221–230 of 436 posts
This is blatantly false. Where did you get this idea and why doesn't it raise a red flag for being so rediculous when you repeat it?
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…
CA's CEO is seen presenting this clearly in 2016, specifically how well it helped the Cruz campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Dd5aVXLCc
Worldview Standard has a podcast called RawData where ep 1 of season 1 in 2015 talked about how a few likes on Facebook would let you know someone better than their own family, based on research from 2013: http://worldview.stanford.edu/raw-data/episode-1-uploaded
Obama's campaign used heavy data analytics for both runs, explained as early as 2012: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/509026/how-obamas-team-us...
None of this is new. It was only either ignored or accepted before and has finally reached critical mass due to the amount of controversy and conspiracy today, along with the generally expected fatigue of social media and the now evident effects it makes on most people's lives.
"Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security." 2 minutes ago https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433
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 think what's missed in this conversation, is that this sort of shenanigans isn't really in the purview of a CIO anyway. Too bad he got himself mixed up in it.
http://exfiltrated.com/research-Instagram-RCE.php
Suddenly he's so concerned about transparency he's leaving over it? This report seems very fishy. All the sources are "according to current and former employees." Not one person willing to go on record?
I hope they at least got a fair price for selling out U.S. democracy. If they sold it too cheap I'm going to be pissed.
>who started his campaign on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Mexican-Americans were murderers and rapists. This is blatantly false. Where did you get this idea and why doesn't it raise a red flag for being so rediculous when you repeat it?
> When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best ... They're sending people that have lots of problems...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
"They're rapists." is pretty self-explanatory. "And some, I assume, are good people." is indicative of Trump's sense of the scale of "good" versus "bad" people.
People have been openly complaining about sexual impropriety in Hollywood for decades. There were comedic references to Harvey Weinstein [1] and Kevin Spacey [2] in shows like 30 Rock and Family Guy. Suddenly people started caring. What changed was the cultural moment of the 2016 election. Specifically with Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, the Mueller investigation may have taken a turn towards them in recent months…
Now that the CEO appears to have been marketing some of the things that CA and its partners (possibly SCL Group) can do (involving bribery, hidden cameras and Ukranian sex workers) to an undercover journalist[0] , CA is becoming something that can unite people in dislike just by its very essence. The more light that is shone the worse it seems to look.
This is developing into quite a political story in the UK and it seems that unless there is a great big cover up (and it doesn't backfire) that this is only going to get bigger.
I think the public anger is justified, but I'm surprised it took an almost cartoon-villain figure of a company to raise the awareness of the value of data to those that are prepared to pay for it.
[0] https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would people leave? Facebook knows your buttons and pushes them just right. In aggregate this is terrible for society, but individually it feels good.
I was referring to employees in the last paragraph. I agree that users will probably not leave, unfortunately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm no fan of Facebook, but if they have some sort of contract with CA, isn't it within their right to audit them? And if one company wanted to invite another for whatever collaboration, they should be allowed to. 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 fre…
From what I've read, CA wasn't Facebook's customer. CA bought the data from a researcher who was authorized to slurp the data.
I wonder how FB views public scraping. Shades of webcrawlers.