fully cooperated with the Assessor in its continuous monitoring of our program, as they have recognized, and we cooperate fully with the FTC in responding to their inquiries about the Order.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">Pursuing actions like this with little or no engagement with companies about what their concerns are and without any indication of non-compliance before seeking to unilaterally reopen a negotiated Order, sends a chilling message to all American businesses <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">about how to work with the FTC productively on these very important issues. <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">We have spent vast resources building and implementing an industry-leading privacy program under the terms of our FTC agreement and will continue to prioritize our work to improve it because privacy isn\u2019t something that is ever \u201cdone\u201d for us, it\u2019s part of what we do.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">We will vigorously fight this action and expect to prevail.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><script async defer crossorigin=\"anonymous\" src=\"https:\/\/connect.facebook.net\/en_US\/sdk.js#xfbml=1&#038;version=v5.0\"><\/script><br \/>\n<br \/><br \/>\n<br \/><a href=\"https:\/\/about.fb.com\/news\/2023\/05\/upholding-our-commitment-to-protecting-your-privacy\/\">Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Today, in what could only be described as a political stunt, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accused us of not adequately protecting people\u2019s privacy based on events that occurred and were disclosed years ago and an assessment which looked at just the first six months of a 20-year agreement. None of these issues warrant the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":13467,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[123],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-facebook"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/scannn.com\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13466","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/scannn.com\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/scannn.com\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scannn.com\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/16"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scannn.com\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13466"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/scannn.com\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13466\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scannn.com\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13467"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/scannn.com\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scannn.com\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scannn.com\/lv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}