21–30 of 583 posts
I haven't used Facebook in a while, so maybe things have changed, but don't they show you a permissions page where you agree to give the developer access to your information?
"... we immediately banned Kogan's app from our platform, and demanded that Kogan and Cambridge Analytica formally certify that they had deleted all improperly acquired data. They provided these certifications." How is it at all possible to certify that data has been deleted and no copies were taken..?
On the FB developer side: > Second, we will restrict developers' data access even further to prevent other kinds of abuse. For example, we will remove developers' access to your data if you haven't used their app in 3 months. Won't this behavior break a ton of apps?
The problem was data that was secretly kept, right? How would removing access change anything? Or am I misunderstanding what happened?
"... we immediately banned Kogan's app from our platform, and demanded that Kogan and Cambridge Analytica formally certify that they had deleted all improperly acquired data. They provided these certifications." How is it at all possible to certify that data has been deleted and no copies were taken..?
This is usually only noteworthy when it fails, but by and large it works. The friction involved if we did not generally accept someone's (signed, notarized, appropriately formalized) word as bond would cause our world to grind to a halt.
I haven't used Facebook in a while, so maybe things have changed, but don't they show you a permissions page where you agree to give the developer access to your information?
Also, there are various ethical issues with the users consenting to provide data under the guise of academics and then the data being turned over to commercial and political interests.
The 2007 and 2013 paragraphs are pretty scary. Your friend takes a personality quiz from a random app developer and then that developer gets access to _your_ personal data. Obviously Zuckerberg doesn't go into detail about what kind of data that was, but if they needed to rein that in in 2014... I imagine it was potentially pretty personal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He "trusts them" [1] [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims...
Like we should trust him.
Isn't there a bit of moral hazard here - as in, Facebook potentially getting material business advantages from reading other people's repos? Are they going to put up a Chinese Wall between the audit team and the product team?
Seems to be the go to business model nowadays...