321–330 of 583 posts
If we discovered today that 6 years ago there was some malware on the Google Play Store that stole a bunch of user data and sold it (but the malware itself is long gone, having been removed from the Play Store 4 years ago), would there be a similar level of rage directed at Google?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever looked at FB's ad platform? You don't download everyone's data and target the campaign yourself. You target, "18-25 males in these zip codes who like the yankees". I don't see how you go from that platform (hosted and controlled by facebook) to something else.
At least at one point, you could. See the example of the person who pranked his roommate through very specifically targeted facebook ads. [1] It's even mentioned in that article how to get around the fix they put in so you couldn't target a group of less than 20 people. I'm not sure if this particular method still works, but let's take a step back and think before we make claims about what is and is not possible in a…
I just don't get it. I don't get the enormous backlash over this. Users give away their data to a company, the company sells that data to advertisers (or sells ads and targets the ads according to data), and the users can continue using the service they enjoy for free. This was the contract you agreed to when you clicked the sign up button. I don't get why people are mad at Zuckerberg and not themselves! People act l…
I once developed an app for a new startup which required every permission including access to text messages, everything. Not because we needed this info, just because we were too lazy to figure out what permissions we actually need so we asked for everything. We had 3 million users within a year and we could see people bank accounts and passwords and whatnot. We actually started to remove those permissions just because we felt bad for our users and we didn't really need all this info. So my point is, this is not new or interesting, if Hillary would have won you would not hear a pip about the subject.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever looked at FB's ad platform? You don't download everyone's data and target the campaign yourself. You target, "18-25 males in these zip codes who like the yankees". I don't see how you go from that platform (hosted and controlled by facebook) to something else.
At least at one point, you could. See the example of the person who pranked his roommate through very specifically targeted facebook ads. [1] It's even mentioned in that article how to get around the fix they put in so you couldn't target a group of less than 20 people. I'm not sure if this particular method still works, but let's take a step back and think before we make claims about what is and is not possible in a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when Obama committed even worse Facebook privacy violations back in 2008/2012 Obama's campaign said they were scraping for academic purposes, downloaded a bunch of data and then lied about deleting it? There are multiple levels of B.S. when it comes to Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. Only one finds comparison in the 2008 or 2012 races (on either side).
You're framing this improperly. Prior to 2014, anybody could create an app, and if people authorized it to, it could access some friend data. Your comment reads as if they went and made some special arrangement with Facebook and lied to them saying it was for "academic purposes". That just isn't the case. Every single Facebook user with the ability to write code could do this easily and automatically for the 7 years…
Source? All I can find is a scheme where they prompted people to sign in to a campaign site and grabbed the friend data that way. Icky as hell, but it's not obvious why that's "even worse" than CA.
Facebook needs to come clean with whose data has been abused, and by whom.
This scandal is bigger than Cambridge Analytica. It also covers what the Obama team did in 2012 and 2008, and probably a whole host of others that we don't yet know about.
We have a right to know.
It appears to be that facebook may be in breach of many legal obligations that are present throughout the world (i.e. Australian Privacy Act, GDPR, etc).
1000 word statement. Number of times the word "advertising" was mentioned: 0 Facebook continues to pretend it's business model is unicorns and kittens, not selling user data for money.
"... 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..?
Fwiw, Cambridge Analytica still maintains that they don't have any copy of FB data and are open to do a forensic test by a FB appointed team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They’re also pointing out that Zuck is fine meeting with Xi Jinping, meeting with Medvedev but refuses to appear before the US Congress and sends the company counsel instead. Worth noting that Zuck wants something from Xi and Medvedev, has everything he needs in terms of support from the US Gov.
Facebooks real existential threat is just that . He thinks that having everything he wants now is correlated to the future. He should call his bud Billy Gates and see how not playing 5 moves ahead with the government worked out. Facebook as almost insured that it becomes the whipping post of the FAANG companies as the government wants to look hard on tech. Im genuninely not sure what Zuck can do as long as Apple, Goo…
It seems that it worker out for Bill Gates pretty well.