This weekend Zuckerberg called on governments around the world to herald in a new era of “true data portability,” one where people who “share data with one service [are] able to move it to another.” This “gives people choice and enables developers to innovate and compete,” but also “requires clear rules about who’s responsible for protecting information when it moves between services.” …

All that follows is based on publicly available information. Most of the information in this article can be obtained or readily inferred from filings that have been available on a California court website for at least a year and in some cases more than two years. The rest can be found elsewhere on the Internet. Clear corroboration could be obtained from at least a half-dozen former Facebook employees who presumably would rather have immunity than face criminal charges and associated jail sentences upon plea or conviction. …

Zuckerberg announced last week that Facebook is pivoting towards a “privacy-focused platform” centered on encrypted messaging services. The most perceptive critiques, like those from Zeynep Tufekci, Sue Halpern and Scott Galloway, expose this “pivot” as a classic tactic from the Zuckerberg playbook: deflect from the core issues and get the world to “look over here” while Facebook does something nefarious behind the scenes that undermines the very stability of our society.

Zuckerberg tells us all to focus on data center locations, ephemeral messaging, and encryption — privacy issues that are obviously legitimate but also completely orthogonal to the core privacy…

This week the House and Senate held hearings to discuss potential federal privacy legislation. A lot of good came out of it. There is no question we need to move beyond the “notice and choice” paradigm that places such a heavy burden on people and really just provides a veneer of privacy compliance, an excuse that uses more check boxes to let Facebook off the hook for abusing our data. There is no question we need stronger rules and penalties for unfair and deceptive data practices, including Senator Wyden’s proposal authorizing criminal charges for willful violations.

The focus on federal…

In light of the FTC’s announcement of a task force on anti-competition in technology platforms, here are three direct ways of demonstrating that Facebook managed a devastating pay-to-play scheme with the data of 2 billion people that goes far beyond the narrow scope of the 87 million people affected by Cambridge Analytica and forced over 35,000 businesses to shut down for reasons that had nothing to do with privacy:

Proving Sales of Private Data to the Highest Bidders:

1. Cross-check companies who entered into ad purchasing agreements with companies who entered into Private Extended API Agreements or Addenda. This will…

That Facebook tracks us all even when we aren’t using Facebook is at this point an open secret. Anytime you go to a website that has installed a Facebook Like or Login button (read: most websites), Facebook has the ability to communicate with your computer through what are called third party cookies; thus, even if you don’t click on the Like or Login button and even if you haven’t logged into Facebook in years, there is still continuing surveillance! Through these tentacles on millions of websites, Facebook can track your activities online. They may know more about you than even…

How did Facebook violate your privacy? As described in the U.K. Parliament’s report, Facebook intentionally architected its Platform specifically to violate user privacy in numerous ways. Chief among them, Facebook deliberately chose not to pass privacy settings through its most popular platform APIs, both public APIs and secret private APIs. According to the Report, Facebook made this decision to ignore your privacy controls to make it easier for companies to accept a “gangster-like” proposal: “buy our ads or give us all your data, or we’ll shut down your API access, thereby breaking your products and ruining your business.”

Facebook’s entire…