Ex-Facebook insider says covert data harvesting was routine

Post by tremon » Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 10:50 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #376

tremon wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the regulation itself already is in force, and has been since the day it was ratified. There's just a moratorium on enforcement in the first two years of this EU directive, so that business (and society) has time to adjust to the new reality. The distinction may be very subtle, but it's important to know that following the 25th of May, businesses can no longer claim to be "in the process" of implementing it…

American businesses did not need to prepare until Safe Harbor fell through much more recently.

Post by xixi77 » Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

deft wrote: post #334

CodeSheikh wrote: post #240

I see a lot of Facebook sympathizers here. Is this what devs do at Facebook? Browse HN and defend the reputation of Facebook at any cost? Yes we all knew what we were in for when we signed up for Facebook and Instagram. Yes, they can sell our data to show us ads about what coals to buy for July 4th bbq party and we are OK with that. But not to turn blind eye to foreign entities which in return use it against us and j…

lol, noticed the same thing. Sadly its not just Facebook doing it. Every time a company goes under fire there's a ton of comments defending them or saying how it's a necessary step etc. etc. Sometimes its the "famous" users here doing this, consistently for the same companies. Gonna guess they have invested in them but this kind of shilling is just stupid.

Post by checkyoursudo » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

molszanski wrote: post #411

checkyoursudo wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Words still mean things" is not an argument. This can be a 'breach' by many of these definitions.[0][1][2] You're basically saying, "Words only mean the things that I want them to mean, and if you try to use them a different way than I approve, then I will use this meme to try to shut you down." Words fluctuate in meaning all the time. This may very well be the beginning of a new definition for breach, i.e., a socia…

> "Words only mean the things that I want them to mean, and if you try to use them a different way than I approve, then I will use this meme to try to shut you down." checkyoursudo, I don't want to shut anybody down. I get your point. And I am sure that in a world of haveibeenpwned.com and Equifax you get mine. Let's focus on the real issue here. Facebook has data that: - Can harm everyone - Is not protecting it well…

Post by molszanski » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 6:27 AM UTC

checkyoursudo wrote: post #394

thaumasiotes wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any of these old definitions contains sufficient meaningfulness to make "Facebook loses control of data to unauthorized breach" perfectly intelligble. Sure, but the point being made by the "it's not a breach" people is that Facebook didn't lose control of data to an unauthorized breach. They gave up data according to their own documented and expected procedures to people who were supposed to have it. "Facebook volu…

I guess then I'm confused about the narrative of the story so far. Did Facebook have control over its (my? your?) data at Cambridge Analytica or not? I thought the extra 50 to 250 million profiles scraped were unauthorized access? I could be entirely mistaken.