Facebook and Apple Fight is About Monetizing You

If you’ve downloaded and installed Apple’s iOS 14.3 update for iPhones and iPads, you’ve put yourself in the sights of Facebook and Apple. Called “App Tracking Transparency” feature, it labels apps in the App Store, telling users what data those apps collect and whether it’s used to track them for advertising. Facebook, which makes its money from advertising, says the feature will harm small businesses that rely on targeted online advertising.

In many cases, you’re worth pennies on the dollar, but there are hundreds of billions of pennies at stake. And while both sides try to cloak their stands in privacy and free enterprise, it’s really about “fee enterprise.”

The gist of Apple’s policy is that when you download an app from the App Store, your activity on the device can’t be tracked unless you give permission. Until now, you had to opt-out to avoid being stalked electronically online. Most people usually ignore the opt-out/opt-in option, and Facebook and other web-based operations have made a lot of money by tracking you and selling the data to companies who want to sell something you want – or have indicated you may want.

According to a recent article in Forbes, Facebook itself estimates a 60-percent swing in advertising effectiveness between targeting and non-targeted advertisements. Facebook’s ad charges the article notes, will presumably match its ad-placement effectiveness. With the company controlling about 25 percent of a $40 billion online U.S. advertising market, up to $6 billion in annual revenue is at stake in the US alone. Google and Amazon also profit immensely from tracking you and selling your data.

The bottom line is that anyone who opts out is 60% less valuable than a regular customer, and that’s part of legal proceedings before the Federal Trade Commission and in 48 states. Apple, of course, has been taken to task for its practices in handling App Store operations, including who gets to put apps there, and other technical issues. They’re not saints, but that’s a separate issue from the Facebook issue.

The Forbes article likens Facebook’s operations to Ladies Night at a nightclub. On Ladies Night, clubs let women in for free expecting that they will attract men who will pay a cover, as well as spend money on the women and themselves. In a similar way, Facebook provides users with free services in the hope that advertisers will spend money on them. Facebook is like the owner-bartender who, for $10, will tell you everything he knows about a particular woman, including her relationship status and favorite drink.

I can’t speak for how a woman might feel after reading this, but anyone can feel some outrage about being put on display and sold. Yet at the same time, we’re looking for new and interesting products or services when we go online, and we may be open to new ideas when they’re presented to us. To me, that’s Facebook’s argument. You might view Apple as the guy who senses harassment and comes over to “protect” you.

To expand the transparency/privacy conversation, you have choices. You are able to use search engines and plug-ins that block unwanted ads while you browse the web and visit sites. Websites are fighting back by not allowing you access unless you unblock the ads on their site. You may not like the choices. You may not like sacrificing privacy for convenience or vice versa. But this is all part of the opt-in/opt-out battleground over who gets to profit from you.

If you have any questions about how to configure apps to meet your privacy or convenience needs, we can help. Call us – 973-433-6676 – or email us for an appointment to walk you through the process.

The Ill Winds of Solar Winds

Look for a continuing fallout from the breach of Solar Winds, the giant technology management company that was responsible for the high-level federal government systems that were hacked last year. The hack is top of mind because some of our most sensitive systems were hacked, but businesses were affected, too. It’s time to look at the world of big data management.

The lesson we all need to learn from the hack of Solar Winds is that nothing is truly, truly safe. We don’t know where government agencies and private industry systems were breached – and how badly they were breached – and when it comes to the government systems, we’ll probably never know. But I don’t think we’re going out on a limb by saying that 1.) Solar Winds will need to work extra hard to regain the confidence of customers (and their customers, too) and that if 2.) they don’t succeed in repairing their systems and reputation, they’ll join a lot of other companies on technology’s garbage heap. From our various industry contacts, we had heard customers wanted to leave Solar Winds for reasons other than security.

The big data management companies should be subject to much more scrutiny by government oversight and by their customers. Strict government oversight similar to what we do to monitor CIA activity is necessary because of the extremely critical and sensitive nature of government work. Industry regulation is required to set standards for performance and accountability.

How much oversight and regulation are needed is a political question. What is not political is the need to keep our systems secure and, where possible, insist on transparency in letting us know when things go wrong. Dependency is critical because every system is so intertwined. It’s easy to see it if you look at it like a wheel. In the case of Soar Winds, look at them as the hub, and then look at every organization in their customer list as spokes connecting the hub to the rim. The rim is everyone who does business with any one of the spokes.

Solar Winds and its customers are not the first victims of sophisticated hacking, and unfortunately, they won’t be the last. Google has experienced problems, including an email issue last month, and Microsoft has had its share of issues. Look at what our nation went through with security for our elections.

As individuals we can demand that big data management companies take greater care, but we also need to own our security and asset protection. A lot of it is technology-based. We’ve implored everyone over the years to keep all operating systems, networks and application software up to date – to make sure you download and install updates, security patches and bug fixes. We’ve implored everyone to have all data securely backed up and to have a plan to get your assets – like money in your bank account – when you need them.

Beyond that, be critical of information requested when you fill out forms. Why does somebody need your social security number? Even for a job application, does your prospective employer need that information before they’re ready to do a background check or pay you? Don’t be afraid to question a request or demand a satisfactory answer. For companies where you have critical relationships, like your bank, maintain personal contacts. Know that you can pick up a phone and actually talk to a real human being when you’re concerned about your asset. We can help you with the technology part of security. Call us – 973-433-6676 – or email us for a security audit or to discuss applications and processes that can keep your computers as safe as possible when a big data manager is breached.

Convenience vs. Competition: What do You Think?

The Department of Justice is beginning an investigation of “big data” companies and their hold on your online activity. This is not intended to be a political rant, but we’d like to know your thoughts on convenience vs. competition.

Here’s the executive summary of the DOJ’s investigation:

  • DOJ is reviewing whether and how market-leading online platforms – Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and the rest of the usual suspects – have achieved market power and are engaging in practices that have reduced competition, stifled innovation, or otherwise harmed consumers.
  • The review will consider the widespread concerns about competition that consumers, businesses, and entrepreneurs have expressed about search, social media, and some retail services online.
  • The goal of the review is to assess the competitive conditions in the online marketplace in an objective and fair-minded manner and to ensure Americans have access to free markets in which companies compete on their merits to provide services that users want. 
  • If violations of law are identified, the DOJ will proceed appropriately to seek redress.

The investigation – or review – caught our attention because Amazon’s recent Prime Day blew projected numbers out of the water. Why not? When you want to buy a product, what do you usually do? You use Google to find the best price or fastest delivery, and you generally go to an Amazon website – where Amazon has your address and credit card info on file. Yes, it’s basically one click or just a few, and your shiny new object is on its way – sometimes with same-day delivery.

I admit, that’s how we sometimes shop for products and make our purchase decisions. I don’t know if the size of Google and Amazon limits my choices – or if they limit them significantly. I might never know if a local merchant has a better product, price or customer service because smaller businesses don’t have the numbers to show up in a Google search where I can easily see it. I don’t know if another search engine (not Bing, which is Microsoft) would give me better results because Google is ingrained in my mind. It’s even become a verb.

We recognize that technology and laws are complex fields, and we’ll all have different opinions about what makes a good law. But we’d like your thoughts on competition and convenience. If you would answer a few questions either by return email or by leaving comments for everyone to see, we can share what’s important to us:

  • Do you automatically use Google for product searches?
  • Would you use another search engine if it were readily available and gave the results you needed?
  • Do you go to websites only at the top of a Google search?
  • Do you click on the ads at the top of the search results?
  • Do you go to a product provider’s website directly before or after seeing Amazon results?
  • Do you really care that Google and Amazon are so big that they might be stifling competition and limiting your choices?

Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts.