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

50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 271 posts

Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

#141

Post by tobilg »

yeldarb wrote: post #45
goldenkey wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. They basically just made an app on FB then had users accept the permissions. The horribly beautiful thing about FB permissions is that almost every single app will request EVERYTHING, and if you deny even a single permission that the app doesn't even seem to need, then the app will break or won't let you use it. So every user is indoctrinated into just clicking accept regardless of the supposed "granular" perm…

As of 4 years ago every app needs to be whitelisted by Facebook for every permission they want to request: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/review/w...

This wasn’t the case for Graph API v1.0, which I‘d suspect was used to gather the data. It was active until 2015...

Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

#142

Post by allthenews »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #114
allthenews wrote: post #52

Let's be realistic here. This headline is nothing but partisanship. The only reason this is exaggerated as a "data breech" is because of the connection to the Trump campaign. The real scandal is that such data is so easily harvested and freely available. I'd be interested in seeing how much of facebook's data repository was used in targeted political ads by all parties. Including Russian agitators who have been shown…

There are at least 25 scandals surrounding the Trump administration currently that are each worse than the two pseudo-scandals surrounding HRC that Conservatives managed to drum up, I. e. E-Mails and “Benghazi”. And ts not like FOX and the entire US Congress have less power than the Guardian. So, no: “They are all the same” isn’t just cynical and useless. It’s also wrong.

So, in your opinion, this justifies the false headline of the article, and is reason to turn a blind eye to the same potential data abuse when committed by the other party?

>They are all the same” isn’t just cynical and useless. It’s also wrong.

Please do not put words in my mouth. All I am asking for is journalistic integrity. Media in the U.S. has proven repeatedly to be partisan, which, to a rational person, makes it very difficult to separate fact from propaganda. This article is a case in my point.

Unethical politicking is not an excuse for spread of misinformation.

Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

#143

Post by allthenews »

Thorncorona wrote: post #126
allthenews wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But it is unethical to exaggerate and hold only part of the political system accountable for shady or illegal practices. This is part of a consistent pattern. Our media has become as hopelessly partisan as our unfortunate two party system, and unethical behavior on one front does not justify the same on another in response.

Can you explain why it's unethical to hold people accountable for their actions or actions others took on their behalf?

From my post, again:

>But it is unethical to exaggerate and hold only part of the political system accountable

Please consider what I wrote in sum. Partisanship and exaggeration are antithetical to trust.

Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

#144

Post by OrganicMSG »

threeseed wrote: post #132
wdr1 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook lets companies bid for ads to show you, based on Facebook’s data about your interests and demographics. If you never engage with the ads there is no information leakage. That's not true.

Please provide evidence then. I have never seen Facebook allowing large scale harvesting of their data. And it would qualify as data breaches in places like EU which do not tolerate this sort of thing.

Well, they may not officially permit it in public, however they clearly allow it, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

#145

Post by alangpierce »

underwater wrote: post #127
olivermarks wrote: post #44

My problem with this 'outing' of CA is that Facebook explicitly commercially exists to harvest user data for Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Fidelity etc etc so they can profile us. A million dollars is chump change in the crazy US election game. This all seems overly selective - it's ok for some people to profile but not for others. I'm not in favor of any of it to be clear but there is a definite political bia…

There is a big difference between sharing data with companies, and allowing companies to specify as targeting rules. Facebook lets companies bid for ads to show you, based on Facebook’s data about your interests and demographics. If you never engage with the ads there is no information leakage. It’s the difference between telling a random person “I’ll tell my gay friends about your party” and “Did you know that Bob i…

I've heard a lot of people believe otherwise (including a sibling post), so probably best to bring in evidence/sources. Here's Facebook's statement on it: "No, we don't sell any of your information to anyone and we never will." From https://www.facebook.com/help/152637448140583

So if you believe Facebook sells your information, then you also believe that Facebook is directly lying about it on a help page about that specific topic. Sometimes conspiracy theories are true, so it's not impossible that that's what happening, but it's not like Facebook is openly selling your information.

Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

#147

Post by ur_all_autistic »

olivermarks wrote: post #44

My problem with this 'outing' of CA is that Facebook explicitly commercially exists to harvest user data for Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Fidelity etc etc so they can profile us. A million dollars is chump change in the crazy US election game. This all seems overly selective - it's ok for some people to profile but not for others. I'm not in favor of any of it to be clear but there is a definite political bia…

[flagged]

Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

#148

Post by pbalau »

Nazare wrote: post #91
IAmEveryone wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a certain degree, this is a problem that Facebook has already taken steps against in the last years. Remember that Facebook gives you zero access to users’ data just for being an advertiser. This scheme relied on users granting access to an app. Data access by apps was curtailed two or three years ago to no longer include friends’ data. The permissions dialog has also become far more granular. From my observation,…

> Remember that Facebook gives you zero access to users’ data just for being an advertiser. As an advertiser you can target users based on very specific details, and track any user that responds to your advertisement campaign. You get all the access (AKA, you know which part of your customer base resulted from targeted ad campaigns, so anything you can target on, you can attribute to that subset). Regarding elections…

We are on a technical forum, thus I expect you to come up with a technical description on how can I use fb ads targeting to find out who is white and likes Arsenal in my neighborhood.

Arguing that only some advertisers get access to the tools required is bullshit: this is saying that Facebook won't tell you directly who is such and such, but will give you access to tools to bypass their own rules. I hope you see how idiotic arguing for such a case is.

Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

#149

Post by stochastic_monk »

rhizome wrote: post #102
jsmthrowaway wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, the downside of the consumer data culture in which we live is that you don’t really get to make that call. It seems like data is really an all or nothing game at this point, regardless of how society feels about it. Not sure how to change that, either, and I don’t personally think legislation is the answer.

Sadly, the downside of the consumer data culture in which we live is that you don’t really get to make that call. This can be changed, regardless of whether any of us is ready to throw up our hands about the whole situation as it stands.

Isn't the GDPR supposed to help with that?

Re: 50M Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach

#150

Post by x0x0 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #98
matt4077 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s really easy: you pass laws. Look at health records. HIPAA is rather successful at keeping your health data narrowly confined to those that need it. There is nothing that prevents similar laws to work for financial data, location data, etc. The only roadblock is people saying they “don’t personally think legislation is the answer”. Because there is literally nothing but law that can have an effect.

Good law is hard. HIPPA prevents gossip. That’s about it. The sales director for a drug manufacturer knows that you’ve filled a prescription before the claim is filed. Enfamil and Gerber knew the estimated due date of our baby — although the only interaction we had with anyone was a miscarriage at 8 weeks and a near fatal complication.

That can be regulated. That the US chooses not to do so doesn't mean it cannot be done.

See, for example, GDPR.

Post reply on HN