Live data from Hacker News

Facebook suspended the account of whistleblower who exposed Cambridge Analytica

yahoo.com

11–20 of 184 posts

Re: Facebook suspended the account of whistleblower who exposed Cambridge Analytica

#11
post #5

Why are people calling this a data breach? As I understand it, CA just scraped the data from users who authorized their app to do so. Am I missing something here?

CA also scraped the data of friends of those users, meaning that many millions of people had their info exposed instead of a few hundred thousand.

Re: Facebook suspended the account of whistleblower who exposed Cambridge Analytica

#12
post #5

Why are people calling this a data breach? As I understand it, CA just scraped the data from users who authorized their app to do so. Am I missing something here?

Facebook did not authorize data retention. CA’s actions were therefore unauthorized use of data, which is the textbook definition of a data breach.

Re: Facebook suspended the account of whistleblower who exposed Cambridge Analytica

#13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The arrogance of Facebook's response to this breach Is it even clear that there was a 'breach' of any kind that Facebook was responsible for? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like the chain of events is: 1.) Third party (Aleksandr Kogan) creates 'personality quiz' app, Facebook users opt-in to share information from their profile 2.) Aleksandr Kogan hands off data gathered by the app to Cambridge Analytica…

The app was allowed to scrape friend data as well, meaning that many more people’s information got exposed. That is on facebook.

I keep seeing it listed just as "friend data", and no one clarifying that.

Does it mean "friends lists", or "the data of the app user's friends profiles"? And in that second case, "the data of the app user's friends visible to the app user", or "as much data as if the friends had installed the app themselves"?

Unless it's that final situation, it's exactly how I assumed Facebook scraping worked already.

Re: Facebook suspended the account of whistleblower who exposed Cambridge Analytica

#15

The arrogance of Facebook's response to this breach, quibbling over what to call it and now this, is mind-blowing. Their "it wasn't a robbery because we left the front door open" excuse may finally bring about trans-Atlantic regulation of social media.

>The arrogance of Facebook's response to this breach Is it even clear that there was a 'breach' of any kind that Facebook was responsible for? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like the chain of events is: 1.) Third party (Aleksandr Kogan) creates 'personality quiz' app, Facebook users opt-in to share information from their profile 2.) Aleksandr Kogan hands off data gathered by the app to Cambridge Analytica…

It was a breach followed by business motivated poor handling of the breach. Facebook learned about the TOS violation, requested that CA delete the data, and did not follow up with verification that it was indeed deleted. The fail to follow up is compounded by the fact that:

a) Facebook was notified that CA did not delete the data; and

b) The CA-held profiles were used to target politically motivated advertising on Facebook.

One can't avoid linking the two facts. Facebook has no incentive to aggressively protect its user data when it hurts ad spending on the platform.

Re: Facebook suspended the account of whistleblower who exposed Cambridge Analytica

#16
post #2

Watch how they say it was an error, if this blows up. Just watch.

Somewhere at Facebook is a poor Winston Smith, throwing scraps of paper down the memory hole and editing yesterday's headlines. (edit: And at google, and reddit, and youtube, and ...)

Re: Facebook suspended the account of whistleblower who exposed Cambridge Analytica

#17
post #5

Why are people calling this a data breach? As I understand it, CA just scraped the data from users who authorized their app to do so. Am I missing something here?

Facebook did not authorize data retention. CA’s actions were therefore unauthorized use of data, which is the textbook definition of a data breach.

...you mean facebook said "don't keep this" and then they kept it? And people are calling that a breach?

Re: Facebook suspended the account of whistleblower who exposed Cambridge Analytica

#18
post #5

Why are people calling this a data breach? As I understand it, CA just scraped the data from users who authorized their app to do so. Am I missing something here?

CA also scraped the data of friends of those users, meaning that many millions of people had their info exposed instead of a few hundred thousand.

Right, but that was a privilege that the users authorized them to grant, no? As in, the people who signed up for CA's app had access to those profiles, and they explicitly granted CA's app access to those profiles. And then CA scraped them and saved them. Am I understanding correctly?

Re: Facebook suspended the account of whistleblower who exposed Cambridge Analytica

#19
post #5

Why are people calling this a data breach? As I understand it, CA just scraped the data from users who authorized their app to do so. Am I missing something here?

> users who authorized their app to do so.

Users did not authorize the app to do any of this. You are incorrect in that assumption.

This was a data breach. Facebook also knew about it and did not care. It is a data breach made worse by likely criminal negligence.

Edit: I have been (temporarily?) banned from replying or writing comments on HN. Maybe it is because of all the downvotes. Here is my response to the comment reply below (and with this, goodbye, I'm no longer allowed to post on HN I guess).

> In what sense did they 'not authorize' this?

Users did not authorize the data that was collected by these apps to be retained for more than a day or two, as described by Facebook's terms of service for CA using the data.

Re: Facebook suspended the account of whistleblower who exposed Cambridge Analytica

#20
post #19
post #5

Why are people calling this a data breach? As I understand it, CA just scraped the data from users who authorized their app to do so. Am I missing something here?

> users who authorized their app to do so. Users did not authorize the app to do any of this. You are incorrect in that assumption. This was a data breach. Facebook also knew about it and did not care. It is a data breach made worse by likely criminal negligence. Edit: I have been (temporarily?) banned from replying or writing comments on HN. Maybe it is because of all the downvotes. Here is my response to the commen…

> Users did not authorize the app to do any of this. You are incorrect in that assumption.

Are you saying their accounts were hacked? In what sense did they 'not authorize' this?

Post reply on HN