Facebook Suspends Another Data Analytics Firm After CNBC Discovers It Was Using Tactics like Cambridge Analytica (cnbc.com) 83
Facebook suspended a company from its site over the weekend while it investigates claims it harvested user information under the guise of academic research, in a case with echoes of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. From a report: Facebook is suspending a data analytics firm called CubeYou from the platform after CNBC notified the company that CubeYou was collecting information about users through quizzes. CubeYou misleadingly labeled its quizzes "for non-profit academic research," then shared user information with marketers. The scenario is eerily similar to how Cambridge Analytica received unauthorized access to data from as many as 87 million Facebook user accounts to target political marketing. CubeYou, whose CEO denies any deception, sold data that had been collected by researchers working with the Psychometrics Lab at Cambridge University, similar to how Cambridge Analytica used information it obtained from other professors at the school for political marketing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Zuckberg/Zuckerberg in 2020.
The issue here isn't... (Score:5, Insightful)
That there was another one. The issue is that a news organization needed to point it out, instead of Facebook discovering this through the analysis of their access patterns from these firms. After they realized that one was doing this, they should have been analyzing to find others immediately.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Journalists are trained to dig and find this information. Being that they have the First Amendment behind them, it gives them additional freedom to dig further then what Facebook may be able to legally do. Say you had a Facebook App that collected data on a user, lets say is was just an honest thing. Now Facebook demands that they audit your application and your business. You as the Small Business owner would be annoyed, and may hire a lawer(s) to push back.
The Journalist who may be hunting breadcrumbs wo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Being that they have the First Amendment behind them, it gives them additional freedom to dig further then what Facebook may be able to legally do.
The first amendment does not give journalists access to private companies' data.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they can go digging around in much more detail, Can keep their sources private, and make their findings public.
Re: (Score:3)
Take your head out of your ass.
Re:The issue here isn't... (Score:4, Insightful)
After they realized that one was doing this, they should have been analyzing to find others immediately.
It's Facebook showing their sincerity to their user base by punishing the assholes that embarrassed them and threatened their only viable revenue stream.
Re:The issue here isn't... (Score:5, Interesting)
That there was another one. The issue is that a news organization needed to point it out, instead of Facebook discovering this through the analysis of their access patterns from these firms. After they realized that one was doing this, they should have been analyzing to find others immediately.
How do you know they weren't already aware and just keeping it under wraps until CNBC forced their hand? It's pretty clear that FB, facing withering criticism, regulation, and potential legislative action, isn't motivated to be open about what it knows or does.
Re:The issue here isn't... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, it is irrelevant. They have the data on who accessed what, and should be able to data-mine out the bad actors faster and easier than any news organization can, since they have access to the data. If they want to show that they can be trusted, THEY should be the ones discovering these players, cutting them off, and making it public. The fact that anybody at this point in time can discover something like this means they are either a) not looking for bad actors or b) they know who they are, and want to keep the $$ flowing in despite this, until someone forces them to make it public. Either way it means they aren't doing what they should be doing and should be smacked with the full power of congress.
Re: (Score:1)
How do you know they weren't already aware and just keeping it under wraps until CNBC forced their hand? It's pretty clear that FB, facing withering criticism, regulation, and potential legislative action, isn't motivated to be open about what it knows or does.
That they are not feeling motivated to enforce their own rules around data access, such as they are, is not an excuse, it is a confession.
Re: (Score:1)
FB is run by monkeys - 3 of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they paid facebook in influence. Duh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems the problem is the following:
* Facebook's business model is aggregating user data in order to allow marketers to "micro-target" ads at people with stuff they are most likely to click on
* Facebook is upset when other people use their APIs to get access to data of a subset of users, and then do their own analytics, presumably to allow them to buy ads at a cheaper rate.
* People are upset because a company associated, with some degrees of separation, with Trump, used the technique to find people to "ta
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You give the users way too much credit. People just click on anything that matches their own bias. i.e. Obama supporters happy to click away, share, answer surveys, etc that match their bias. Other groups do the same. In the end it has zero affect on anything because people to not form their ideology on FB. The last election was the perfect example of this. Good friends and family that always got along fine even with their political differences now hate each other because they will not abandon or even tone
Re: (Score:1)
Unauthorized access? Facebook sold the data to whomever has the $$ to buy it. Perhaps it wasn't so obvious that Facebook and others sell this data, but anyone dumb enough to give personal data to a social networking site, what did you think they were going to do with it? Does "ad supported" ring any bells?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
People are upset because a company associated, with some degrees of separation, with Trump, used the technique to find people to "target," and this is some how a "data breach" and "interference in democracy," but when Facebook gave the same type of data to the Obama or Clinton campaigns, it was "the campaign tactics of the future" and "an excellent use of technology and analytics".
Probably because the Obama campaign didn't use said tools to spread propaganda and blatant lies. And it wasn't a superPAC hiding the financial backing, meaning that if they got caught in a lie, it'd lead right back to them. It's a great argument for overturning Citizens United.
Great power, great responsibility, blah blah blah.
So, from what I gather, the controversy is almost entirely to do with people discovering that Facebook isn't on their "side",
Yeah pretty much. I see a lot of parallels with the cable-leaks, it revealed the exact sort of relationship that activities were complaining about and really brought the issue into the
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
1) Facebook's business model is aggregating user data and monetize it. They aren't in the business of enabling others to profit.
2) If Facebook didn't want others to access user data, they wouldn't make it available. They only care when others use the data in a way that interferes with Facebook profit.
3) "People are upset because a company associated, with some degrees of separation, with Trump..." is a gross mischaracterization. People are upset with Facebook's business model and view recent events as ev
Re: (Score:2)
Critically, let us think -- anyone that was targeted with ads had it done because analysis of their data suggested that they were receptive, probably due to already agreeing.
Are you the guy in charge of ads at Amazon, who keeps sends me ads about camping tents because I bought one a year ago? I honestly don't need two tents. One is enough. An ad for something I've already bought or already plan to do is useless. The only useful end-result of an ad is if it makes a difference by nudging me over a tipping point, e.g. from "vaguely sort of think that I should buy a tent" to "yes I should buy that tent", or "vaguely sort of agree with X" to "yes I should vote for X".
Re: Unauthorized? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's "unauthorized" but also protected only by the honor system. There's no technical mechanism in place to restrict how the data is stored, where, or for how long. Once they've copied it from the Facebook API and it's on their servers, it's basically protected only by the developer account terms of service and there's no manual or automated way they can even tell, remotely, if there is a breach of this compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
it was "unauthorised" as in Facebook gave them all the data they wanted and told them they were only allowed to do certain things with it.
Instead they did what ever they wanted to do it it.
You can bet every other company getting data from Facebook is doing the same thing. They'll be archiving it all for later use too.
Re: (Score:2)
it was "unauthorised" as in Facebook gave them all the data they wanted and told them they were only allowed to do certain things with it.
Instead they did what ever they wanted to do it it.
You can bet every other company getting data from Facebook is doing the same thing. They'll be archiving it all for later use too.
Not just that, but this is so standard that Facebook really should have been aware. Odds are that Facebook does the same to people--and, really, given that they don't wait until you've an account with them to start gathering data from you and certainly aren't transparent about it, it's somewhat hypocritical of them to complain.
Re: (Score:3)
Users are idiots for truthfully filling out all of these damned questionnaires on Facebook.
Otherwise, it would be a lot of fun.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, obviously not everyone reads and obeys the TOS but just FYI, falsifying account data is one of the things explicitly forbidden by it.
Re: Yawn .... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a phone, call someone who gives a fuck.
Re: (Score:1)
Think of it this way. I'm quite open with my EV usage and patterns when it comes to my Hydro (Electricity) company asking me questions because I want them to use the data to anticipate electricity demand so we don't have brown-outs or they can advocate installing new infrastructure to support more chargers. I'm quite happy to give
Re: (Score:1)
In a couple weeks watch them be twice as surprised to find out Twitter's API enables the same exact type of data harvesting, and other social networks have scrambled to catch up.
Shocked, shocked! (Score:2)
Is anybody?
So ... (Score:3)
It's a feature, not a bug (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook Knew (Score:3, Interesting)
It is impossible to believe the Facebook did not know what was happening. They have every bit of data around their users including the variety of tracking methods which they employ so they can analyze what they get and identify what places these various users visit, where they are most likely located, etc. They could easily have stopped the Russian trolls, CA, and many others who were abusing the data which Facebook offers and the platform for communicating with others.
It's staggering to see companies so willing to sell out their country to make money. I remember a time when showing patriotism beat out personal gain. Now, we have companies like Facebook and the politicians (Republicans) in congress who put their personal agenda and gain above all else (including their own country) and it's truly depressing.
Re: (Score:1)
This is just the end-run of capitalism. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is about the money. People's health? Profit comes first. Safety and security? Well, only if it doesn't have a negative impact on the bottom line. We commoners, those that used to be referred to as constituents or even, occasionally as people, are now almost always considered consumers first and foremost. We're dollar signs in some CPA's future forecast. The idea that anything, patriotism, feeding and sheltering the population,
Wi-Fi (Score:1)
Isn't this same business model as a number of free Wi-Fi company's that use Facebook as a means of auth e.g. PurpleWi-Fi. Your privacy for free Wi-Fi.
Any data you put on the web will be abused. (Score:1)
Any information you share on the internet will be used incorrectly. or at least in a way most people would disagree with.
Anyone who collects the data is a target for thieves wanting it. or they sell it. or they share it. then the people they share or sell it to become the next level of target or seller. Even the good old USofA can't secure our data. Think IRS and OPM.
Personal information will simply become another untrusted form of identification and information. The act of collecting it is the real p
I don't know (Score:2)
Well, if doing a sociological experiment on people, to see if you can get them to elect an orange moron as president is not 'academic research', then what is it?
Re: (Score:2)
So that's why they nominated Hillary.
Can't argue with success. Good work DNC.
Re: You are an idiot if you use facebook still (Score:2)
If you ever used Facebook. Period.
You are an idiot if you use facebook still (Score:2)
Using Facebook is a great way to lose your privacy, your identity, your credit, your house, and your savings.
Suspend them all (Score:2)
Is it that difficult to understand?
Just the tip of the iceberg (Score:2)
These are just the first two companies to get caught. This is what EVERYBODY was doing!