Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#171

Post by raxxorrax » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 11:28 AM UTC

ninth_ant wrote: post #122

walrus01 wrote: post #34

> The researchers (w/ the help of others) are responsible for a browser plug-in called Ad Observer, which allows FB users to voluntarily share very limited and anonymous data about the political ads that FB shows them. You can read about Ad Observer here: https://adobservatory.org ================= Absolutely preposterous takedown demand. Facebook doesn't get to dictate what software I run on my own client devices, i…

A lot of people felt Facebook should do more to proactively stop people from scraping and aggregating data from their site after the CA debacle. Which is what they are doing here, and you are labeling “absolutely preposterous”. Which way is it? Should they let people do whatever they want with their accounts as you suggest, and risk a repeat of the CA fiasco? Or try to proactively stop it like they are now?

They harvested the data about users without their consent. This is about users wanting to protect against said data collection, so I think your angle comes from the wrong perspective and the juxtaposition (Which way is it?) is wrong.

> Should they let people do whatever they want with their accounts

That CA didn't have the consent of users was the scandal.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#172

Post by dfxm12 » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 1:23 PM UTC

013a wrote: post #91

dfxm12 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having an agreement with someone is not a prerequisite for being able to send them a C&D.

Sure, but at that point they'd have to be breaking some kind of law to warrant one, wouldn't they?

No, not at all. They aren't really legal documents, anyone can send one, even to simply intimidate the recipient, or force them to spend time and resources (they may not have) addressing it. And even if the sender is acting in good faith, the courts could interpret the law differently from them.

Remember, one is presumed innocent/not liable until proven otherwise, not when you get a C&D (or get arrested, or get sued, for that matter).

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#173

Post by root_axis » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 3:25 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #94

root_axis wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this repeated often, but it's totally incorrect, they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think everyone agrees these companies need more regulation, but the idea that they are in any way comparable to utilities is absurd.

> they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication platforms that are currently covered by common carrier laws. Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network. And the phone network is both a large communication platform, and is al…

> I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication platforms that are currently covered by common carrier laws

They have nothing in common except the "communication" label.

> Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network

They don't. The "phone network" is what provides access to the internet, a website is not a phone company, it sits at a higher level of abstraction. That's like saying a popular TV show is a broadcast network because everyone watches that show.

> online communication platforms are now as important as the phone system

That's not true. If the top 10 most popular websites on the internet disappeared overnight there would still be many thousands of ways to communicate over the internet.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#174

Post by root_axis » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 3:29 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #95

scbrg wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I admit I use some Google services. At the same time, I have no relationship with the non G:s of FAANG, which arguably is 80% of them (though perhaps not 80% of the influence). I'm not sure how they can really be considered public utilities at that point. None of the services they provide are essential.

> None of the services they provide are essential. I use online messaging and online communication more than I use the telephone network. To me, and many others, these online platforms are as or more essential than the phone system, which is already covered by common carrier laws.

> I use online messaging and online communication more than I use the telephone network.

That's your choice, you don't have to use any particular online messaging service. My cousins communicate over steam more than over SMS, that doesn't mean steam is a utility.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#175

Post by bogomipz » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:00 PM UTC

ahupp wrote: post #145

bogomipz wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are a little short on facts. Dr Michal Kosinski and Dr David Stillwell of Cambridge University pioneered the use of Facebook data for psychometric research with a Facebook quiz application called the MyPersonality Quiz. Aleksandar Kogan was a lecturer at Cambridge who then built his own app based on Stilwell's and Kosinki's app and work. Aleksandar then turned around and sold his version to SCL - the parent of Ca…

From the Wired magazine explainer on CA: "That data was acquired via “thisisyourdigitallife,” a third-party app created by a researcher at Cambridge University's Psychometrics Centre. Nearly 300,000 people downloaded it, thereby handing the researcher—and Cambridge Analytica—access to not just their own data, and their friends' as well." https://www.wired.com/amp-stories/cambridge-analytica-explai... re: "the exact o…

The "thisisyourdigitallife" was not developed by the Psychometrics Lab it was developed by Kogan(a lecturer at Cambridge University) who by then had formed his own company called Global Science Research Ltd (GSR.) GSR signed the contract with SCL Elections and sold the Kogan app to them. SCL Elections being the parent of Cambridge Analytica.

Kogan's app was based on the myPersonality app which was developed by Kosinski and Dr David Stillwell who did work at the Psychometrics Lab and denied Kogan access to their dataset. Cambridge Analytica and Cambridge University are not the same thing at all. So there is no comparison to NYU and Cambridge Analytica or Cambridge University for that matter.

Saying I'm "putting a lot of weight on the intention behind this use" is kind of a bizarre statement considering the data is literally available to everybody. See:

https://adobserver.org/ad-database/

The Project also clearly states:

">If you want, you can enter basic demographic information about yourself in the tool to help improve our understanding of why advertisers targeted you. However, we’ll never ask for information that could identify you"

And to that end the code for the plugin that the Ad Observatory project is used also freely available:

https://github.com/OnlinePoliticalTransparency/social-media-...

How much more transparent can you get than that? The goal of the Ad Observatory project is literally to try to understand how we are being targeted and manipulated. How is this in anyway the same as the secret harvesting of data by a political consultancy that billed itself as providing "election management" services?

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#176

Post by filoleg » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

CivBase wrote: post #130

filoleg wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It was Facebook's fault for exposing excessive data to users' friends during the Cambridge Analytica scandal I don't follow this logic at all. The data shown to users' friends is the same data that is shown to them now. Which is usually all their public photos (nothing from private albums), the friend list (if they didn't make it private), etc., only the stuff that friends are expected to be able to access (and stil…

Facebook created a platform which allows users to access information about others users who have agreed to be "friends". A third party then came along and asked users for the information which their friends gave them access to. The users gave the third party the data. I'm not missing anything here, right? If the third party should not have access to the data, then neither should the friends who gave it to them. Faceb…

>Either way, I don't see how this is a problem with thr research group.

Which is a valid take, not trying to say that your logic doesn't make sense. It does. But it is literally no difference in terms of what happened during the CA scandal, so all the same rules apply here. If you are ok with this group of researches and think they did nothing wrong, and that FB should have let them have the data, then the CA situation was a perfect happy road scenario for you. Because in that case, CA just got that data, and FB didn't stop them. Win-win, right?

Also, regardless of how valid this take is, FB was ordered by FTC to prevent third party sharing of friend data like that from happening. So FB's hands are kinda tied on this one.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#177

Post by mcguire » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

mFixman wrote: post #90

mcguire wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't NYU have an Institutional Review Board?

So does the University of Cambridge, and that didn't prevent one of their researchers from scraping and selling user data to Cambridge Analytica.

As far as I've been able to find out, Kosinski and the others developed their techniques at University of Cambridge (and other universities), then took those techniques to Cambridge Analytica/SCL (something that no one here would have any complaints about); CA/SCL then applied them to Facebook. The UofC IRB has no influence on that.

If there is any evidence that CA/SCL/Kosinski said the data collection was affiliated with UofC, I cannot find it. And when Kosinski attempted to use the data in his research, the UofC IRB denied it.

In this case the data collection is by the NYU AdObservatory project, meaning the data collection and its use (should) have to go through the IRB.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#178

Post by mcguire » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 7:33 PM UTC

tupputuppu wrote: post #65

spamizbad wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does.

That's enough? Any university with an IRB can scrape people's personal data?

More or less, yes. The purpose of IRB review is to ensure that personal data collection and use are legally and ethically kosher.

Cambridge Analytica and the researchers when they were working for it never claimed to be doing UofC research; if they did, UofC could and should have applied an academic (and possibly legal) baseball bat to their collective face. In fact, when Kosinski did try to use the data as part of his UofC related research, the UofC IRB denied it.

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#179

Post by punitxsmart » Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 8:57 PM UTC

rolph wrote: post #8

FB claims automated data collection, the data is apparently input to the app by a user , i think the hairs will be split between copy paste mechaniics, or ten finger entry in response to prompt, thus massaging the definition of automated entry. (1)FB has consistently refused to publish anything about how the ads are targeted . (2)The NYU researchers have tried to fill that gap, offering the Ad Observer plug-in to use…

Why would the AdObserver plugin (completely independent piece of software installed by the user) need to follow facebook's Terms of Service?

Re: Facebook has sent a cease-and-desist letter to researchers

#180

Post by okennedy » Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 12:44 AM UTC

bogomipz wrote: post #141

ahupp wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data CA used wasn't collected by them. They got it from a research project at Cambridge University's Psychometrics Center. This is exactly the same situation.

You are a little short on facts. Dr Michal Kosinski and Dr David Stillwell of Cambridge University pioneered the use of Facebook data for psychometric research with a Facebook quiz application called the MyPersonality Quiz. Aleksandar Kogan was a lecturer at Cambridge who then built his own app based on Stilwell's and Kosinki's app and work. Aleksandar then turned around and sold his version to SCL - the parent of Ca…

That makes quite a bit more sense. Thanks for clarifying.

To the grandparent: A researcher selling IRB-protected data would be effectively ending their academic career and opening themselves up to a mountain of legal trouble from the university and anyone who participated in the trial.