The New York Times adds another Hong Kong WhatsApp Number List issue of Facebook’s personal data use. The newspaper indeed accuses Facebook of having created information sharing partnerships with Apple, Samsung, and manufacturers of mobile devices. Allegations partially denied by Facebook. According to the NYT these data sharing agreements concern 60 manufacturers including Apple, Amazon, BlackBerry, Microsoft or Samsung. These permissions theoretically allow (for example) to post photos on Facebook natively from your phone or tablet, without going through the app. Thanks to these agreements, the manufacturers would have been able to access the personal data of the users, but also that of their friends, all this without any consent of the users.
These practices would have started more than 10 years ago, but they are still in force, even after the various recent scandals. Facebook would in fact have prevented developers (and therefore third-party apps) from exploiting data like Cambridge Analytica did, but these restrictions did not affect phone manufacturers. Facebook defends itself by explaining that this data is only used to offer a better experience adapted to the device. However, manufacturers do in fact have access to personal data such as love status, religion, upcoming events … According to the NYT, these practices have also generated a stir internally. Facebook did not leave these allegations unanswered, a post was immediately published clarifying this situation.
The New York Times Adds Another Layer To The Thorny
Facebook recalls that 10 years ago, there were no dedicated apps for each version of smartphone or phone, and that it was essential to go through an API. And the 60 manufacturers with APIs have, according to Facebook, signed user contracts preventing the collection of information for purposes other than the creation of a Facebook experience (we are totally reassured . Facebook rightly points out that in any case, iOS and Android have become so monopolistic that these APIs are no longer intended to exist. They are also in the process of being closed, and 22 of them have already been canceled
Is there a risk that the advertising industry will split in two with North America on one side and Europe on the other? Frédéric Cavazza: It is still too early to bury the practices of programmatic buying or marketing automation. On the one hand, the major players in the sector are organizing themselves to limit the damage, like the IAB Europe with its “consent framework” (a consent encompassing all advertising intermediaries); on the other hand, there are precedents for the GDPR in countries like Italy or Japan that have not prevented these markets from growing and also benefiting from the programmatic buying boom. So let’s not be pessimistic,
According To The Nyt These Data Sharing Agreements
that of the advertiser (Facebook Custom Audiences, LinkedIn Match Audiences, Twitter Tailored Audiences, Pinterest Audiences…). I’m not sure that all advertisers understand that the GDPR is not just about collection and also applies to data they already have on their customers. Formats favoring retargeting such as Facebook Pixel, Twitter Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag and Pinterest Tag are also impacted, with the announced death of cookies at the end of the line. Twitter (and others) of course rely on advertisers for GDPR compliance, as this excerpt from their FAQ shows: “ Twitter is the controller of the data it receives via the Twitter pixel and the conversion tracking partners on the mobile applications. Twitter requires advertisers to set up notice and consent mechanisms in connection with their use of this program, as described in the Conversion Tracking Program Terms. ”
Likewise, lead-generating formats such as “Facebook Lead Ads” or “LinkedIn Lead Gen Forms” now require adaptation, with an explicit consent box, a disclaimer and the inclusion of a link to the management policy. Datas. Beyond advertising, the GDPR has an impact on B2B digital prospecting. For example, many marketers have developed the habit of exporting the addresses of their LinkedIn contacts to send e-mailings. This practice was already questionable vis-à-vis the CNIL, but it is now totally prohibited with the risk of a fine. Also, exporting personal data of your subscribers, fans, group members without asking for consent, is prohibited.
In short, all that to say that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg, real compliance will be done as the different suppliers inform their customers. Example with Google