July, 24 2019, 12:00am EDT
With FTC Settlement, Expect Facebook to Violate Privacy Again and Again
Statement of Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen
WASHINGTON
Note: Today, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released the details of its settlement with Facebook.
Facebook repeatedly violated its privacy policy. In 2011, it entered into a consent decree in which it promised not to violate its privacy policy again. But it did - over and over again.
At the end of the day, the FTC's settlement amounts to Facebook remaking the promise to adhere to its own privacy policy, while reserving the right to change that policy at any time. Facebook users and the public should take no comfort in that.
In light of the company's extraordinary record of privacy violations and its unparalleled reach across the globe and into users' minds, elaborate procedural mechanisms that aim to ensure "compliance" are not going to do the trick.
Protecting Facebook users' privacy requires structural change, substantive policies and impositions of liability to end Facebook's improper and unprecedented corporate surveillance system.
The FTC settlement fails to deliver on those measures. It enables Facebook to escape genuine accountability for what it has done and leaves it likely that the company will betray its users yet again.
Structural change: Facebook has announced plans for two major shifts that pose massive risks to user privacy. The first is the integration of Facebook Messenger, Instagram and WhatsApp. The second is the launch of its new global, private currency, Libra. In light of Facebook's atrocious privacy record, the FTC should have demanded it drop these two plans, each of which pose novel and unprecedented threats to consumers' privacy.
Substantive policies: The bulk of the FTC settlement relies on elaborate processes to ensure Facebook complies with its own privacy policies. Based on Facebook's record, and the general limitations of corporate "compliance" systems, there is every reason to be skeptical that this will make a difference. But even if Facebook "complies," it is free to change its privacy policies unilaterally and at any time.
By contrast, the settlement does contain certain substantive requirements to protect user passwords. Other substantive provisions are, by and large, missing.
Commissioner Rohit Chopra explains that Facebook's reliance on behavioral advertising--targeted advertising based on specific information about individual users' actions - incentivizes Facebook to violate users' privacy interests. In light of Facebook's record of repeated privacy violations, the FTC settlement should have required an end to Facebook's behavioral advertising system. The company would still be able to sell advertising in targeted ways - but it would not have the incentive to track every users' click, every indication of their interests, thoughts, fantasies and proclivities.
Liability: The $5 billion fine imposed on Facebook is a large sum. But it is one readily absorbed by Facebook and not sufficient to deter the company from future wrongdoing. Equally important, it does not plainly disgorge from Facebook the ill-gotten gains resulting from its violations of its privacy policy and the 2011 consent decree.
As a company still led by its founder, who remains its largest shareholder, power at Facebook is concentrated in ways that are categorically different than other large, publicly traded corporations. Getting Facebook's attention should have required an imposition of personal liability on Mark Zuckerberg - not just to make him liable in the future for improper certifications, but as part of this settlement.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
'Another Trump-Authorized Murder': 1 Dead, 2 Survivors Reported After Latest US Boat Bombing
More than 200 people have been killed in US strikes targeting boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that the Trump administration claimed—without providing evidence—were smuggling drugs.
Jun 17, 2026
The US military said Tuesday that one person was killed and two others survived the latest attack on a boat that the Trump administration claimed—again without providing concrete evidence—was involved in smuggling drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean.
"On June 16, at the direction of the commander of US Southern Command Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations," SOUTHCOM said in a statement.
"Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations," the statement continued. "One male narco-terrorist was killed during this action, and there were two male survivors."
SOUTHCOM added that it "immediately notified [the] US Coast Guard to activate the Search and Rescue system for the survivors."
It is not known whether the survivors were saved.
The attack—in which no US forces were harmed—was one of more than 60 that have occurred in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean since US President Donald Trump launched the campaign early last September. More than 200 people have been killed.
Relatives of people killed in some of the boat strikes, as well as officials in Venezuela and Colombia, say that at least some of the victims were fishers who were not part of the illicit drug trade.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro has accused the US of “murder." Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was abducted during a US invasion in January and imprisoned in the United States on dubious narco-terrorism charges.
In January, relatives of two Trinidadian fishers killed in the strikes filed a federal wrongful death lawsuit in Massachusetts.
Experts argue that the strikes are illegal. Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America previously said that even in cases of vessels that were involved in drug trafficking, the bombings were illegal and “the equivalent of straight-up massacring 16-year-old drug dealers on US street corners.”
Just Security editor-in-chief and New York University School of Law professor Ryan Goodman said last month that the “overwhelming consensus of experts, myself included, assess these to be murder because no armed conflict” is occurring, adding that they would be a “war crime if it were armed conflict"—and possibly even a "crime against humanity."
Responding to Tuesday's strike, former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth lamented what he called "another Trump-authorized murder" and act of "blatant criminality."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Iran Disaster an Even Bigger US Strategic Defeat Than Vietnam: Expert
"The United States is inarguably in a weaker position than when it began this war of choice, with core US strategic objectives harmed."
Jun 17, 2026
President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran has dealt the United States an even bigger strategic defeat than the one it suffered in the Vietnam War, according to one expert.
In an essay published on Tuesday by Foreign Policy, Paul Musgrave, associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, made the case that the damage done to the United States' reputation and credibility in the wake of the Iran war are significantly more severe than anything the country suffered in the wake of Vietnam.
Even though the Vietnam War went on for far longer and resulted in far more deaths than Trump's Iran war, Musgrave argued, the US nonetheless exited it with little long-term damage to its global power.
"Compare that situation with the aftermath of Trump’s war," Musgrave continued. "The United States is inarguably in a weaker position than when it began this war of choice, with core US strategic objectives harmed."
Musgrave noted that while the US and Israel had initial success in decapitating Iran's leadership at the beginning of the conflict, this only left the hardliners in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to run the country.
By failing to achieve the stated aim of regime change and by empowering even more radical elements within Iran, Musgrave added, Trump has severely damaged other nations' willingness to trust the US for national security protection.
"Regional allies, many of whom reportedly argued against the venture, bore the brunt of the costs of the fighting," the scholar wrote. "Most tellingly, Iran learned that its capacity to throttle the Strait of Hormuz could deliver economic leverage on a worldwide scale."
Writing in The New York Times on Wednesday, national security journalist WJ Hennigan argued that the United States' strategic defeat has laid bare the limits of US military power to bend weaker nations to its will.
In particular, he pointed out that the US, which spent $1 trillion on its military last year, could not take out even a majority of Iran's missile stockpiles.
"Yes, the wonder weapons that American industry cranks out, like cruise missiles and air-defense interceptors, have proven impressive on the battlefield," Hennigan wrote. "But the war has exposed the underlying weaknesses of depending on weaponry that’s extremely expensive and time-consuming to deliver. During an April 30 congressional hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth estimated it could take 'months and years' to replenish the stocks that had been used in the war."
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy, similarly said that Trump's Iran war had resulted in a strategic defeat for the US. However, he also expressed hope that this defeat could mark a turning point in US foreign policy circles regarding the applications of American power throughout the world.
"There’s a longstanding US bipartisan consensus around wildly inflating the Iranian threat," Duss wrote in a social media post. "Trump’s war, a strategic defeat, was an expression of that consensus. If... ending the war puts the US and Iran on path to a more normal relationship, that will be a positive thing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Luigi Mangione—Accused of Murdering UnitedHealth CEO—to Invoke Psychiatric Defense in State Trial
The legal strategy—which is not an insanity defense—would be an admission that Mangione killed UnitedHealth's Brian Thompson, but did so under mitigating circumstances.
Jun 17, 2026
Luigi Mangione, who stands accused of murdering UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thompson in 2024, will assert a psychiatric defense in his state murder trial, the New York judge presiding over the case revealed Wednesday.
The Associated Press reported that Judge Gregory Carro of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan said Mangione’s legal team informed him that they will argue that the 28-year-old defendant suffered from “extreme emotional disturbance" when he allegedly gunned down Thompson outside the New York Hilton Midtown Hotel just after dawn on December 4, 2024.
The defense strategy would be an admission that Mangione killed Thompson, but did so due to mitigating circumstances. The precise nature of the claimed psychiatric issue remains under seal, but it has been reported that Mangione suffered chronic back pain for years and harbored deep animosity toward the for-profit health insurance industry that dominate the US system.
Court documents indicate that Mangione's lawyers previously sought additional time to decide whether to pursue a mental health defense.
Extreme emotional disturbance is not the same as pleading guilty by reason of insanity, which would result in a convicted defendant being sent to a psychiatric facility instead of prison.
On Wednesday, Carro revealed that he had held a secret hearing on the matter earlier this month, and that the session's proceedings were sealed "to give the defense an opportunity to determine whether they were going forth" with the extreme emotional disturbance defense.
The June 3 hearing focused on the psychiatric basis for such a defense, its procedural consequences, disclosure obligations, and potential examinations.
Mangione's attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, decried Carro's decision to unseal details of the secret hearing.
“The reason why we asked for the sealing is that this defense is not available federally and Mr. Mangione is being prosecuted federally and this is prejudicial to his defense to the exact same facts,” she said.
Last year, then-US Attorney General Pam Bondi said she would seek the death penalty for Mangione at his federal trial. New York state effectively abolished capital punishment in 2004.
Mangione allegedly shot Thompson, 50, as he walked to the New York Midtown Hilton for UnitedHealth Group’s annual investor conference. Police said the words “delay,” “deny,” and “depose”—a description of how insurance companies avoid paying claims—were engraved in shell casings of bullets used in the attack, which was carried out with a 3D-printed pistol. New York police also said they recovered a three-page handwritten note that expressed "some ill will toward corporate America."
Five days after the shooting, Mangione was arrested after a customer in an Altoona, Pennsylvania McDonald's recognized him and alerted authorities.
Thompson's murder exposed the depth of public rage over corporate greed and a for-profit healthcare system in which thousands of people die each year because they have no insurance, while millions more face financial hardship or bankruptcy.
Mangione is facing state charges of second-degree murder, multiple weapons violations, and possession of a fake ID. More serious charges, including first-degree murder and terrorism, have been dismissed. Mangione's New York trial is set to begin on September 8.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular