I had my emails on Wikileaks, my personal data allegedly taken from the US Government by the Chinese, and now FB, who knows where my info ended up. Sincerely, it's not one organization or another, it's just that data is likely to end up public, either for profit or for incompetence, regardless of how you transmitted it. Wake up. That the reality we live in.
1
Delete your Facebook account TODAY...and get a life...and help fight for democracy.
4
I don't know whether to be proud or aghast that the sophisticated data mining done on me so far has won me places on mail and call lists owned by the ACLU, the NRA, the GOP, and the DNC. Perhaps I need to hire a consultant who can help me encourage the folks I want to hear from and discourage the others ...
A good reason to NEVER log into any app with Facebook. Better to never use Facebook at all.
Newsflash. Your friends don't care what you had for dinner last night or what you watched on TV. They are not interested in pictures of your baby or your cat.
Everyone listens to the same radio station WIFM. What's in It For Me.
2
Note FT is not saying anything about CA claiming a paper GAVE them millions of subscribers' data, just that they once worked together and have no idea if any facebook data was used in this effort. Let the recriminations BEGIN!
https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/ft-economist-cambridge-analytica-...
No, Facebook is NOT a "tough habit to quit." I happily deactivated my account a few weeks ago. Before that, I'd spend maybe 30 minutes max on FB each week. As fo Ms. Risner being "too nosy to stay off it": People who are constantly checking Facebook are addicted. Personally, if I want news from my friends and family, I'll call, email or text them. I don't need to "like" cat videos, or see what my ex-ex boyfriend is up to.
Read a book, meet up with a friend, watch a movie, meditate, take a walk with your kids or dog - all far more satisfying that wasting time on Facebook.
2
Meanwhile the EU next month begins the General Data Protection Regulation. Just one more time when you have to wonder why Americans are so passive.
1
How free are you if "they" can predict and make use of your personal and specific choices and actions, even if they didn't change your mind about anything?
Entertainment, even low brow entertainment, provides value to the people who value it. If it weren't so then they wouldn't have millions of followers and millions of views. Advertising and product placement is how they make money and compelling content is how they get eyeballs.
However, it used to be that TV and print advertising limited content to the sensibilities of the average viewer so that everyone generally got a taste of some content that wasn't necessarily tuned to their specific interest and proclivity.
Now that is no more. The Internet allows companies (and governments!) to treat you individually as a specific market and tune their content and advertising specifically to what will motivate you to do what they want. They even throw in some stuff that you are not interested in just to keep you feeling like you have a choice!
See: "How Target figured out a teen girl was pregnant before her father did"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-o...
1
Whoa there, boys! Buzzfeed is just the bird feeder. FT and the ECONOMIST were using CA to break into more American markets. I got two birds for the price of one stone. How do FT readers feel knowing CA has millions of their data packets?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/ft-economist-cambridge-analytica-...
Is this link Kosher?
Perhaps these two NYT writers need to take a course in remedial math. If there are 214 million American Facebook users, and roughly 87 million were victimized by Cambridge Analytica, then this means roughly 40% (or 2 out of every 5) of Facebook USA was victimized. In other words, contrary to what the NYT writers say ("few of the roughly 214 million Americans with Facebook profiles know whether their data was among the information swept up for Cambridge Analytica"), there's a very good likelihood y-o-u were victimized.
1
Boo-hoo all those images of little Tyler and Brittany, the vacations, new cars, friends...stolen and now out there who nows where. Know what? The first paragraph says it all - those folks who filled out the survey were PAID and gave their friends and family info. to get PAID more. Honestly, does anyone really think that anything is free? Facebook spends billions to maintain their websites - where do the horrified victims of stolen data think the $$$ comes from - you and the advertisers.
1
I'm at a loss to understand how all these people signed up to share all this information ranging from: personal and political thoughts to the mundane where they went for dinner and "posting" everything including their meal, are now "outraged" that Facebook sold this information for profit. Please stop your whining!!!
How did they think Facebook made a profit???
What I'm outraged at is Mark Zuckerberg obvious lie to Congress and to the American people when he pretended to be ignorant of the Russian trolling and now Cambridge Analytica's use of the information.
He was warned of the trolling years ago and he was warned of the possible abuses of the information years ago. Yet he chose to do nothing and plead ignorance about it for the sake of profit.
1
If you get a notification, please consider sending a screen shot to Professor David Carroll at the New School. I believe his suit is one of our best chances to take back our privacy and our elections.
https://www.facebook.com/profcarroll/posts/10215755782705676
1
If only the “powers that be” put this much effort into the Experian hack. I didn’t willing give Experian my info...
5
Of course it was, whether it was Cambridge Analytica or someone else. Facebook has admitted as much. What is really disgusting is allowing one to share one's friend's data without informing the friend in question. Time to move on.
1
Zuckerberg is a pawn of the intelligence services.
1
Other than my name they have no way to contact me...oh yeah...and I cancelled my account the first time he denied culpability. Liar. So FB won't be able to notify everybody I guess...again it's too little too late. Greedy little nasty monster that he is, he needs to be questioned by Congress while strapped to a lie detector.
1
Should be Sandberg
I hope they didn't miss me. I'd feel cheated, or ignored. Would make me paranoid.j Check my deodorant. P.S. If you're undocumented, my SS number is for sale.
As many readers have already pointed out, how is it that FB is being called to congress for being loose with data that its users gave up any right to, while Equifax just putters right along? Congress is full of idiots (on both sides) who only care about optics and easy wins. FB is an easy target without extensive ties to the finance and banking industry. So they can be called to testify without any campaign contribution losses. I hate FB as much as the next person, and deleted my account years ago. I would love to see the downfall of all social media. But this is pure toothless theater that wastes time and money.
It is tiring to hear the assumption that I am a Facebook member. I am not a member of Facebook. I cancelled in 2011. I got tired of seeing others on vacation. It seemed like a place for braggers.
I think based on what we all know now, we need a new word. Facebook “users” are used more then they use so how about “usee”.
CP
2
Sure we will.
Why should anyone is his right mind post private information on the internet - Facebook or other places. You just gotta know it is going to be misused - either to shove stupid advertising down your throat or be sold to who-knows-where.
And of all places - trust Facebook? Trust a site where the uber-rich owner cannot afford to dress like an adult every day?
2
So Zukerberg and Sanders earn billions and the rest of the 99% lose their democracy
1
And has anyone else noticed that all of our comments here have little FB logos to be clicked upon at the bottom. I have no idea what that does and I'm not going to find out. But it's time for the NYT to disconnect.
2
Yea, FB all of a sudden is looking out for me...right...
1
Keep telling the entire World all about yourself, what could possibly go wrong with that?
2
This is why I've never liked apps. I use very few. I go to the business website instead of downloading apps. It's clunky. But as soon as a digital entity asks for access to ANYTHING of mine, I back out quickly.
2
I quit FB years ago because I thought Zuckerberg was overly concerned with his privacy and not nearly concerned enough with mine. I surprise myself once in a while.
3
It's interesting some don't think this is a big deal. If a foreign adversary is able to access millions of detailed profiles about American citizens to influence our elections one way or the other through social media, it's a problem.
Facebook also admitted recently it scans messages sent through Facebook Messenger. If you want to use a more privacy oriented messenger with friends , use the Signal app by Open Whisper Systems which is end-to-end encrypted and open source. Many people use WhatsApp, but that's owned by Facebook.
2
Three or so years ago, after reading several articles (NYT included) about the potential abuse Facebook data by the firm itself as well as those who pay Zuckerberg for our data, I quit the site…almost. It let me know that my quitting would not take effect for two weeks, which I still consider illegal and abusive of my rights.
I never got 'hooked' so for me the withdrawal pains were nonexistent. When I explained what I did to friends and family almost universally they agreed that abuses might be a problem but a negligible one. They don't know whether their data is part of the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook theft.
I haven't heard if the current reporting has uncovered more serious thefts: person-specific sale and use of data. What I am certain of is that it will happen if it hasn't already. I know that Facebook isn't the only data player in town, merely the biggest. Also, it's one with the greatest reach into the psychological data pool, in my opinion the greatest threat.
Sheryl Sanders may be putting a kinder, gentler, more compassionate face on this monolithic enterprise but it's Zuckerberg I'll be watching on Tuesday.
2
Here's a game we can all play: predict the predictable - Congress huffs and puffs at Zuckerberg, as he meanwhile wears temporary sackcloth and ashes, and does an admirable job of not smirking during the scene.
The net result - an apology worthy of an Oscar, followed by no meaningful legislation to rein in Facebook! Until or unless we voters demand more than this time-honored ritual, our personal information will continue to get pimped-out by the likes of Facebook!
4
No one was harmed, getting stuff for free with the caveat you will be subject to advertisers trying to sell something has been going on for a long time. Free television for example, radio is another. Not sure what the big deal is, even with respect to political advertising, again on tv and radio all the time. Obama used Facebook in the 2012 election and everyone here was cool with it. So what is the big deal now?
1
I know that my data was not collected. No FB, no problem.
But here's the thing.... it's not just that FB had ads or items on your news feed. It's that places like FOX NEWS treated the fake news as real news and played it over and over 24/7/365. Millennials didn't vote for trump so you can't blame them. You have to look at the folks who voted for him and see how the sales of the information to CA impacted the rest of the non-FB world. It's not as easy as blaming FB for the outcome - they were not the mastermind behind this outcome - they were the greedy corporation who (although some might say corporations are people) only truly care about share holder return and stock prices.
1
What I find amusing is that FB has very little data from me other than my name ( no work, education, location or even real birthday and never used an app) but they kept telling how much "safer" it would be if I gave them my phone # and other info. Really?
8
That last line - "Facebook, though, is a tough habit to kick" - is, at best, only accurate insofar as the writer expresses the essence of what we've convinced ourselves of.
Having "deleted Facebook" as a result of all this, I can tell you: no, it's not a tough habit to kick.
At all.
7
The truly telling line was, "I'm just too nosy to stay off of it."
2
So Cambridge Analytica, Qualtrics, and Facebook conspired either intentionally or with gross negligence to misappropriate consumer data for the purpose of getting people to vote for Trump, all while those in charge knew or should have known that most, if not all consumers would NOT consent to have their personal data used for such purposes. Why can't the feds shut them down for fraud? Or state attorney generals go after them? Or a law firm with resources get a class action lawsuit going?
5
I doubt in conspiracy, more likely profit. Your data is valuable, you innocent snowflake.
Charlie, that's because they're part of the game, so the corporate media will and have continued to blame Russia for meddling in our elections. Even when they have proof it was a British company, they're still screaming Russia! It's all beyond pathetic.
So, here is the action plan:
First thing is file a motion to set aside the Terms & Conditions, which is completely one sided and can be changed at any time by the provider, and is the only prohibition against class action suits
Second - initiate a class action lawsuit against Facebook asking for damages, a share of profits from the data harvesting (from Cambridge and, if we're being honest, all the soon to be identified others), as well as significant compensation for those who did not take the survey, but as 'friends' of those who did were subject to data harvesting
Third - Shutdown Facebook until Facebook can meet ALL European data privacy requirements for all users, regardless of country of origin, subject to a $1 Million fine for EACH INSTANCE this is violated
Four - TEST the delivered app, to ensure it meets the criteria, BEFORE the app can be re-opened
Five - extend these same privacy requirements to all social media apps
4
You accepted the T&C for access. Prove that u did not.
Isn't it ironic that in the leftthand corner of each comment there is a button so you can share on Facebook? How many radio programs say "follow us on Facebook?" I've looked at using certain apps that ask you to join using Facebook. When you click that option, you must give Facebook access to all of your contacts. No way. No one should ever do this! My contacts certainly didn't give me permission to share their information with anyone.
5
Facebook has said they will alert those who have had their data targeted in this "breach" by posting on their news feeds. That's not enough; it requires using a product that compiles your data to find out if your data has been collected and used without consent. For those of us who have deleted our Facebook accounts, how will we be informed? They need to establish a way to accomplish this without logging into Facebook.
I wonder how many class-action lawsuits will sprout from this debacle...
2
AW, Facebook still had those users info. You can delete your account, but you cannot delete their backups.
1
I'm curious to know what data can be and was gleaned from those of us who don't use Facebook but are intimately connected to people who do. I know "they" know what I look like because I know my face has been tagged.
2
"Facebook, which learned of the data misuse in December 2015..." Why the heck did it take FB 2+ years to get around to telling its users that their data had been misused by a 3rd party? Is it because they were hoping this would never be made public, so they wouldn't have to take any responsibility for it? They should have know better, just as we should know better when (if) we post anything on FB.
2
They do know better, and they also know that in America, they will get away with it.
1
I think this proves more than the election of Trump that this country is seriously failing in education. Who didn't see this was coming? Who couldn't figure out this wasn't run as a charity and they were going to sell what they got on you? Who has such a desperate need to impress total strangers with where you went on vacation? Thank god I won't have to bother to delete any Facebook account because there are some of us who aren't so dim we knew what this was going to be and never signed up.
4
Thank you, Eve. That makes two of us.
Why don't they notify people who were not hacked. It would be much easier, and faster.
2
So how will Facebook notify us? I hope it's by US Mail, since I've deleted my FB account.
2
Those of us that are middle age or older and fairly set in our values and politics may not be swayed by the sophisticated targeting the internet trains on us. (Then again, maybe we are, more than we know.) My worry is about kids growing up, being shaped and molded by google, youtube, instagram, etc... For most of human history, the values of families and communities, in combination with educational institutions and local media, shaped us. Now we've opened Pandora's box, and young minds are being shaped by their experiences online, molded and manipulated by the likes of CA. It will be less real experience in community that matters and molds us, and more artificial manipulation by some form of Big Brother. It scares me, not because of my own data, which as others have alluded, is probably pretty boring. I'm worried about the impacts for the future of our nation and world as independent thought is increasingly caged.
4
BTW, I've applied for jobs that attempt to profile applicants using a similar questionnaire to the one used by CA. They also have access to other information I provided to be screened as an applicant. I think Americans are in for a rude awakening when they realize that many of those (not just Facebook) entrusted with personal information have been hacked, scammed, breached, targeted, phished, etc. There is no safe repository for your online information when we have such sophisticated data thieves and computer programs designed to discover what is there.
3
Where are the data sets and their spawn? How many banks of data sets exist thanks to apps harvesting of our facts, traits and wants? How do we start over with clean slates?
2
The problem isn't so much the invasion of privacy. We have been giving that away for decades. It's that the Internet has made it cheap and efficient to aim content and ads specifically to those is will work on.
Entertainment, even low brow and salacious entertainment, provides value to the people who value it. If it weren't so then they wouldn't have millions of followers and millions of views. Advertising and product placement is how they make money and compelling content is how they get eyeballs.
However, it used to be that TV and print advertising limited content to the sensibilities of the average viewer so that everyone generally got a taste of some content that wasn't necessarily tuned to their specific interest and proclivity.
Now that is no more. The Internet allows companies (and governments!) to treat you individually as a specific market and tune their content and advertising specifically to what will motivate you to do what they want. They even throw in some stuff that you are not interested in just to keep you feeling like you have a choice!
See: "How Target figured out a teen girl was pregnant before her father did"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-o...
1
Why in the world would anyone feel the need to be on Facebook? Between email, the telephone, and the U.S. Postal Service,
one would think sufficient infrastructure exists to keep in touch with people one cares about. What am I missing? Too
much superficial connectedness, methinks. Not to mention the privacy issues. Full disclosure: DOB, 1935.
3
If this use of data resulted in Trump, Facebook owes much more than an apology.
Our race relations are worse.
Our environment is being wrecked.
The integrity of our free press is being attacked.
Facebook needs to make it right, and oops, I am sorry is far from a fix.
5
I wonder if former Facebook users whose accounts have been deleted will be notified if their data was exposed?
3
I just assume anything I post or do on Facebook is fair game for Facebook to sell. Why else would the platform cost zero dollars to use? Ads and big data pay for it. I tolerate the ads and I don't care if they harvest my data.
This would also be a good time to reestablish privacy standards of all apps in general. I am always surprised by an app like a calculator or a dictionary needing sweeping permission to all parts of my phone.
2
"Facebook plans to begin notifying users who were affected by Cambridge Analytica’s data collection."
Q: Why should anyone believe them?
4
So in light of Facebook's cavalier disregard in commercially exploiting its users for pure profit, violating their privacy, and complicity in being used as a tool to corrupt the American system of democracy (re: elections) -- why would *any* reporters for the New York Times still be using Facebook?
It's all well and good for a newspaper and its reporting staff to preach to readers : but it's never good when reporters for that newspaper which is sounding the fire alarm continue to participate in drinking the (Zuckerberg) "Jonestown Kool-Aid" -- by continuing to provide readers with a means to "Follow me/us on Facebook."
Little hypocritical, eh?
1
NYT uses and allows DOZENS of data collection aspects . . . right here on this page about nasty old Facebook. The infrastructure of the Internet runs on users' data. Facebook can't fix it. (a) users have to change their careless behavior (convenience has costs), (b) providers have to change their voracious behavior; the pros cannot continue treating users like prey, (c) some degree of government regulation would help, but perhaps not of the Internet as much as of the data marketplace.
My book Privacy, Surveillance, and the New Media You (Peter Lang, 2016) helps explain the situation and offers recommendations for solutions.
As a marketer I have no problem with psychographics per se. I want companies to understand me well enough to provide what I need and want. But as a marketer, I insist that research be ethical, and taking and using personal information without permission is not, particularly when the purpose is to provide something - Trump - that I don't need or want. It is hard for me to believe that a degregulatory regime is going to solve this through regulation. What I see working instead is a massive class action lawsuit, but those same forces have worked so hard to prevent people from bringing them that perhaps we don't have any real remedies at all right now.
2
who gets to decide whether the research is "ethical"? So, it was ok in your view for Obama to have used similar tactics( albeit with less advanced technology) but not ok in this instance because you didn't like the result? Sounds like an abridgement of free speech in the making...
2
What I want to know is how many people who do not have facebook accounts had personal information leaked in the Cambridge Analytical breach. Why do I ask? I have never had a facebook account. When my wife set one up last year, it immediately started suggesting "friends" that she might know and like to connect with. The problem was that many of these were former co-workers of mine from two jobs ago; people she never even knew. Facebook must be collecting quite a bit of information about everyone, whether they have accounts or not.
10
Personally, I think companies like Facebook and Cambridge Analytica should be required to inform people of exactly where their data is being sold, and for what purpose, BEFORE it gets distributed.
But I can't help but feel like the big problem here is that merely collecting and analyzing the data seemed to have yielded successful predictions about people's voting habits and future activities. If Cambridge Analytica was actually successful in turning a few states to Trump based on Facebook likes and "psychographic profiling", I'm disappointed in the human race and the human mind.
The problem is: it worked. We're predictable. We are subdued, pliable and obedient, so long as we get our drug of choice: connection, recognition, and community. If we had stronger communities and connections in real life, it would not be possible to exploit the virtual ones for nefarious ends.
6
I agree. Neither Facebook nor Cambridge Analytics broke any laws. Just exploited Zuckerberg's ego-machine for political gain and manipulated those susceptible to manipulation.
I don't have one, for just this reason.
4
So now that we all know how our selfies and baby photos and other critical data and dreck has been used and abused by the forces of evil, hasn’t Facebook addressed the issue by agreeing to extend the European privacy rules worldwide?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/08/technology/a-tough-task-for-facebook-...
Can’t we done with this nonsense or do we still have to waste time and and energy that could be better spent than on hearings to slap Zuckerberg’s hand or burn him at the stake.
3
Mr. Deason doesn’t appear to be a reasonably smart person.
1
i don't get this.
[1] when you click on a facbeook app, it tells you exactly which information of yours it's gonna access & use. (did the CA app not do this?) you are given the choice of saying .......... wait for it .............. "no, i'm not allowing that", if you so desire.
[2] my understanding from other articles on the subject is that the CA app went nuts and gathered **public** information from the individual's page & from those of all of his friends. PUBLIC information.
there are 2 possibilities here....
[a] either i'm not getting the story straight on what transpired happened (entirely possible), or
[b] a whole lotta noise is being generated over the collection of PUBLIC information! since when does the mass collection of information that zillions of individuals personally make public, anywhere & anytime, constitute a crisis that even approaches the severity of a hangnail?!
2
They scraped *private* information from people who never agreed to take the fake "personality test" in the first place.
1
ok.... i could very well have missed something. do you have a ref for "private information from people who never agreed"? this is the 1st time i've seen this assertion.
Facebook succeeded in achieveing critical mass to influence. Google achieved critical mass to dispense intelligence.
Everyone else in the space has some percentage of that mass.
To make bellieve critical mass is a trifling to be discussed in the halls of Congress is comical. The nets' greatest strength is that mass.
Every Double Click should be IDENTIFIED, BY NAME, DOWN THE ITS' IP, or The User should be notified that the Sender is blocking or deflecting their identity.
Further, a Federal clearing house should be created to Gather and Report those blocked ID'd for the purpose of unmasking and identifying.
Freedom of speech can be that transparant on the web. That should be The Freeddom of Information Act at work.
2
Facebook, that is Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg, have known for months the extent of the data hacking done by Cambridge Analytica and others to the detriment of America. Only when their weak excuses were repeatedly rejected and Congress came calling for them personally to respond did they begin to admit, in stages, how many millions of Facebook users were implicated in this activity. If there is any justice anymore, Facebook will be hit by crippling fines and civil judgments for surveillance/marketing abuses against their site's many users.
8
Tom, the only reason this is a big deal is because a country outside of America got hold of the data. We already line in the most surveillance laden country in the world. Facebook is doing exactly what the U.S.government wants them to do, as well as create a handy backdoor so that they can have access to all of the information.
I am probably one of the few people in the world who never opened a facebook account. However, I wonder if the information culled from other websites, such as those quizzes that are so prevalent on Buzzfeed, do the same? So, while facebook is clearly culpable here for privacy violations, my guess is that the breach is far greater and stretches across other platforms like Buzzfeed!
1
So, just what are we seeing now, and what might it mean going forward?
Russian FSB hackers can penetrate American computer networks at will, if not whim, with Trump’s unspoken blessing evidently, so long as he surreptitiously benefits (the fruits of Russian cyber-espionage donated to his campaigns). Equifax can lose at least 143-million Americans’ personal financial data (by one calculation, 75% of the adult population) without significant repercussions (to it. What’s in store for those 143-million Americans is more difficult to gauge). And now Facebook, a bloated simpleminded child-monstrosity with 2.7-billion people’s data stored on its secure (?) servers, admits to losing (giving away, actually) nearly 90-million (begging this question: if Facebook admits to losing 90-million, is it unfair — one of Trump’s favorite words — to assume it’s twice as many, if not three times, or a billion if not more?). Almost everyone stands naked in the winds that blow, hurricanes approaching unseen from every quarter.
Again, just what are we seeing now, and what might it mean going forward?
Utter destruction?
These are new kinds of weapons, tactics and warfare that makes the old, familar ones obsolete, like what the airplane did to the battleship.
Will all those Americans who lost their personal information become casualties on the first day of the next war? Will they wake up to discover their money gone, investments erased because no precautions were taken to protect them?
6
it seems to me that CA is more a less a criminal enterprise...using stolen data to begin and operate a business of any sort feels illegal..!! should it not be not only shut down but face charges...?...Hear this Steve Bannon..!!
If you haven't had all of your 'electronic money' stolen from your bank account by hackers yet, worry, because it will.
Steve, where is the proof on Russia? I hear the corporate media screaming it like a broken record, but no one has shown any proof. There's clear proof that Facebook data was used to manipulate the election, but I guess, since the company that "used" the data is British, no one wants to talk about it .
And how will we be notified? On Facebook?
5
"These comments illustrate that many people don’t fully understand exactly what information was obtained, how it was compiled, or how it was and will be used. We are talking about the use of sophisticated psychological profiles developed from big data farmed from your online behavior. This is a far cry from a simple interest based marketing list. Knowing whether you are dealing with a Phoebe or a Monica in addition to their demographic data allows for effective manipulation and advertising."
It's both simpler and more pernicious than "psychological profiles" which would require a cadre of insightful psychologist to implement and use.
The Internet makes it easy, cheap, and automated to individually model decision makers through A/B testing. No reference to demographics needed. No psychological profiling needed. They experiment with what made you click and what made you spend money.
This means that there are steadily improving databases on what specifically motivates you as an individual to take meaningful action.
In a high profile case that made the news, for years Target has been able to reliably tell if someone in your household is, for example, pregnant based just your purchase records with them (Google it). How much more can they know now that data on your specific choices is being aggregated across many domains, subjects, and topics?
I am a programmer and data processing professional and I don't know what to do about it. Facebook is the tip of the iceberg.
7
Will Facebook actually contact all of the users whose data was stolen by the Trump campaign? Will Facebook tell them the whole truth? Will Facebook explain what a bad actor can do with that much data (more data than any bad actor has ever had before)? Facebook and its executives have responded to every new revelation of wrongdoing with half-truths, prevarications and lies. They knew about the data theft for one year but said and did nothing. They have fired the only executive who was an advocate within the company for transparency.
6
What makes me furious...FURIOUS...is that this information (if mine was used) went to a campaign and candidate I loathe beyond words. He has ruined the lives of so many people ... torn them to shreds ... and to think that I might have been an unwitting part of it, makes me want to vomit. The invasion of privacy is bad enough. But to use this information to support a person whose actions has resulted in so much harm that will continue for decades is beyond comprehension.
14
I would like to point out that many of the video links which the Times posts on their website require users to accept Twitter cookies. I never agree to this and therefore miss many potentially interesting videos which are posted. But
I want to point out how intrusive social media can be.
5
Facebook should compensate users for selling personal data
4
Outstanding idea. Better yet, make a law that requires any company taking one's personal data, including school vendors, compensate the owner of the data and have to fully disclose what it does with the data.
1
Like Google Chrome books are doing collecting our children's data in our public schools with their 'free laptops'. Good work Board of Educations!
1
Facebook straight-up told people for yers in blog posts, at their F8 developer conference, in their API docs, that the whole point of their Platform product was that you could retrieve, quickly and at scale, personal information that users agreed to share with the world.
Please, please do this, they said. It will help deliver people personalized and customized experiences and help connect the world. I'm sure the Times was invited to press events where they said they were gonna do this and patiently explained how it could change the world to have everyone's data available to everyone.
They did exactly what they said they would do. And, yes, things worked just like they said they would. Where is the surprise?
Their share price went up hundreds of percentage points post-IPO. Everyone got nice houses in San Francisco and Zuck got to do a listening tour of America for no clear reason because he's totally not running for President (until he does). Everyone was cool with things for 10+ years as they were happening and none of this was unexpected, so what is the big deal now?
Is there an element of regret? Does the US in general wish the Electoral College had not picked Trump and does it make voters feel better to think that the election was decided based on supercharged, machine-learning-optimized propaganda that Facebook's platform enabled? Would the Times still be reporting about Cambridge Analytica if Clinton had won?
5
For the first time, adblocker warned me you guys were trying to open a pop up on me. Seriously? I've been reading here for over ten years and have a subscription until it expires. You can make that go away by telling me you did NOT give our data to CA. Only then will I re-up.
2
the answer is not to legislate data regulation. the answer is not that Facebook has a "responsibility" to users. Facebook is a "for profit organization". it's only "responsibility" is to enhance shareholder value. in all this discussion and commentary it seems that everyone else is responsible for users' data, except the user. do you put your wallet in your front pocket because it's safer there than your back pocket? do you walk into a bad neighborhood flashing $50 bills? no. because you are exercising responsibility to protect what is yours. it's exactly the same on line. you and you alone are responsible to protect what is yours. don't want your data stolen? don't allow access or participate if necessary. otherwise we will need to update the phrase about a sicker being born every minute to every second.
Every Facebook and Google users data is entirely available to any government security services that wants to use a backdoor(empowered by law) or hack in(no legal right) to take it.
1
EVERY dotted i and crossed t. All of your keystrokes are preserved for them.
1
Why do you use the euphemism "harvest" to describe the improper appropriation of citizens' data? Isn't it stealing, theft, or cyber-burglary? Why do you shy away from such appropriate words?
3
Because it's 'cherry-picked'? And it sounds so 'green' or healthy.
I did not steal that money, I 'harvested' it.
1
If they cannot tell me they're mining my data in 3 pages or less and I need to find that out in cryptic legalese on page 49 that they are, then something stinks in Facebookville.
Deleted Facebook and couldn't be happier.
5
This data breach is the result of millennials trying to run a company.
1
"The firm has said that its so-called psychographic modeling techniques underpinned its work for Mr. Trump’s campaign in 2016, setting off a still-unsettled debate about whether the firm’s technology worked."
Duh! Look who won. That should easily answer that question.
2
This happened two years ago. Mark needs to resign. His in over his head and can't be trusted. Opt out of FB now!
Regulate what's left.
2
"Technological Progress".......where one problem is solved by creating another.
1
Instead of info on whether my data was compromised, today on Facebook I got a banner asking me for my phone number to ensure security. It doesn't reassure me that FB "gets it".
5
This seems simple to me, but maybe I am naive. The issue is that Facebook HANDED OVER user data to data miners on the promise those companies wouldn't violate FB users' privacy and then would then return the data without duplicating it.
What could possibly go wrong?
It seems that FB would be better served by 1) creating an excellent skunkworks where data customers could come in, run a bunch of experiments, get the sorts they want ....but they never have unmediated control of FB users' data. 2) Analytics companies can then use the sorts they received from FB to develop an ad strategy, but users identities are kept private by FB. 3) The ads developed by data customers are then screened by FB against the company's own understanding of who will see them and in what contest, and FB has final say over which ads run on their platform to their users.
Its this last part that is a problem for new media companies. They want a passive process wherein they gather excellent data, sell to the highest bidder and walk away. But it is clear that high-profit passivity is a luxury we, and these companies like Google and Facebook, simply cannot afford. All media companies reserve the right to reject advertising (and editorial, etc.), based upon the needs of the company and the brand. But FB, Google and others put their own brands at risk by taking the easy way out. We need to step back to the way it used to work, with gatekeepers who have a larger sense of the world, and right and wrong.
2
There are 2 things I have done in my life that I am enormously proud of. One was giving up a 3 pack a day smoking habit about 34 years ago and the other was quitting Facebook for good.
The latest news was not the only reason but it helped me become more ready to take the leap. Initially. FB was fun. I got in touch with old friends and met some family I never knew I had. Not to mention the cat videos... But like smoking, it took over my free time then started to steal a lot of time, and I let it. The first couple of days I kept reaching for my phone like I did for my pack of cigarettes. I missed it, sure. But I found that if I really missed someone, I picked up the phone and called them. What a concept. FB you ruined it for me by being covertly invasive. Ads showed up on my feed for things I had discussed with friends. I realize that all anybody cares about is making a buck so I accepted that. Then other things started showing up on my feed that I found disturbing. I lean left in my political views but try to keep an open mind. Rabid left pages started showing up with information I know not to be true. FB, don't be the tool that is used to divide us even further. Its been 2 weeks since I quit and I breath better and have more energy, just like when I quit smoking.
2
If Cambridge violated the collection/usage of Facebook data they should pay a heavy price. No I don't think shutting them down so they can start again as CameandTookAgain is enough.
I think prison until we know our data misused is safe.
When are we going to learn how they decided on whose voter registrations they chose to wipe to protect HRC in the primary? HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people in the NYC area were not able to vote in the primary because of this and barely a peep from the media. This type of thing CANNOT BE a CASUAL ERROR. Why did the Clinton campaign not mention this and call it out for the enormous failing that it was? It wasn't some small town local news issue that they could have missed. This happened in Brooklyn, the location of their HEADQUARTERS.
There is a quite-simple solution: require that all Facebook users sign a release when joining..............
It's called clicking the 'I Agree' button.
Haven't you heard there's no such thing as a free lunch?
1
This is where FB decides to introduce a $10/month "ad-free" version and act like it's a hero for doing so.
Time for class-action lawsuit from the 87 million who's accounts were scrapped.
5
Cambridge Analytical was working for Republicans. Are we to believe those high tech companies did not do this same thing for Democrats?
2
Nothing disguises the venality and disrespect behind the business model of Facebook. Zuckerberg can get up in front of Congress and act as contrite as he wants, I'm not buying his sudden epiphany. Just seeing his face in the news recalls PT Barnum's remark: "There's a sucker born every minute."
Facebook is a tool. Use it wisely and enjoy the benefits. A kitchen knife can also be destructive. But that doesn't mean we should throw out all our knives. Regulation is not as effective as transparency. If we understand the risks, as we do with a sharp knife, we can make sound personal decisions. This is where FB can step up and likely will.
Not when my presence on FB takes place through no action or knowledge of my own, but of someone else I may not even know. See my comment below.
I am a research psychologist and was the Chair of my University's Institutional Review Board (IRB) for human research. Every study involving humans went through our committee before approval granted. We sought to keep data on subjects anonymous but held full Board reviews of personally identifiable data to be held confidential. Only exceptional circumstances allowed personally identified information to be shared only to other research institutions with their IRB approval. Data was never to be shared for in other purpose.
Aleksandr Kogan worked for Cambridge University and claimed, to his subjects, that the survey was for research purposes. I would assume that an esteemed University such as Cambridge would also have these strict human protections. I would like to know a) if Cambridge University sanctioned this research of if A. Kogan conducted it on his own (which he would have to report to his University as an external activity and potential conflict of interest) and b) if Cambridge University will engage in sanctions for clear violations of commonly held human protections. Perhaps the NYTs can investigate this for us to see if Cambridge University is complicit in this incident.
Most certainly this should teach our academic community's Human Subjects Review Boards to deny research proposals that involve Facebook and other social media where personal data cannot be held confidential.
3
Grandma liked oatmeal cookie recipe, and Aunt Mary liked the picture of the kids. These are the secret Russian details stolen.
1
You may think it more serious an offense if Russians secretly downloaded your pictures of Aunt Mary, Grandma, the kids, etc. and compiled enough information from other significant data breaches, including government and financial institutions, Experian, etc., to steal your identity along with theirs.
Why would anyone agree to take a survey where you first have to hand over your personal information or sign in through Facebook. Sorry, but there seem to be a lot of suckers in our midst.
Focus on Facebook’s lack of data management (shameful) and Cambridge Analytica’s use of that information (criminal) did not create or deliver Trump and Brexit to the world stage.
Rather, political leadership failed to see the big forest of data depicting the economic struggles many Americans (and Britons) face today.
To think a silver bullet fired at the subconscious of voters swayed the election shows how little distance Democratic leadership have yet gone in accepting their role in Trump’s election as our president. And concern Democrats have done little to halt another four year’s of this inane White House reality show, that may be the real crime.
Facebook succeeded where MySpace failed; it became the first digital pimp, more interested in tracking and selling out it's users over and above anything else it now does.
3
Any word on how we would be notified??? I don't see anything in this article about the procedure.
A few years ago I came across a many decades old picture of myself on Facebook inebriated at a party at an age less than 20. I was identified by name. I have no idea where it came from or how it got there, though I remember the setting of the party. I've thought FB is dangerous since then, and was gone from it soon thereafter. Moved to totally delete myself last week and found that in order to do that I had to reactivate the account. While in that process, I checked in to the pages of some people that I know, but quickly left and totally deleted, with the caution that I hadn't really done so yet, another two weeks unless I was reconnected to it somehow before then. The thing is an identity and privacy atrocity, made me feel oily on the last go round, but if you look hard enough you can find me in my cups more than 50 years ago.
9
I've been asked several times for access to my Facebook account. When I read just a little bit further, instead of just clicking OK, it tells me that whoever wants the access will also gain access to my FB contacts. That has always made me ditch the effort. But I now realize that many of my FB friends probably just gave an auto OK to sharing my info.
3
I looked at a few of those surveys and as soon as I saw they wanted access to my FB account, I just cancelled them. I may be the victim of some friends survey, but I keep them few, family and some close friends.
It should have been obvious to anyone that giving such permission to your FB account was a phishing expedition. Even so FB does collect data on what I read, lately I have been getting recommended groups connected to railroads and fans. Probably because I subscribe to the Placerville, Folsom, and Sacramento Railroad which I am a member of, first railroad west of the Mississippi.
Information about me is on my page, schooling, some job history, but no much use to people like this data harvester. Maybe i do not get much junk like that because I have a decent education and am not swayed by lies and scams.
The key phrase in all of this is, "influence behavior". That is the only reason companies or organizations would pay to secure FB names including any information about their likes, dislikes, attitudes, habits, beliefs, etc. Once your data is captured you may then be enticed to purchase various goods and services, but also influence how you vote. If you can target specific ares in which to place these messages versus having to deliver them to the entire FB membership, all the better. Thus it's within the realm of possibility that targeted messages in a handful of key states during the 2016 election could have swayed a small number of voters to support a preferred candidate. Continuing an electoral system that allows a candidate with fewer votes to win the election will only encourage similar attacks in the future.
3
The answer is to legislate data requirements like those that govern the medical profession and banking industry. I did data mining for health insurance companies for years. I had a respectful and ethical view of how the data could be used. The same was not true for some who made requests for data extraction. HIPAA regulations allowed me to point out the legal ramifications to using the data in ways that would be harmful to those who had entrusted their medical data to physicians and the companies paying for care.
12
It should not come as a surprise to any Facebook user that Facebook posts are used to target advertising. This "free service" obviously lives off its advertising revenue (as does Google).
I think looking at a user's entire internet use by Facebook would come as a surprise to its users, as would looking into the user's friends' internet use - let alone that Facebook has "sold" these records to others. To my mind, that opens up the spectre of "big brother".
As for Google, I find it "amusing" that after I book a hotel in almost any location, I am bombarded with hotel ads for the same dates and locations. "The horse has already bolted the barn"!
9
it's one thing for them to target your pocket to make you buy things ... it's a completely different thing for them to target people's minds to make them believe in a distorted reality fueled by hate and deception. The former is marketing. The latter is propaganda. Marketing increases sales. Propaganda creates enemies and may ultimately lead to war. Facebook can be an instrument for progress or one for destruction. The horse has bolted but it may not be too late to have it corralled and tethered in. Legislative action is needed and quickly.
1
These comments illustrate that many people don’t fully understand exactly what information was obtained, how it was compiled, or how it was and will be used. We are talking about the use of sophisticated psychological profiles developed from big data farmed from your online behavior. This is a far cry from a simple interest based marketing list. Knowing whether you are dealing with a Phoebe or a Monica in addition to their demographic data allows for effective manipulation and advertising.
45
"We are talking about the use of sophisticated psychological profiles developed from big data farmed from your online behavior. "
How sophisticated and accurate, or even useful, can a psychological profile be that is based on random, incomplete, out of date, and possibly deliberately misleading, information collected from FB and Google? I note that CA also used information from voter registrations when developing their profiles. That was probably the best source of information for them, rather than FB and Google. Political campaigns have always used voter registrations to target voters.
"Knowing whether you are dealing with a Phoebe or a Monica in addition to their demographic data allows for effective manipulation and advertising." Really? Why? Is there a known difference between being a Phoebe and a Monica that can be manipulated?
I agree Cambridge Analytic is manipulating people's perceptions using psychological information is an abuse, if not criminal and I would like to see any algorithms used by corporations to be fully transparent with new legislation. Cambridge Analytic should be shut down for these actions use around the world what they've done is scary use of science.
For me, the privacy concern is more a matter of principle than practicality. I'm cynical enough to assume there are many ways to collect and interconnect data in addition to FB. But I am comforted by the idea that I personally am not significant to the government or most organizations. It's one instance when it is comforting to be blah.
2
It is important to remember that the CA scandal was not a data breach. They were only doing what Facebook permitted them to do.
16
It's true there was no data breach, no 'hack' per se, but CA did deceive Facebook, and its users by extension, by using Kogan as a 'front' for the purpose of claiming that the data was for academic research.
If CA had gone to Facebook and said that this survey will harvest data for political use, I assume their request would've been denied.
1
Tech companies have proven time and time again that fully monetizing personal user data is just too enticing not to compromise for financial gain. Any yet, we see millions perfectly content to pay for home assistance devices like Alexa, Google Home, Echo. Not only do these devices have the potential for far serious personal information breaches but tech companies have convinced millions to actually pay for these devices to be put in their homes. So, not only are you the product but you purchased it as well. Brilliant.
14
It is misleading to focus on the 87 million individuals whose data was directly accessed. What people need to understand is that this "sample" of over 25% of the U.S. population enabled Cambridge Analytica to build very effective statistical models that could be applied to *everyone* on Facebook. Everyone could have been targeted with highly specific ads aimed at affecting their vote. The stolen data was only the "training set" for the algorithms.
54
We are all so focused on Cambridge Analytics - yeah, FB didn't police their app developers as it wasn't in their interest to do so. Is it a breach at the same level as theft of millions of people's credit card info? I think "no," FB set up the app program to allow just this sort of data harvesting and didn't verify how the data was being used. Yeah, CA used the data in a way "not authorized" by FB. But the all data and more was already known by FB. It is used by FB to do targeted messaging just as CA did.
But the part that bothers me most is that FB has all this data in the first place and wants even more - like your health data. It can do anything CA did (and maybe more as it has so much more data). That's FB's business model.
Why is FB so successful at pointing the blame to CA rather than themselves and their entire business model where you are the product?
4
When I signed up for Facebook, my daughter advised me to set the privacy controls immediately so I set them all so that only I or my Friends could see what I posted. I thought that the level of “permission” that I gave Facebook by doing so would block any information that I posted from going to anyone other than my friends. That is, in effect, the “contract” that I believed that I had with FB. Why else would they allow me to control who would see what I posted?
If I get notified by FB that I am one of the 87 million whose data was given away, then I will assume it was theft and will proceed accordingly and encourage everyone else in the same position to do the same.
8
There is a patented program that FB has called ''Techniques''. It is an emotion detection and content delivery system. It uses your camera on your phone to monitor your facial expressions/moods according to what you are looking at or reading on your phone. This is taking it to a whole entire different level.
Get off of FB and all social media. Don't wait to get a notification from them to find out if you were among those who had been robbed of their privacy and information. Delete FB. Delete. Delete. Now.
Everyone has had this already done to them. Their notice is redundant.
4
Anyone remember Qwest? The only hold out when Bush demanded the phone companies inform on us? Well, they still sell those numbers we used thirty hears ago to phone frauds, so they knew why they had to hold on to our receivers.
2
I deleted my FB account 3 years ago after some trouble and the way it ‘tried’ to occupy my life. I don’t miss anything, on the contrary I have plenty of time to do other useful activities. Instead of it being used, it is using us. Kick the habit.
9
There was always something kind of "creepy" about all those online surveys. I was also creeped out by how much information Facebook wanted me to share about myself, my past, my likes and dislikes. I have been off of Facebook for a few months now and am so surprised at how much I do not miss it.
7
From the beginning, I intentionally withheld personal details from my facebook account and ignored all the nagging requests. Then one day, my correct birthday magically appeared in my profile.
My paranoia was instantly validated.
14
I switched to Duck, Duck, Go for a search engine for Safari. It does not track you as Google does. A little reassurance in the online world.
4
Around 2014 was when Facebook made significant changes to their terms of service that made them overtly predatory and also gave them copyrights to any content posted. This was in the news and was significant to anyone posting creative works like professional photographers. I deleted my account in 2014 for that reason. I guess people either ignored the news or didn't care. But it's not like they weren't warned. For anyone who was paying attention back then, Facebook's predatory actions come as no surprise whatsoever.
4
Of course. It's a business. I know anybody who's collecting my data would be using it in some vast, anonymized form, and maybe even to target ads. Nature of the beast.
But treason? That was not in the cards.
8
Wonder if any of us who have deleted our FB accounts in the last month will ever be contacted?
Seems FB takes every opportunity to do as little as possible...unless its PR and spin, then of course they throw unlimited resources at that.
5
Are we so naïve to believe that we are not the product if we're getting something for "free" supported by advertising ?
2
Americans are the kids accepting the Facebook candy to get in a car with a stranger. We do NOT know how to protect ourselves online. That's why we're entrusting those who invented the tech to regulate it enough to keep us safe.
What a good opening for your article! I don't think most people realize that all those little quizzes on Facebook are designed to collect information about the people who take them.
As for me, I would even recommend against putting your real birth date on Facebook.
26
Does it really matter? When my identity was stolen, I discovered that the Equifax customer service and database, with all our personal information, is in China. Great.
3
A while ago there was a theory about an addictive personality: Someone who was prone to addiction. When they came across their drug, they were vulnerable and most likely addicted, in spite of sometimes lethal side effects. Facebook is the drug of millions of people. They know there is no privacy, they know that their personal data is going to be collected and sold by Facebook to whom ever comes up with the money for whatever use they see fit, and they still pour out their life on Facebook posts. "It won't happen to me! I have privacy settings, or I'm a member of a restricted group!" A junkie will always rationalize why their drug is OK for them. "Heroin kills other people, I can handle it." Like any good pusher, Facebook will then let them have a taste of something new, and hook them all over again. The old saying is true - Crackbook, walk away.
3
Just sent a note to the folks who weren't hit - a much shorter list to compose...
5
Facebook could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and it still wouldn’t lose willing data suppliers
5
If one gives permission then I doubt harvesting data could be considered illegal. However, how can it NOT be illegal to harvest data from others that have NOT given their consent?
5
I have never trusted websites that ask for personal data unless there is a reason, such as a bank or government site. So I have always input the least amount of information possible, and much of it fake. My birthdate on social media sites is never correct and varies in different platforms. I have not put in any background information about employment, education, relationships, etc. I think this has been a good policy. They can collect my information, but it is not accurate or useful. In our world, we are the commodity and I do not want to be compliant.
7
Fake name too. I also use a device for FB that is only for FB, has none of my contacts or email.
1
The video with the kids from Parkland. Comments on social media expertise. One girl was asked if she used FaceBook. "No, most of my friends don't have time for it." Goodbye FaceBook along with BBs, discussion groups, Usenet, web sites, email, phone conversations, etc.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
1
It all goes to show that the leaders of these social corporate behemoths are inexperienced. Where they so naive as to believe it OK to release data to a third party and "trust" it will be deleted/not shared? They should be jailed.
It would be joke if a corporation (a real, grown up packed goods corporation as example) were to just release all their consumer data to a University and hope fro the best. WHAT STUPIDITY.
1
I deleted my Facebook account when we all learned that social media had been manipulated to dump Trump on us. I don't really get what the big deal is about breaking the connection to Facebook. I completely eliminated it. I did not save any data as all of my photos are preserved on other devices or in the cloud elsewhere.
And as a trial attorney, I can tell you that you will wish you did not have a Facebook account if you ever get involved in litigation. But it's too late to dump it once that happens.
What I don't get is why ANYONE would want to keep being manipulated and used by Facebook, giving themselves (and all their thoughts, messages, details) away for free to an irresponsible custodian. Just take a minute and ask yourself why you would want to do that?
34
Your info is on the CLOUD? And THAT makes you feel protected?!
3
How long did you maintain your FB account, and why did you have one in the first place? Is FB the only social medium that can provide damaging information in a civil or criminal proceeding?
1
Kudos to you, Scott, for breaking so thoroughly with Facebook. But interesting that you still keep your photos in the cloud--where they are managed by another party and could also be compromised. You could keep all your data, business and personal, on your own backup hard drive, stored at another location in case your house burns down. Then you only have to worry about theft of that drive or the government seizing it.
6
I was disappointed but not surprised to hear the way Facebook allowed use/abuse of personal data, but when a message popped up asking if I wanted to use Facebook’s facial recognition feature, I laughed to myself, wrote to their feedback link saying, “Are you kidding me?”, and deleted my account.
7
You can mitigate almost all data issues with facebook and google by following a few simple guidelines:
Do not use the facebook or messenger apps on your phone. If you have to use FB while on the go, access it via a browser (preferably the adblock one) and log out when you're done.
Instead, use facebook and google only in incognito windows on a computer, and install privacy badger, adblock plus, random user agent, and FB purity, and make sure they are all set to function even in incognito mode.
Don't stay logged in to facebook or youtube or google unless you are accessing GMail, uploading something to youtube, etc.
The computer-related things take about 15 minutes one time, and then you just have to remember to log in and out as needed.
Not using facebook apps on your phone is an inconvenience, but it's probably healthy to be away from social media at times.
I've used these techniques (and in fact never switched to a smart phone) for years and when I downloaded my data from google and facebook the zip files were practically empty.
To remove integration for third-party apps or websites, go to “Settings” and select “Apps.” Under “Apps, Websites and Plugins,” you can click “Edit” and “Disable Platform” to remove it. Facebook also warns that this means you won’t be able to log in through Facebook, and you may lose some information. This will also reduce third-party data sharing. No more candy crush, but you can't have everything
Full disclosure: IT security professional
15
It's not enough for Zuckerberg to be hauled before Congress for a spanking. Cambridge Analytica has developed algorithms based on this improperly-gotten data, so they must be forced to wipe out their algorithms and give up all supporting knowledge tools developed using this data.
67
Look up their newly patented facial emotion detection system called "Techniques".
If that isn't enough to get you off of FB, nothing will.
2
Once the folks have learned that their data has been compromised I truly hope that the class action lawsuits will begin. It is not enough and not alright for Mr. Zuckerburg to simply apologize and tell all how m uch better he will be in the future. There must be serious penaltys to compensate those affected - LIABILITY must be assigned - the absence of which is this and so many other such "hacks" is GLARING ! Either keep our data safe or PAY !!! And I bet I am not alone in this sentiment.
9
Just remember - if the app is free, YOU are the product.
9
Why no reporting on Diamond and Silk being censored by FaceBook?
The pro-Trump pair posted Friday night, saying after months of correspondence, they were deemed to be “unsafe to the community.”
Unsafe? Because they are black and support Trump?
4
These giant social media companies, Facebook, Google, and others, must be regulated far, far more then they have been thus far. We need a law that would prevent them from collecting any personal data that wasn't in the aggregate. Additionally, the same standard that now guards free expression from government intervention must be applied to these companies. Lastly, an Internet Constitution must be drawn up empowering the consumer of any website rather than its owners.
2
The real question here, relevant to customers in any country where Facebook is allowed to operate, is whether Cambridge Analytica broke any laws by harvesting information from Facebook users without their consent. It sounds very much like data theft. If these practices can be legally defined as such, it means that some people broke the law and should be investigated and prosecuted as warranted. If the stolen information was wittingly directed and used by senior advisors, financial backers and managers of 2016 election campaigns, they too may well be accessories to data theft, should be investigated as such, and prosecuted as appropriate. This may include some very big names in more than one country.
27
I find it difficult to believe that this is only happening on Facebook. Also, this should be a cautionary tale to anyone who gets their news through social media. Don’t. Always be aware that there is no such thing as online privacy and assume that everything you put online and see online can be manipulated to someone else’s gain. Just knowing these things and using social media with a healthy dose of skepticism goes a long way.
20
If you've highly important or private information or news to share with someone, pick up the phone or a pen. Do not use your computer.
1
I cannot get Facebook off my cellular phone. It's like the shark in "Jaws"; it will not let go. I removed it from my box (pc), but all I can do on my phone is turn it off. It still updates, and I cannot stop it. Google, Facebook, Instagram, etc, are like a school of great White sharks; circling almost anything that swims, ready to devour.
It is the same thing as a car dealership selling me a family sedan, but I HAVE to buy a supercharger and twin turbos as well. Unfortunately, this type of thing actually happens (to a lesser degree) too often; it has to me before.
Facebook and all the other "on-board apps" which are pre-installed should be much easier to remove, like with a toggle switch.
The first thing I used to always do to a PC was remove pre-installed apps and then reboot my system. Nowadays, this is more difficult.
20
Here’s what I’ve done: Refuse to “rent” more space in the Apple Cloud and watch as they whittle down your options. Yesterday they refused to let me use the pre-installed COMPASS, for goodness sake. “Not enough space.”
1
Facebook apps were pre-installed in my PC.
1
Why focus on Facebook? Many cellphone apps demand access to contacts, personal information, even when such information isn't necessary to their function. I have passed up many "free", useful tools, because I objected to this intrusiveness. Now that I see the dangers I'm glad I did. I hope we get improved privacy protections on all platforms, not just the most highly visible and obnoxious ones, and before the damage is done, not long after!
53
People are focusing on Facebook because it was a tool used in undermining our elective process.
6
In other words, FaceBook is just another scapegoat to sooth the fragile egos of the losers. A scapegoat like the US Constitution - that terrible Electoral College and the First Amendment. And, The Russkies. And, Wiki-Leaks. And, the Tooth Fairy.
For all the talk about the breach of 'privacy' involved here, there is little mention of what I think is the more serious problem. Facebook allows advertisers to disguise their messages as news stories - treating all news sources, commercial or not, alike. Cambridge Analytica as much as admitted that, without this ability to fraudulently present propaganda as coming form the mouths of like-minded regular people, it wouldn't have been effective. Sure, our privacy matters, but at a deeper level, Facebook's business model is based on providing an utterly unregulated platform for fraudulent commercial - and we now see, political - claims.
34
Or the meddling in politics. Hence now we've got Prez Trump. Thanks FB and MZ.
1
I'm curious: Why has no executive at Facebook been fired? This privacy issue is serious and we've seen many instances of the "same old story," Facebook making excuses and ignoring the problem. How does Sheryl Sandberg, et. al., still have jobs? I hope one of the members of the joint hearing on Capitol Hill pose this question. There clearly needs to be a new, trustworthy team in Facebook's executive offices.
9
One must understand that in capitalism, trust is the name of the doormat that execs wipe their shoes on before entering the office.
6
Fired, heck… they should all be ARRESTED. Treat them like terrorists and freeze their personal assets. Seriously! Then watch all their c-suite peers at places like Google start to scuttle around wondering when they'll be held personally responsible for real. That's the problem with corporations. They're set up to spread out risk. This means that shareholders, and officers, can also dodge the consequences of malfeasance - another form of risk.
2
The whole raison d'etre of Facebook from day one was to offer 'free' services when users agreed to allow personal data be processed by Facebook. When the ethos of the company is to scrape your data and sell it to advertisers, who will you fire ? US Data protection laws allowed that situation to occur, and last to this day. Not so in Europe, and commencing 28-May-18 even stronger laws come into effect within the European Union countries. The UK has an Information Commission with the serious intent to pursue all offenders.
3
Facebook has by design given users the idea that they are having private personal confidential conversations.
I find it deeply troubling that FB enables potential employers to see your postings with or without permission.
In addition I have seen people post all kinds of personal health information to a friend that would normally be considered personal and private. I assume the user believes this information is kept in confidence. Why should they?
For those of us who have anything of substance, beyond cat videos, pictures of ones lunch and recipes with tons of sugar and butter to share with a friend, it might be a better policy to use encrypted email.
I shut down my FB account after the Cambridge debacle and frankly with each passing day I feel so much better socially.
7
If something sounds too good to be true..it probably is. I have never used Facebook and never will.
8
Susan, you may not be on Facebook but you are online reading and commenting on a NYT article. I'll bet you the ads on your page are different than the ads on my page. Why? Because the NYT knows which articles you click on to read, where you live and some basic information you gave them when you signed on to have an online profile to comment. What do you think the NYT does with that information? They sell it to advertisers for advertisers can focus their ad dollars for greatest impact. It's a significant way the NYT makes money to pay employees to provide you and I with articles like this to read and comment on. It's the way the online experience in our capitalist society works... and always has. The best quote in here "if you don't know how they make money... they're making money off you". But you're right Susan if it sounds to good to be true it probably is. And you can add to it... nothing in life is free.
"Ad blocker." Look it up.
That's all thanks to cookies used by NYT to track page views, amongst other data. However, the NYT does not ask you to divulge personal and, perhaps intimate, information that a large number of FB users would not think twice about divulging. My 'secret' is to avoid all so-called social media websites, after all they are only for nosy people gathering trashy gossip.
The better question is, how will our oh so benevolent data overlords triage the bleeding when (the not for them so merry month of) May arrives? Compliance with the European Union General Data Protection Regulations must be making their risk and compliance teams sweat ugly. The potential monetary fines are staggering, as in ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.
I look forward to the digital huff and fluff mea culpas of our sages and mages.
htttps://www.gdpreu.org/compliance/fines-and-penalties/
5
Do you use google? Do you use a credit card. Do you donate to a charity? Guess what, people have already been hard at work mining your data. So now you discover Facebook has been mining your data. So what?
26
This kind of attitude is what makes it possible for companies to get away with abuses.
9
See Rob's comment above, for your answer. He accurately observes: "Facebook allows advertisers to disguise their messages as news stories.... to fraudulently present propaganda as coming from the mouths of like-minded regular people. ....Sure, our privacy matters, but at a deeper level, Facebook's business model is based on providing an utterly unregulated platform for fraudulent commercial-and we now see- political - claims."
4
Also allows foreign countries to influence our elections.
2
Stop using Facebook. Keep your account, but only use it when it's absolutely necessary.
3
I read about Cambridge Analytica mining data from Facebook last May in a Manchester Guardian article and wonder why it took 11 month to become news in the United States. The Guardian article was very creepy, showing how CA tested and used the data in several countries by using military psychological operation techniques to develop political opinions against the politicians their clients wanted to lose in national elections.
34
Clearly explained with the infographic, thanks. I've always had a personal rule of thumb NOT to use my Facebook login to access other apps and sites. Evidently for good reason. CA is an egregious abuser, but there is likely more to come if reporters keep digging. There are a lot of "login with Facebook" apps and sites out there.
58
The problem is, if your friends and family do not share your same personal rule and do not have conservative privacy settings, that barely matters...
2
When you go on Facebook or Google or Bing (or any online presence) and you search for widgets (or anything else), within minutes you are getting ads for widgets. Weeks later you will still be harangued by those ads.
When you buy or click on anything or go to a web page or buy a 5 dollar part for your washing machine (or whatever) you immediately get a pop-up asking you to take a survey about your experience. Does anyone actually thing the third-person vendor of washing machine parts actually cares about your user expereince in purchasing the $5 part?
How can anyone be surprised by this? I always thought it ironic that people were up in arms over the NSA spying on citizens' phone calls and emails, when those very incensed people were giving away their personal data every day to Google, Facebook and others.
While I do not agree with private companies or the government viewing or sharing my information--it is creepy--I cannot imagine how anyone can be surprised!
10
Wondering if the the new social media effort at mewe.com is something to consider. They don't charge a fee but claim not to sell data.
Data breaches happen regularly, but this is particularly appalling. And, more importantly than data breaches, we need to know exactly which misleading and fake news/ads – propaganda - were purchased, and who was targeted, in the presidential election. Facebook continues to gall with their refusal to disclose this information, citing a need to protect their customers. I call treason.
5
What can people do? Can you say class-action lawsuit?
7
It isn't that I'm "shocked," because I willingly opened my life up to a public forum. It's just one of those realizations you get after being involved in something for years, then see it for what it really is, or has become.
It's called a "social network." Dirty politics, lies, angry posts, unwanted invasive advertising -- none of that is social to me, not what I signed up for years ago. But that's what it is now. If he doesn't fix it, I'm gone. I'll know if he hasn't fixed it in August, when the political ads start all over again.
6
Back in the "old day" before Facebook and Twitter we had to create web pages to show our friends photos, musical creations, blogs and things like that. It was a bit complicated to do that but not any longer. There is no need to use ANY social media company, whatsoever. Nowadays there are very easy to use web site creation products such as Squarespace, Wix, etc. If you take an hour to create your own webs site you have control over it, plus, you learn something interesting. And all your friends and family can go to the web site and leave comments if you set it up that way.
Please stop using all social media sites and start creating your own! It is way more fun.
6
With millions of people sharing their information on Facebook, it was only a matter of time before Capitalism ruined Social Media like it does everything else.
4
Good rule of thumb, if you're not paying for the service, you're not the customer, you're the product.
8
Mark Zuckerberg's apologies sound like those of a teenager who has broken curfew: "Sorry, my bad, won't happen again." Infuriating in their weakness. Then again, what apology could possibly suffice when your actions (or inactions) have changed the course of American history.
Social order demands that those in positions of responsibility do the right thing. All the red lights were flashing and yet the RNC (Trump's very candidacy), Mitch McConnell (President Obama's warning of Russian interference), and Mark Zuckerberg (the obvious use of Facebook for a Russian-bot aided misinformation campaign) didn't stop the Trump train.
8
For me, the data was secondary to wasting time. I tried fb years ago and rapidly found myself spending time saying “no” to friend requests from people 2+ degrees removed from my direct knowledge. I quickly shut off the account. All we have in this world, ultimately, is time. I have better things to do with my time than give it to Mark Zuckerberg so he can sell it to advertisers and get rich quick.
6
Oh gosh, I go on one of these newfangled websites, and they actually save my meta-data… And use it for research,To hook even more people to their website. My oh my gosh! What is becoming of this world?
2
Can anyone say "Class action suit"? Zuckerberg is about to see his enormous fortune whittled down to size.
5
Wouldn't it be great if the story said how and when users would be notified?
7
So how did the Times identify Mr Deason as someone who completed the survey?
Are the original survey respondents flagged in someway, and is Facebook also notifying them of their (unwittingly) role?
Finally, it’s Monday. Has anyone yet been contacted by Facebook?
4
It is not truthful to make it sound like Cambridge Analytica was the sole bad actor here. Same for the other advertising and analytics companies that are starting to surface in the news. Facebook was fully aware of what it was doing, and the PR push to keep creating this supposed distance between a duped Facebook and a scheming data firms is transparent damage control.
30
Robert Mercer funded Cambridge Analytics. Why are there no consequences for him?
11
Probably because the Obama campaign started using Facebook and other social media to build their voter data files starting as early as early as 2008. They openly reveled in it and were considered geniuses especially after the 2012 election. Now they may be facing Federal Election Commission violation charges for unreported in-kind contributions.
CA data was not used in the same way.
1
It would really help shine a major light on this issue/problem if NYT reporters would mention (educate/remind) readers in published reports related to Cambridge Analytica (CA) that hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, a native son of NM, provided ALL financing necessary for CA to exploit Facebook (FB).
All these published reports in NYT and elsewhere do not fail to mention that FB was a BAD actor, Yet, reporters do fail to mention the really BAD actor who made CA possible: New Mexican Robert Mercer.
25
It's not comforting that some of my Facebook friends take the surveys all the time. I'm not a happy camper knowing these idiots made it possible for my data to be harvested. I knew it was not smart and even at lunch a couple of days ago after this was brought to light I said taking the surveys was dangerous. Well stupid is still stupid does. But I'm so glad that Facebook was able to make money off my information even though I never completed a survey. I know Mark needed the money.
6
"And the final wording of the survey’s terms of service is now most likely unknowable: Facebook executives said they deleted the app"
I don't believe F-book and Forrest Zuckerberg cannot access the "terms of service"
and Congress shouldn't either.
11
One thing you should always do is a screen copy of every "Terms of Service" for anything you do on the Web. I do this for every transaction I do online and I add the date to the "pdf" title. That way I can always look up every detail of the Terms of Service I was signing up to.
BTW, despite other friends getting an account, I never opened up a Face Book account. From the beginning, I was always leery of how they used the data that was given to them. My hunch has been entirely justified.
2
in the newly-available documentary film,
do-you-trust-your-computer,
there is a video-clip of a Cambridge Analytical
seminar in which it is very clearly stated,
- - - within a 'detailed-explanation' of how C.A.
assisted Senator Ted Cruz to rise from near
zero "acceptance" to the number 2 challenger
position with the use of CA's data files and algorithms, - - -
that CA claimed to have individual data-files on every
single adult living in the United States ...
this, of course, would be considerably more-than the
currently stated "87-million" 'users' of FaceBook ...
and FaceBook is going to find a way to "cure" this?
really?
grrrrrrr
7
Regarding Facebook posts by most people, who cares how many Kleenexes someone used to blow their nose this morning. That seems to be about the level of most of it. I looked at it once three years ago, and never since.
1
I've never had FB. I've considered joining, but it has never seemed necessary. So it is a huge relief that I'm not a target of data mining. Or am I. I do google searches. And then I see ads for door mats, or lawn furniture immediately afterward on every website I visit. HMM. I'm going to guess that anyone who uses the web is being watched by something.
7
I'm really interested to know how young people will respond to this kind of systematic invasion of their privacy. I've always been fairly circumspect on social media -- while that has something to do with concerns about my data being harvested and/or misused, I've always assumed that my data was what they were after. But mostly I'm not crazy about self-exhibitionism. But my kids and their friends have a very cavalier attitude toward their own privacy and I don't think it's every occurred to them until now that Free is not Free where social media is concerned.
17
Anyone really young -- say, Gen Z or later born millennials -- has grown up with the internet and Facebook, and so they have no expectations of privacy to begin with. I imagine they are thinking "what are the old fogies even talking about?"
1
Here's another issue: The other day my husband and I were discussing the ease to which it is to get a certificate for a companion animal. A few minutes later I was on facebook and an article popped up on this very issue. I checked my settings to see if the microphone setting for facebook was on and it wasn't. This is not coincidence and not the first time this has happened. This, combined with the fact that apps have had access to my info through my friends permitting such access to their info by certain apps, has led to my decision to delete my facebook app today once I make sure I've downloaded all of my pictures. I joined facebook as a way to share photos of my kids with relatives years ago. Now there are other ways to do that. I'm done.
75
So glad you're doing this for the safety of your family. When I joined Facebook, someone advised me to NEVER post a picture of a child on the Internet for any reason. Now that our grandsons are both approaching the prime age for kidnapping or other abuse I'm so grateful for that advice! I've followed it to the letter.
It is more likely that you (or he) had clicked on some link or read some article on companion animals, then that Facebook was literally spying on you. As bad as the privacy breaches are.....there is no evidence of actual spying on customers in their homes.
1
For a few weeks before the 2016 election, I noticed a decided uptick in pro-Trump postings, and an incredible number of negative posts about all the others. Coincidence? I think not.
Google and Facebook appear now to be inextricably linked. Try this, which I have noticed: search a product (anything) on Google and see how long ads for the same show up on Facebook. Less than a minute for me...
17
But I noticed the opposite. I noticed virtually no postings that were pro-Trump (except by individuals I knew personally, and that was a small group --3-4) but a HUGE HUGE constant daily stream of anti-Trump, nasty insults and bashing and hateful cartoons of Trump and the like. Also countless posts and links to nasty anti-white working class articles or websites. On TV, the number of HIllary ads -- all of the "insult type" -- were running, and they outnumbered Trump ads by 10-1 or MORE.
It is true that Google has some link to your searches ON GOOGLE as well as Facebook. I don't know exactly how this works but I have observed it myself. But as far as politics....I never googled any articles pro or anti Trump at all.....it was an election season, and it required no incentives for advertisers to think that political articles would get clicks or "likes".
1
How many Facebook employees were affected? Was their data treated more carefully than user data?
7
I avoid using facebook to the extent that I don't read NYT or other sources articles or commentary when they appear exclusively on fb (or twitter or other social media, for that matter).
It's annoying that so many websites only allow commentary through facebook. I hope they change to other commentary platforms, discus is better.
9
I hope that I am one of the people whose data was collected by Cambridge Analytica (not one of my friends has admitted to me to have taken the survey, sigh). Whatever robot analyzes the information about me that it can glean from my Facebook account will be bored to tears by the predictability of this "liberal's" data. I don't understand why people think this is such a big deal.
13
Because it aggregates. Data from different sites about you is combined, leading to info you'd be surprised is public. It's for sale, there's no way for you to opt out.
And it never goes away.
5
Because this level of apathy, indifference and passivity is what leads people to blindly accept totalitarian regimes, like frogs boiled to death in slowly heated water.
1
What is our regime going to do with my data? Put me in prison because I'm a progressive? I will do my best to prevent the growth of authoritarian thinking in this country by voting and participating in activism wherever I can but I do think that the Facebook thing is a real yawn.
While it's easy to blame Facebook users (of which I've never been one) for their naiveté in believing that social media is all about giving people an "experiential community," as Sheryl Sandburg claimed in a nauseating interview with Nora O"Donnell last week, they are really victims of as fraudulent a scheme to make money as the less-techy varieties throughout history. Just as ordinary people should not be expected to test their own drinking water or air quality, they shouldn't be responsible for understanding the workings of their "in-app" experiences. The tech industry, despite its high-sounding babble, is primarily designed to make money and the ways in which it does so should be subject to the same level of regulation as any business which impacts the public.
42
Isn't it obvious that, when one participates in an online questionnaire, one is handing over personal information to a data-collection firm that sells that information to others? Of course, this case differs in that the friends of the participant did not consent to hand over their information but does anyone really entertain any illusions that all of our online activities are not constantly monitored, recorded and sold? That is the fundamental business model of the internet. The point is provide advertisers with a captive audience. The Times, itself, is no less guilty of this. Even as I read through this very article, I am bombarded by ad after ad, all targeting me personally and based on information that Google or other entities have gathered about me.
Aside from my objection to being spied on incessantly, I object to the business model itself. It has been suggested that the internet adopt a pay-for-service model. But isn't that what we already have? I already spend a fortune on internet service and, on top of that, I pay a monthly subscription fee to the Times. Why should I have to see any ads at all? (And on top of this, thanks to the Republican congress, Spectrum can now sell my browsing history to anyone without my consent.)
The entire internet should be re-worked from top-to-bottom as a non-profit government-funded entity guaranteeing access to all and with rigorously strict privacy safeguards and non-disclosure of any personal information as the default.
16
Install ad blocking on your computer. Voila!
2
Well it doesn't matter who was targeted, it should never of happened. The dog ands pony show with the government is just that a show. People need to get off of Facebook and the rest of this social media platform if they want to have an privacy if not for themselves there children. These companies are making money off of us.So for once lets get smart and stop using them
5
Maybe the only way we can fight back against FB and others is to feed them as much false and misleading information as possible. We will never get European-style right-to-privacy or right-to-be-forgotten laws here, so we're on our own.
9
The best way to fight back is to not use them.
5
As if FB wasn't enough of a time suck. Let's play ID games! Sorry, they know.
1
I don’t really see much difference between what CambAnly does and any direct mail company does. They gather information from census data, magazine subs, donor lists, and target people down to the block
I don’t use FB any more and haven’t for quite awhile.
Do you think Google does anything different than CA does? I imagine it’s worse.
21
The scope is geometrically larger. They combine information from other sites and build incredibly detailed profiles of people who may not even realize they're being targeted.
This is not target down to the block. This is target down to many facets of your life and the lives of your children.
6
Targeting people based on statistics is different that targeting people knowing their personal preferences, private information, and conversations with friends and submitting that data to a sophisticated algorithm that can deploy content based on fairly accurately predicting how you will respond emotionally to it. Targeted advertising based on census data is not the same as using the new psychological warfare tactics of social media driven propaganda, which is what is going on.
And yes, Google is just as bad. There are other options. You were probably just brainwashed into thinking Google is either the only search tool out there, or the best one. That was just marketing that you fell for. See how well modern propaganda works? People aren't just blind to it, they embrace it.
2
Can you recommend safer option than Google? Thanks
1
Can you imagine if the Clintons were involved with FB , Cambridge or any other such act. Republicans would have jailed both of them by now. The American public is beyond stupid, we don’t deserve freedom, democracy, clean air or water. We deserve Trump and Putin.
106
Campaigns have been using this data, but CA was the first to weaponize it for micro targeting. In Kenya, the opponent was using Axelrod's hopey changy thingy, but CA brought the bloodbath with the hopeless messages of fear and hate.
3
Bingo!!!
As I understand it, the Democrats were also using similar information and strategies
Simple, if you need Facebook to help access other aps and sites, and this is commonly true.
Join
Put in fake data or nothing. Tweak address etc.
Friend no one.
Its a junk pile of egos and ads anyway.
10
Along with your useless data, I question how many times our data can be resold and still have usefulness. Aren't they too many tulips in this vase? I suggest a thorough examination would reveal the market is flooded and about to tank for the fact there are too many of these apps.
1
I was an early adopter of Facebook, as I had a niece who had just started college in 2004, and I read about Facebook and tried to join to say "hi" to her. I was shut out as an adult -- it was then ONLY for verified students. by the next summer, it was open to the public. So I know I was on Facebook in 2005.
What I can tell you is that I've therefore seen it from almost the beginning -- and the number of ADS and stupid stuff (games, celebrations of how long you've known someone, exhortations to wish people happy birthday) have grown by 10,000%. It used to have little in the way of ads, and they were discreet and off to the side. Now the ads look like posts from "friends" so you stupidly click on them. They interrupt your feed every couple of posts from real people. They are nearly impossible to get rid of, even if you take the time to click on menus and choose "don't show this" FOR EVERY AD. There is no way to stop the ads; it's a tsunami of ads.
2
Although not directly related, but related, there are laws in Europe on privacy that are have not passed our legislatures here. If an individual wishes to delete an item that comes up on a Google search of themselves, in the E.U. you can contact Google and have it removed. The law has failed to get passed in the U.S. time and again. Business reigns over privacy on FB, Google and any other money making enterprise. In short, everywhere.
112
While I agree that we need to strengthen out privacy laws, a few points - it is not as simply as "just pass a law" for our legal system and precedents are not identical to the EU; the idea of removing yourself from Google is fraught with negatives such as people trying to hide the factual, perhaps, criminal past, from open eyes; and many people would not be in this situation if they did not willingly, and foolishly, put so much personal data from dates of birth to home address and employment history, on social media apps like Facebook.
In short, there is no one, quick, easy answer to this, something our culture increasingly fails to recognize!
2
I think European governments consider their main task is to further the interests of their country and their citizens and so consumer legislation is far more advanced than here. The main task of US governments is to further the interests of business and rich individuals with all that this entails.
31
You don't have to put a single such bit of personal information on FB to get your complete name, address, and phone number on Google. I know, because it is true of me. I was shocked to find all that on Google after carefully protecting all the above, except my name and town. Your advice is spurious, though I'm sure you believe it, and I don't think Google should be allowed to do this.
Even if the Facebook users, whose personal data was misused by the Cambridge Analyrica, are identified what corrective action the Facebook could take now when the privacy rights of the millions have already been violated and damaged done? It's simply a poor excuse to escape accountability, and get out of the regulatory hammer.
73
In a recent interview, Mark Zuckerburg said he's not opposed to regulation.
1
Yet he lobbies hard against said regulation.
There is another lesson to be learned - be cautious about who you ‘friend’. You have no idea of their security settings and the sites or aps they access. Already proved to be a problem with friends sharing your posts and pics for sometimes dubious uses.
57
Don't ever be friends with someone you don't know. Facebook is a great way to keep in touch with real friends who you don't see on a regular basis. Don't answer surveys or questionnaires that appear on Facebook. Definitely don't let anyone access your data.
2
You can make it so no one can share your posts and pics. It’s under privacy settings. You can also create small lists of people that you share things with so you’re not broadcasting to hundreds.
2
Adb: All true. BUT, anything you post on a screen can be captured via screenshot and shared with anyone.
I guess I never had particularly high expectations with respect to my privacy on Facebook anyway. What privacy am I protecting? My age, location, religion, political affiliation? Most of those things are readily available via other means. Sure, someone getting access to this data would permit them to send me targeted ads......but so what? How seriously do I take Facebook ads? Not seriously at all. How seriously do I pay attention to the pseudo conspiracy news promulgated by BOTH sides.... even less seriously than I take the ads. In fact, I found that by blocking the half dozen or so extreme "news" sites most frequently shared by my friends, my Facebook experience has been much better.
I think I'm pretty immune to advertising and especially junk-news. I think most people are. It's not a superpower I alone possess. Sure, Facebook should do a better job and hopefully now they will, but come on. All this manufactured outrage? Considering Facebook (and Silicon Valley) are the standard bearers for liberalism in this country, that their lax security may have facilitated a GOP victory is ironic. Trust me, they won't let that happen again.......
46
Well said but I think they are actually the bearers of Libertarian-ism which is to the right of the right.
2
You are not immune to confirmation bias. You could be Einstein, and you'd still be manipulable. Quit fooling yourself; you make everyone else vulnerable with your mistaken invulnerability.
6
People are so quick to have opinions. Just because you think something doesn’t make it true.
Waving your flag of immunity to outside influences may possibly be a bit short sighted.
Declaring that everyone is immune to junk news is incorrect. 40 percent of America believes the lies coming out of the WH and fake news and opinion shows.
My outrage is not manufactured. Facebook and Silicon Valley are not the standard bearers for anything other than capitalism.
You are entitled to your opinions, even though they are mostly thought free reactions based on generalizations you have bought into without paying attention.
I don’t trust you....
9
I do not think closing the Facebook account is the answer. I hope there will be a class action against Cambridge Analytica from the 87 million people who were cheated
107
But how do we assess the "damage" that ensued? If you willing told the world what your politics, religion, home, personal history, etc., how do you now claim you were hurt by that?
A class action in this case will just be another gravy train for greedy lawyers; and will the class members get, a coupon for something for the free Facebook service they never paid for to begin with?
1
And what recovery would the litigants get? Cambridge has no substantial assets. The only ones who would get any money are the lawyers......
2
I wonder how many of those 87 million users were forced to join Facebook.
Cambridge Analytics, or whoever didn't walk into the voting booth with any of these people. They didn't stop them from gathering information from candidates from multiple sources or from exercising their personal judgement.
Anyone who thinks that you'll get something, and a chance to win some miserable Amazon card is not much, for nothing gets what they deserve -- nothing.
15
Can Facebook also notify the others with 100% certainty that their data was not compromised? Until Facebook can guarantee that, we cannot believe a word they say. On the other hand, it is after all a free service. You get what you pay for, so be careful what you share. On Facebook or anywhere. The onus is on you to guard your secrets, er, data.
34
It isn't just FB. Last month I totaled my car.
It now appears either my Insurance Co, or public records, perhaps, have notified the vast sales world.
I am inundated with Auto ads, via internet, tv- (remember, now our ISP's can collect same info!)
I am watching to see if it stops when I register a new one.
5
At least that's intelligence. I wonder why they try to sell me things I just bought online, most of the time.
Wait until you get older, they will target the usual aches and pains aging brings with it.
Right now, I've confused YouTube to think I'm living in Toronto. I can't help that CBC has the hottest setting for Cambridge Analytica.
1
When Facebook first came out I asked friends how much it cost. All replied that it is free. My response was and is: don't believe it... Nothing is free. Your information is the price.
143
Does anyone recall Dianne Feinstein telling us that if we want our data to be protected, then we were gonna have to PAY for that? But then another Snowden leak dropped, and she had to run from the committee room.
1
I sure wish Rush Limbaugh would undertake to create his own new social network site and run it, like he runs his radio shows -- with a deep and abiding appreciation of the dignity of his listeners.
The only thing free in life is the cheese at the bottom of the rat trap.