Meta faces controversy over employee tracking tool.

Meta's computer activity tracking tool is raising privacy concerns in Europe, with experts warning that employee communication data could be collected to train artificial intelligence.

Meta's plan to apply artificial intelligence to its business operations is facing new challenges in Europe.

A tool called the “Capacity Modeling Initiative” (MCI) from Meta Group has the potential to collect data far beyond what is publicly described, sparking controversy over privacy and the risk of violating the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Introduced in April, MCI is designed to record how employees use computers, including mouse movements, clicks, and navigation through software menus. Meta's goal is to build AI agents that can automatically perform everyday office tasks. The company says the tool is currently deployed on employee computers in the US and tracks activity across more than 200 applications and websites.

However, internal documents suggest the scope of data recorded may be broader than anticipated. Meta admitted in its employee Q&A that if a U.S. employee used email or chatted with colleagues outside the U.S., the content of those interactions could still be recorded by the system. This immediately drew attention from privacy advocates in Europe.

Meta Group's "Competency Modeling Initiative" (MCI) tool has the ability to collect data far beyond what is publicly described. Photo: Reuters

Dave Arnold, a spokesperson for Meta, affirmed that MCI's focus is on studying how people interact with computers, not the content displayed on screens. He stated that the company has thoroughly assessed the privacy risks and is committed to complying with applicable regulations. Meta has also informed its employees outside the U.S. about the possibility of their presence in data when communicating with colleagues in the U.S.

However, legal experts argue that the issue is not that simple. Kleanthi Sardeli, a legal expert at the privacy protection organization NOYB, stated that even indirectly collecting data on EU employees could put Meta at risk of violating GDPR.

"The initial communication data was generated for work and employment contracts, so using it to train AI models could go beyond the original purpose of the data collection process," said Kleanthi Sardeli.

The Irish Data Protection Commission, Meta's main supervisory body in Europe, confirmed that the company had informed MCI that collecting data from EU employees was not a primary objective. However, the commission has not yet issued a formal assessment of the initiative's legality.

Even within Meta itself, the project faced backlash from employees. Numerous internal posts suggested that MCI had access to significantly more data than initially described, including visited URLs, clipboard content, and information related to computer usage habits. According to internally shared analyses, this data could be used to build detailed behavioral profiles of individual employees for AI training.

Johnny Ryan, Director of Enforcement at the Irish Civil Liberties Council, argues that this is not just an internal issue for Meta. “The current controversy reflects a larger question about the future of the labor market as tech companies increasingly use employee data to build AI systems capable of replacing humans in many jobs,” Ryan stated.

Amidst the race among tech corporations to develop agent AI, the Meta case highlights the increasingly blurred lines between technological innovation and privacy. The question is not only what AI can do, but also how much data businesses are allowed to collect to achieve that.

According to Reuters

Source: https://hanoimoi.vn/meta-doi-mat-tranh-cai-vi-cong-cu-theo-doi-nhan-vien-976338.html