The details were revealed in a blog by the tech firm's chief technology officer, Mike Schroepfer. It was published several hours after the US House Commerce Committee announced that Facebook's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, would testify before it on 11 April.
४ एप्रिल, २०१८
"Facebook has said it now believes up to 87 million people's data was improperly shared with the political consultancy Cambridge Analytica."
BBC reports.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३५ टिप्पण्या:
Versus how many millions were "properly" shared with the Obama campaign?
This is minor noise compared to the OPM losing 21.5 million peoples SF-86 in 2015 which had everything there is to know about you.
Congress did nothing about that. No one lost their job.
Hopefully Zuckerberg will remind them about that.
I just want to say to Facebook, " Were you lying then, or are you lying now?" The CIA created and controls Facebook, and their raison D'etre is lying about every thing all of the time.
So the complaint here seems to be that Cambridge Analytica didn't actually delete the data as it promised? So Facebook either foolishly trusted Cambridge Analytica (unlikely) or they just really didn't care (likely). But either way, it doesn't look good for Zuck.
It's still amazing to me that people are acting surprised by all this. But I'm convinced people are just feigning surprise and they're really just mad because the wrong people (Trump people rather than Hillary people) had access to the data. It's all so silly.
Now we know the real reason that Hillary!! lost!
Why was it improper? Did they break a law? Did they violate their Terms of Service? Was it because they were caught?
Wait -- how is what Analytica did improper, but what the Obama campaign did proper? Or do we also have numbers about that?
I think Facebook - and it is not alone in today's world - grew too big too fast for anybody to know what all was happening.
(Honestly, I think Analytica did with the data is exactly what Facebook should have expected them to do with it. Facebook is not a victim here.)
Zuckerberg appears to embody a stereotype that captured the imagination of certain German politicians of the 20th century.
maybe I'm naïve, but I believe when you commit personal data to the internet it won't be private if someone wants it bad enough; net a packet, spoof a mac
Matthew Sablan said...
Wait -- how is what Analytica did improper, but what the Obama campaign did proper? Or do we also have numbers about that?
The answer is obvious - Facebook supported Obama so giving his 2012 campaign information on tens of millions of Americans was fine and dandy. It was helping the Light Bringer deliver goodness and joy to the world. Cambridge Analytica gave (or sold) information to the Trump campaign so it was double-plus ungood.
Question for the lawyers: Would Facebook's 2012 actions count as "in kind" contributions to the Obama Campaign and as such be required to be reported? If so, and if Facebook didn't report them, what could their legal penalty be?
Wait -- how is what Analytica did improper, but what the Obama campaign did proper?
Because the right person won.
And then the wrong person won.
Adjust outrage accordingly.
I demand $10,000/yr for 20 years.
87,000,000 * $40,000 is a fair amount of money.
Of course Facebook willingly gave more than that to the Obama and Hillary campaigns. For that it will be more like 150,000,000 * $40,000.
Facebook is worth zero in 5 years.
Not being on Facebook, let me ask the FBers here: so what actually happened as a result of the "improper" sharing? Another inane ad popped up? The GOP called you at dinner time? You got annoyed at the thought of "your" data sitting in some server in CA offices?
Not being on Facebook, let me ask the FBers here: so what actually happened as a result of the "improper" sharing?
Nothing. Not a damn thing.
Never got anything Trump related, anti-Hillary or anything remotely related to the presidential election.
These are people simply looking for another excuse to throw yet another tantrum.
Cool, now do Obama’s team.
Sebastian said...
Not being on Facebook, let me ask the FBers here: so what actually happened as a result of the "improper" sharing? Another inane ad popped up? The GOP called you at dinner time? You got annoyed at the thought of "your" data sitting in some server in CA offices?
The information that google and facebook and to a lesser extent apple collect is sufficient to put together a very detailed pattern of life. The first thing we did when we determined a person was a target was put together a pattern of life so we knew when and where and what and who.
That information is the first necessary step in any orwellian/dystopian scifi book ever written.
Most of that information is collected by apps that run when you don't want them to. Google is also using it's monopoly position in several places to censor opposing viewpoints. I am in a masters of science program and if you don't say and believe the right things you will not get a job at one of the big 5.
Right now every major platform on the internet is dominated by people who mostly attended US universities and believe it is their duty to censor opposing bad points of view. The tech industry is as sick as the university system.
And they know enough about you to predict where you will be 80% of the time and what you will buy and who you will talk with and if you have guns and if you say hte right things.
The people who know where you will be 80% of the time and what you have/will buy and who you have/will talk to largely agree with Joss Whedon and just want their political opponents to die quietly.
Or not so quietly.
Prepare accordingly.
“Cool, now do Obama’s team.”
Good luck with that. The First Rule of Scandal Reporting, political edition, says that you find the closest Republican that can be linked to the scandal and hammer that link in 95% of your coverage. Sure, you may include a little more detail in the remaining 5%, but only enough that it doesn’t get overshadowed.
And the BBC article is a great example of this. Something the Obama campaign was crowing about in 2012 doesn’t make the mention even though it was at least invasive as, if not more than, what the researcher who gave the data to Cambridge Analytica did.
I wonder if Rommel whined like this when Patton read his book and kicked his ass.
No the CIA helped create the tor router, not the same thing
Daniel greenfield has popped this gornisch bubble
oops
This is the second version of the story I've read--I think the other one was in the Washington Post--and neither even mentions the word "Obama."
But don't worry, Facebook is now labeling Breitbart stories as "intentionally misleading" via a link to Wikipedia.
Congress did nothing about that. No one lost their job.
You don't understand that Obama boasted about his appointment of the "First Latina" head of OPM. He didn't mention that she hired a Chinese national to be administrator.
Another "Wise Latina."
No one is asking whether the DNC still had its data mining procedures from 2012 in place and what access they may have availed themselves to, in order to influence the election. I wonder why the hard-hitting investigative journalists are so incurious.
"This is minor noise compared to the OPM losing 21.5 million peoples SF-86 in 2015 which had everything there is to know about you."
One Federal security scandal among many others.
The security agencies don't really care as long as they continue to run things.
Internal goals have long since overridden the organizational purpose.
An unasked question, or an unanswered one, is who else did Facebook sell all this data to on the same terms?
Cambridge Analytica was a small outfit that did not much.
FB sells data to more important people.
The big FB problem is that the rest of the story isn't out yet - that it has, probably, dozens or hundreds of customers which acquired user data on the same or similar basis.
More, this was a one-time dump to CA, but what arrangements does it have near-real time?
Something the Obama campaign was crowing about in 2012 doesn’t make the mention even though it was at least invasive as, if not more than, what the researcher who gave the data to Cambridge Analytica did.
Also notice that, while FB insists up & down that CA violated Terms of Usage [ToU], they have yet to produce a copy of what those ToU's were.
My guess: there were no agreement documents signed anywhere along the way here. There was rather the standard ToU screen, full of legal verbiage that no one ever reads, that someone at CA or a researcher had to click "I agree" before the download.
I mean, geez, how can you control a data set once someone has a copy? It's not like you can put an "expiration bomb" into the data set.
To the extent that there is such a thing as a First Amendment, it must allow the receipt as well as the sending of information, to know as well as to tell. I don't see that you can regulate its storage either. This bullet could no more be called back than Snowden's.
Or Seth Rich's.
A girl I work with is pretty into mapping. She just logs into her Google account and can track everywhere her Android phone has been. The data set is plugged into Google Analytics tools and she can choose month over month, day to day location data.
I could do the same with my iPhone and sync up with a google account.
AI modeling is getting cheaper by the day and so is storing and analyzing large quantities of data (eye movements at a drive thru, surveillance for businesses, personal user stuff...lots of benign, assistive tech that could easily be misused..)
Little scripts are embedded everywhere. Cookies in sites you visit. Hardware (Cameras and mics) are not that hard to hack into.
Who do you trust with not only your personal data like search history and location pings, but public domain stuff?
Family? Tech companies? Businesses? You.gov? Law enforcement? Politicians?
You are still ‘you’ should you visit a porn site, search for medical symptoms, ping at a friends house late at night, Show up at a protest, get sucked into a YouTube suggested vortex, get lost just enough to feel a little scared in the woods.
They didn’t get my “data”.
Original Mike,
Facebook did not give away your's or anyone else's data. Once Facebook had the data, it was no longer your's. It may have been about you, but the data belonged to Facebook.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा