Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 583 posts

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#184

Post by victor106 »

This is such a well crafted statement not from Zuck's heart but from a PR team that has been working over time.

Shame on you FB and Zuck you Suck.

If they are so honest or like to be honest going forward why can't they make it easy to see all my pics and posts that are public? Why can't they make it easy to see who can see what I posted? Which app or user is using my data. They have billions of dollars and can't implement simple features?

Its just a game they are playing and they will go back to their old ways in no time when no ones watching or under a different name.

I was reading FB fanboy Robert Scoble's post and it pathetic. You almost feel like he's being paid by FB. He used to be a well respected tech journalist.

I have deleted my FB account and I am so done with this company.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#185

Post by tardo99 »

physcab wrote: post #79
ddavis wrote: post #7

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.

This was the graph api that enabled companies like Zynga to grow virally. You used to be able to do searches on Facebook like "photos taken by friends of _____" and you could easily stalk them without being friends with them. Today that search will yield photos only if you are friends with them, or they enabled their privacy settings to public.

To me the ugly piece of this is that companies like Zynga really operate in the realm of addiction. So, Facebook is operating as a sort of addictive drug on steroids.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#186

Post by plusbryan »

"It was installed by around 300,000 people who shared their data as well as some of their friends' data... this meant Kogan was able to access tens of millions of their friends' data."

I wonder why the Facebook of pre-2014 thought that this was an acceptable level of data sharing to developers?

Did they trust that all platform developers would forever have good intentions? Or perhaps they felt the data being collected was harmless in perpetuity (i.e. did not anticipate the political ramifications of the CA abuse)? Or that their legal team could effectively enforce their TOS to prevent abuse?

In hindsight, the pre-2014 policy seems ridiculously careless - but I'd love to understand why they didn't anticipate a breach of this magnitude at the time (or if they did, why they dismissed the concern).

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#187

Post by nappy-doo »

propman wrote: post #39

The trusting developers not to sell any data but putting zero safeguards in place to prevent this and extremely punitive repercussions despite being repeatedly told by the public, media, and even high level employees tells me Facebook can't plead ignorance to this and they not only knew this was happening, but they probably intended for it to happen. They knew it was illegal but put all the incentives for companies n…

WRT to FB's knowledge of this happening: Your assuming bad intent is no worse than FB's assuming good intent. Otherwise, one of the more reasonable FB comments on HN.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#188

Post by tantalor »

chubasco wrote: post #131
threebody wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of certify here is to "attest or confirm in a formal statement." So, Cambridge Analytica could be sued if they lied in such a statement.

This may be possible, however it is going to be interesting to see how Facebook gets standing to sue CA. From what I understood from Zuckerberg's statement, the agreement was between Facebook and Kogan. If CA got the data from Kogan, it seems like Facebook wouldn't have standing to go after CA directly. I haven't seen the specific agreements made by each party in this case, so I can't say for sure, but traditionally…

> Facebook wouldn't have standing to go after CA directly

Seems to be plain copyright infringement... FB licensed the data to Kogan, not CA, hence CA violates FB's copyright on the data.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#190

Post by sigstoat »

__jal wrote: post #78
radicaldreamer wrote: post #35

If they're serious about this, and I'm leaning toward they aren't really serious about it, this will affect a lot of startups, specifically in advertising, but probably a lot of mobile apps as well: “First, we will investigate all apps that had access to large amounts of information before we changed our platform to dramatically reduce data access in 2014, and we will conduct a full audit of any app with suspicious a…

> but refuses to appear before the US Congress and sends the company counsel instead. This strikes me as especially interesting. I mean, I'd personally theoretically have my reservations about this congress over and above the average congress, but FaceMark refusing strikes me as a deeply telling datum about how he's thinking about this.

testifying in front of congress is just an opportunity for politicians to win points by kicking you around like a ball. very few people (let alone CEOs) stand to gain anything from it, and corporate counsel is paid to put up with abuse.

> ...my reservations about this congress over and above the average congress...

ugh, come on. it's not like the whole congress votes on how you're to be treated, and the questions you'll be asked. the biggest heels on both sides of the aisle are free to harangue you all they want.

Post reply on HN