31–40 of 436 posts
Only thing I want to know: did he sign an NDA?
Stamos sure knows how to pick stinker companies.
So either way, he picks hard jobs. The question is, does he truly step down when he feels he's got no remaining option to protest (which is quite respectable IMHO).. or is he simply outmaneuvering the board when his spidey senses tell him they are about to drop the axe because of recent corporate sins? Either way, style points for both I'd say.
https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...
Stamos had been actively engaging with security researchers on Twitter over the past few days about CA with heated discussions: > I have deleted my Tweets on Cambridge Analytica, not because they were factually incorrect but because I should have done a better job weighing in. https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975069709140877312 Archive of those deleted tweets: https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/975078309930311…
I can easily see how FB wants to throw CA under the bus and make it look like data theft while the truth FB wants to draw attention away from is that this is the system working as intended. Or if not technically "intended" then well within the boundaries of what FB is willing to tolerate as long as it's making them money.
They absolutely deserve most of the blame.
I admire his devotion to his candidate, and for trying to find an explanation for her defeat. But sometimes the correct explanation is the simplest one: she was just unpalatable to many voters. Deal with it, and spend your energy finding a better candidate next time, rather than trying to blame Russia or Facebook for influencing even a single vote, which likely did not happen.
Zuckerberg's and Sandberg's response to all these events has been the weakest and lamest that I have ever seen from any leadership, regarding controversial issues that involve a company of this size...and that's hard to beat when you have the likes of BP and Volkswagen... Do they really think that just ignoring the issue will make the problem go away?
There's breaking reporting that Facebook just had personnel in the Cambridge Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121 > BREAKING: Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office.. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/9758…
Stamos had been actively engaging with security researchers on Twitter over the past few days about CA with heated discussions: > I have deleted my Tweets on Cambridge Analytica, not because they were factually incorrect but because I should have done a better job weighing in. https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975069709140877312 Archive of those deleted tweets: https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/975078309930311…
I don't understand why he deleted that. It seems a reasonable summary. When I originally saw his tweet about the deletion I thought he may of gone on some crazy rant.
"I never expected them to disappear, I was hoping to reduce the rate at which people were intentionally misreading them."
Why Facebook employees are doing PR on Twitter, a platform designed for intentional misreading, is the question.
There's breaking reporting that Facebook just had personnel in the Cambridge Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121 > BREAKING: Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office.. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/9758…
And if the collaboration is doing something illegal, obviously personnel from both companies should be charged. And FB can do whatever investigation it wants (as long it's legal) and the authorities are free to ignore their findings.
Stamos sure knows how to pick stinker companies.
I mean, maybe that's true, but I'm not entirely certain it's a fair assessment. Yahoo and Facebook are arguably some of the largest targets (different eras of course). Being a CISO at both and not getting fired from either are huge achievements, given the CISO is generally a sacrificial role (largely ignored when done right, and beheaded if something goes wrong, regardless of your actions). So either way, he picks ha…