this is nothing more than a press-release for their atlas feature. A new low even for wired.
How would the article have to have been written for you to not think it was a press release?
From the outside, says Adi Kamdar, an activist with the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, it seems Facebook is “doing a good job” anonymizing personal
info as it seeks to link online and offline behavior. Facebook is adamant
that its system can’t be cracked—i.e. can’t be used to match names from
Facebook accounts with behavior off of Facebook—and Kamdar says he has no
reason to believe otherwise.When you can sign in on your tablet/mobile/desktop/TV/thermostat/fridge and who knows what else - how hard can it possibly be to stitch together your spending and consumption habits with all the other data collected about you? In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if those joined-up journeys have already been compiled. It's pretty obvious that the information companies collect about you goes far, far beyond creating a simple "advertising profile".
Companies like Google and Facebook (and others) have no self-restraint when it comes to tracking you and they don't even do it anonymously. How do they get away with it? Because we happily let them.
http://digiday.com/platforms/google-tracking/
http://www.datadrivenbusiness.com/google-quietly-testing-off...
If you turn it off, things like Google Now stop working.
I have wifi and gps turned off except when i am lost.
This just isn't possible. How many cents would it cost to brute-force hash all legal American phone numbers?
But that doesn't mean this couldn't be done properly.
There are actual zero-knowledge proofs. I liked this primer. You should read it!
http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2014/11/zero-knowled...
It is 100% possible for there to exist absolutely zero-knowledge proof in many instances. (Such as the one in the article.)
So, it could be possible for example (I don't know an algorithm) to check whether a phone number you were given is in someone else's set of phone numbers - without either your learning what the other's set is, or the other learning what phone number you're testing.
In this case, correlation does not indicate causation.
Umm, no. Why on earth would I give my phone number or email address to random shops? This is crazy. I surely don't want merchants to contact me "about other stuff I might want to buy." This assumption sold as a certainty in this article is somewhat disturbing. Do others from the US feel the same way? (I'm from Germany. Different culture?)
Safeway, a big supermarket chain, does this to an extreme. Many of their products are "50% off" when you enter your phone number of your membership on checkout. (It really just brings it down to a normal price).
Nothing prevents you from using a fake number, but as far as I can tell, most people give a real number.
It's certainly a different culture in Germany. Media and people are a lot more concerned collection of data.
I do get asked for my postal code fairly often but that's hardly a personal detail.
People voluntarily are idiots. Never connect a phone number to your FB account and use another mail address if you really need to have an account.
Facebook doesn't share my personalized shopping data with advertisers. That's good.
But the data still exists. So the data the advertisers receive is only really anonymous until there's some sort of security breach or economic decision whereby it's suddenly more profitable to sell the personalized data. Either or Both of which are inevitable.
All in all, a moderately informative marketing piece.
The stuff about you personally that can be gleaned from market analytics will make you shit a brick.
And this is what private industry can do, not even getting into three-letter agencies.
Facebook wants to keep the data inside their keep.
(since probability of giving stores your contact details post purchase and susceptibility to marketing messages pre-purchase are probably positively correlated and Facebook is permanently running concurrent trials of different kinds and being very selective about what they share, any positive effect they did manage to identify should be viewed as an almost certain overstatement of the ads' actual effectiveness anyway)
This may vary by geography...my observations are from Canada.
It's unfortunate that keeping one's privacy requires a lot of knowledge and work.
I wonder if the more vexing problem is that the market for privacy solutions seems largely unproven at scale. While people seem to value privacy when polled individually, they seem to vote the other way as an aggregate body.
Smart privacy products could take the knowledge and work out of it, but will the market support them?