Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

201–210 of 271 posts

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

#201

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.

> HIPPA prevents gossip. That’s about it.

I agree that HIPPA is technically very weak.

But let's also agree that preventing gossip about private health info is a good thing -- a definite step in the right direction.

Laws are about building and reinforcing the culture we want to build. In that light, HIPPA is a long way from a failure: it sets the standard that "health care privacy is to be taken seriously, and as a society we believe it is important enough to legislate", if nothing else.

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

#202
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any reason to attack the one woman among the Facebook leadership and not, say, Mark Zuckerberg?

Because the others among the Facebook leadership are not going around writing and promoting books? Also, do you genuinely not find it disconcerting that Facebook leadership go to great lengths to avoid discussing the privacy implications of their service? And the only person in that group who puts herself "out there", so to speak, is instead writing "success literature"?

I guess she likes money and success literature earns more then privacy literature.

If there would be someone in Facebook leadership that writes about privacy and political implications for it, it would absolutely make sense to single out that person. Success literature is irrelevant to topic.

But, I think she was single out, because she is only name besides Zuckenberg the parent knows. Never underestimate ignorance on discussion forum.

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

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't think the intent of my question was communicated clearly. Let's try again. From your original post: > The only reason this is exaggerated as a "data breech" is because of the connection to the Trump campaign. You have provided no evidence of this, and until you do, your comment is read as a case of whataboutism[0]. Because we are not shoehorned into the pursuit of a unilateral solution, we can both [A] call out…

>So with that said, why do you believe that it's unethical to call out Trump and by extension CA's actions

Nothing in that wall of text justifies your twisting of my words.

>I don't think that we're exaggerating here calling it a data breach...And while I'll admit the term data breach is a bit of a stretch

If you weren't in such a desperate rush to misconstrue my argument, perhaps you would be able to maintain consistency in your own.

Once again, I am speaking of the ethics of exaggeration and selective accountability in journalism. My point is not that it is unethical to call attention to this misuse of data, but that the post title likely deliberately misleading because of enablers like yourself, who selectively turn a blind eye to such embellishment at any mention of Trump or the GOP.

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

#204
post #196
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain the difference in semantics between the two because the mechanics sound the same, best I can tell this company was just running ads like everyone else. Creating psychological profiles of voters to craft messages to them to pursuade their vote I believe is the same thing as political advertising and is exactly what Obama's campaign were doing and had countless fawning articles written about them (just Google i…

Why is this hard to understand? The same technology can be used for both good and bad. Obama used it to inform people about his polcies and get the out to vote. Trump used it to spread lies, falsehoods and half-truths. Essentially any media that was outlandish enough to become viral was promoted and promoted to hapless people who probably might have wondered why they were seeing so many distressing articles about Ame…

Yep. So Obama is just "good" and Trump is just "bad". Way to view things boy.

At most this is your own political standards. Not anything that can be neutral and objective. Claiming one set of political ideas to be "right" is very dangerous.

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

#205
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry what are you talking about ? Please provide some evidence that anyone with money and know how can harvest tens of millions of accounts from Facebook. Your example does not address this and seems just like normal Facebook targeting to me.

What? You can scrape that kind of data with a simply Python application...

You are either lying or completely ignorant because this is not possible.

The data that this app obtained was far deeper than what Google can crawl e.g. what a person liked.

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

#206
post #176

I remember when the Obama campaign hired data scientists and used targeted social networking tools to pursuade voters who were on the fence and it was heralded as brilliant and the future of politics. I worked for a company crawling Facebook data by creating viral apps the year the original API came out. By now I am sure this is done by many companies. Why is any of this news? My understanding is that companies harve…

And do you think the so-called "Russian influence" and the special counsel investigation have much substance to them anyways? Everybody can see from a mile how charged everything has become in American politics. They drum up the rhetoric on this one simply because they perceive Trump as their enemy and want him down no matter what, even though their "own" candidate might well have done the same thing or at least very similar things.

If this incident helps protect user privacy further it would be great. However I doubt it would happen at all. Most likely they'd just take this opportunity to aim another round of barrage at Trump instead of talking any substance about the issue itself. The purpose of this reportage is political attack against Trump instead of any concern for privacy in the first place.

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

#207
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not shock by the facts that they are collecting data. The fact they are designing a psychological procedure to feed their narrative and agenda to you in an unconscious way, shaping and changing your world view, with that message only tailored to you, is very creepy to me. This doesn't sound like advertising to me, this is manipulation and brainwashing.

Explain the difference in semantics between the two because the mechanics sound the same, best I can tell this company was just running ads like everyone else. Creating psychological profiles of voters to craft messages to them to pursuade their vote I believe is the same thing as political advertising and is exactly what Obama's campaign were doing and had countless fawning articles written about them (just Google i…

It comes down to motivation. Obama is a career politician, but Bannon is an ideologist. The former seeks to get elected, the latter seeks to plant ideas and change the society in a fundamental way. To me, Bannon is much more dangerous than Obama, because he is subversive.

Technically, there might be little difference, but Bannon clearly excels at using this tool to a greater effect, and the result is far more impactful and outreaching, even revolutionary. Guaranteed, other groups will take notice and trying to replicate their success, to feed their version of personalized agenda to your month.

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

#208
post #204
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this hard to understand? The same technology can be used for both good and bad. Obama used it to inform people about his polcies and get the out to vote. Trump used it to spread lies, falsehoods and half-truths. Essentially any media that was outlandish enough to become viral was promoted and promoted to hapless people who probably might have wondered why they were seeing so many distressing articles about Ame…

Yep. So Obama is just "good" and Trump is just "bad". Way to view things boy. At most this is your own political standards. Not anything that can be neutral and objective. Claiming one set of political ideas to be "right" is very dangerous.

That is Baizuo logic..

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

#209
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think "false information" is the kicker here. Taking a cursory glance at Breitbart and Fox News, there isn't that much that is patently false. Furthermore, my observations of how propaganda works in general is that it doesn't usually rely information that is technically false. It relies on selective distribution of information, editorial spin, and other more subtle methods. This makes "enforcement" basically…

> Taking a cursory glance at Breitbart and Fox News, there isn't that much that is patently false. Don't you think it would be better for you to take more than a cursory glance before commenting ? Breitbart has had significant issues with fake news over its lifetime. Far more egregious and consistent than other any other news organisation not that I would necessarily call it one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitba…

In addition to Fox and Breitbart, the Washington Post, Buzzfeed, CNN, and even the New York Times have had to retract dozens of viral political articles over the last two years. The retractions were only seen by a fraction of the people who saw the original headlines. This is an inevitable result of journalism increasingly relying on rumor and catering to partisan audiences.

Where is this line that should be drawn, and who should draw it? Breitbart may have a higher frequency of “oops someone gave me bad info, or my reporter/editor made an unsubstantiated inference” events, but their audience is much smaller than the large outlets.

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

#210
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this hard to understand? The same technology can be used for both good and bad. Obama used it to inform people about his polcies and get the out to vote. Trump used it to spread lies, falsehoods and half-truths. Essentially any media that was outlandish enough to become viral was promoted and promoted to hapless people who probably might have wondered why they were seeing so many distressing articles about Ame…

https://pics.me.me/our-blessed-homeland-their-barbarous-wast...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/opinion/sunda...
Post reply on HN