181–190 of 436 posts
of all the 1000s of companies collecting user data, the full focus of the world is now on this one? why is that?
Google could find it self in the same boat.
Technologys hydras are as dangerous as the mythical ones.
Why can't we legislate regulations on Facebook, like Europe is set to do? They've already done the hard work by laying down the groundwork.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This fact has me more confused than anything. What did most people think Facebook was doing... Keeping all the data locked away an never letting anyone make use of it? The interest in that data by political entities should have been especially obvious. Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. I remember first hearing about it on a podcast that was mostly focused on the personality…
I think that kind psychological profiling you can do with a Facebook profile is not obvious to most people. It’s not even clear to to most people that they are under 24/7 surveillance by using the Facebook app. There has been some raised eyebrows of creepy targeted advertisements, but it’s a different ball game of knowing that there is a company that has profiled you as an individual and then manipulated you with tar…
The fact that computers are placing digital picture ads (that are cheap to produce), allows such extreme cases as we've seen to happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended.
This fact has me more confused than anything. What did most people think Facebook was doing... Keeping all the data locked away an never letting anyone make use of it? The interest in that data by political entities should have been especially obvious. Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. I remember first hearing about it on a podcast that was mostly focused on the personality…
They assume protections in place that aren't there because things like the bill of rights do not apply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course he did - C-level officer close to hugely controversial issue, leaving the company in 6 months. It'll be predicated on an NDA, some sort of success metrics for the transition process, and a monster golden parachute.
Worth noting that CSO / CISO isn’t really a C-Level position. They usually report to the CIO or CTO and are leveled at VP or whatever one one or two levels below what the “real” execs are. You’ll notice he isn’t listed as an exec in their SEC filings, which include their CEO, COO, CFO, Chief Product Officer, VP Business and Marketing Partnerships, CTO, and VP General Counsel. That tells you a bit about how important…
Not reporting to the CEO is a mistake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Cambridge Analytica took data from a third party app against the terms and conditions and has alleged to have wilfilly lied both to Facebook and congressional committess about what they did with the data. They absolutely deserve most of the blame.
While it is buried in the article, an interesting data point that I noticed as a former alum of the team is that the FB security team has apparently been picked apart and divided up between the prod and infra orgs. Being able to stand apart from these two massively powerful entities within FB and tell them when they were screwing up had been one of the moderating influences between the desire of the prod team for 'in…
Given the firm's susceptibility to GDPR and its newfound position under the microscope of a series of international criminal and counter intelligence investigations, this would seem objectively to be the wrong move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's weird about the timing? I assume NYT ran it as soon as they could confirm it, and that Alex commented as soon as it was published. The timing here seems pretty straightforward.
I took another look, and the timing is, in fact, not weird at all—thanks for pointing this out. This news is not very exciting.