Users cry foul over LinkedIn update that taps personal data for AI training

Cyber-security experts and LinkedIn users have cried foul over an update in LinkedIn’s data collection policy that allows the firm to use content shared on its platform for artificial intelligence (AI) training, seemingly without seeking users’ permission.

The information collected is used to create AI-powered writing assistants to help LinkedIn users draft messages, among other uses, said the career-focused social networking platform in an update on its website published in mid-September 2024.

Many disgruntled LinkedIn users told The Straits Times that they did not receive any notifications about the policy change.

LinkedIn user Bhaskar Vulapalli, who learnt about the policy change on the news, said he was never notified about it. He opted out immediately as itwas not clear to him who else LinkedIn is sharing his data with, said Mr Vulapalli, an AI strategist for a fashion think-tank.

“I’m okay with companies using my data, but I didn’t like how LinkedIn did it,” said Mr Vulapalli, who is in his 40s. “If they thought this wasn’t important, then that is quite sneaky of them.”

Business growth specialist Audrey Tang, too, did not receive a notification and opted out as she was not comfortable disclosing her data, given the little information she had received on the policy change.

“When businesses aren’t transparent about their use of our data, it feels sneaky,” she said. “If we understand how our content and data is being used responsibly, sharing would be less of an issue.”

Singapore’s privacy watchdog, the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC), said it has contacted LinkedIn for proof of user consent for AI training.

And while LinkedIn has not stopped collecting Singapore users’ personal data for AI training, it has suspended the activity in Britain and some European countries, it said on Sept 18.

Statista estimates that there are around 4.2 million LinkedIn users based in Singapore. LinkedIn collects user data across the board – from users’ posts to the way they interact with its services – to improve and develop its platform.

In a support page updated in late September, LinkedIn said that its AI models that power its generative AI features that create content may be trained by LinkedIn or another provider, such as Microsoft’s Azure OpenAI service.

Users can choose to opt out of the use of their personal data for LinkedIn’s generative AI models, but doing so does not affect training that has already taken place, it said. To opt out, users must go to the “data privacy” section in their account settings and disable the option to “use my data for training content creation AI models”.

PDPC said it has contacted LinkedIn, adding that all organisations are expected to adhere to the Personal Data Protection Act.

A PDPC spokesman told ST: “An individual is not considered to have given consent unless he has been properly notified of the purpose for which his data will be used, and the individual has given clear consent.”

LinkedIn’s spokesman said that users can opt out of training AI models.

“We believe that our members should have the ability to exercise control over their data, which is why we are making available an opt-out setting for training AI models used for content generation in the countries where we do this,” the spokesman said.

The platform has always used some form of automation and has made clear to users how their information is used, he added. Updates on data collection were rolled out in LinkedIn’s user agreement, privacy policy and regional privacy hub pages, as well as e-mail notifications to members globally, which users disputed.

LinkedIn’s spokesman said: “The reality of where we’re at today is a lot of people are looking for help to get that first draft of that resume, to help write the summary on their LinkedIn profile, to help craft messages to recruiters to get that next career opportunity.

“At the end of the day, people want that edge in their careers and what our gen-AI services do is help give them that assist.”

In March, PDPC issued guidelines advising companies to inform consumers about how and why their personal data is being used in AI systems, particularly those powering recommendation engines that curate content for users.

While organisations can choose how they want to inform customers, such as through notification pop-ups or more detailed written policies, the notifications should not be “overly technical” and should be proportionate to the risks of each use case.

“Organisations should place themselves in the shoes of consumers and craft notifications that will enable individuals to understand how personal data will be processed to achieve the intended purpose.”

IT security manager Sachin Varma, 40, said he received a notification about the policy change from LinkedIn but the e-mail did not explicitly say in the body of the text what the changes were.

“The e-mail is too generic and does not summarise the changes effectively. Most people will overlook it and just move on unless they specifically click the links to read more in detail,” he said, noting that he opted out anyway.

Citing Singapore’s Model AI Governance Framework, data privacy research firm Straits Interactive’s chief executive, Mr Kevin Shepherdson, said companies that collect data for AI must be transparent in communicating that the product they use is AI-enabled.

“Until a clearer explanation of what personal data is used for AI training and how users gain from it, I wouldn’t be opting in anytime soon,” he said.

Ms Joanne Wong, chief marketing officer for IT security firm Exabeam, opted out and informed her loved ones to do so too as she felt there was a “lack of transparency” on LinkedIn’s part.

Internet companies should practise “clear and unambiguous communication”, said Ms Wong, adding that doing so would help customers be more receptive to changes that can help to improve services.

“It’s concerning,” she said, “as it feels like LinkedIn has made the choice for us.”

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Giving public servants valuable gifts? Here’s how you could run afoul of the law: askST Work contracts alone may not stop ex-employees from competing