Mark Zuckerberg Addresses the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, Says Facebook 'Made Mistakes' in Protecting Data (buzzfeed.com) 127
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday commented on the massive, deepening data harvesting scandal his company has been embroiled in since last Friday. From a report: "We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you. I've been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again," he said. The scandal -- involving the illicit collection of data from 50 million Facebook users, and its later use by Trump campaign analytics vendor Cambridge Analytica -- has helped chop off nearly $50 billion in value from Facebook's market cap since last Friday, led to calls from US lawmakers for Zuckerberg testify before congress, and raised eyebrows at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which is now probing the company. Speaking of things Facebook plans to do to ensure that this mess doesn't repeat itself, Zuckerberg added, "First, we will investigate all apps that had access to large amounts of information before we changed our platform to dramatically reduce data access in 2014, and we will conduct a full audit of any app with suspicious activity. We will ban any developer from our platform that does not agree to a thorough audit. And if we find developers that misused personally identifiable information, we will ban them and tell everyone affected by those apps. That includes people whose data Kogan misused here as well.
"Second, we will restrict developers' data access even further to prevent other kinds of abuse. For example, we will remove developers' access to your data if you haven't used their app in 3 months. We will reduce the data you give an app when you sign in -- to only your name, profile photo, and email address. We'll require developers to not only get approval but also sign a contract in order to ask anyone for access to their posts or other private data. And we'll have more changes to share in the next few days."
There is no explicit apology in Zuckerberg's comment today.
"Second, we will restrict developers' data access even further to prevent other kinds of abuse. For example, we will remove developers' access to your data if you haven't used their app in 3 months. We will reduce the data you give an app when you sign in -- to only your name, profile photo, and email address. We'll require developers to not only get approval but also sign a contract in order to ask anyone for access to their posts or other private data. And we'll have more changes to share in the next few days."
There is no explicit apology in Zuckerberg's comment today.
Sorry I got caught defense (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Obama paid them with a private phone number/direct access for eight years.
This time they're pissed because they think they were cheated, only got money.
Re: (Score:1)
Obama paid them with a private phone number/direct access for eight years.
Good thing that's so obvious that there's no need to bother with a cite. Not conspiratorial at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but claiming that is illegal for people to talk to each other is standing against the 1st amendment. It was legal for Obama to talk to them and for them to talk to Obama.
The difference now is that it was illegal for them to talk to Trump because they did so in order to destroy our election.
Re:Sorry I got caught defense (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5520303/Obama-campaign-director-reveals-Facebook-ALLOWED-data.html
Re:Sorry I got caught defense (Score:4, Informative)
https://nypost.com/2018/03/20/obamas-former-media-director-said-facebook-was-once-on-our-side/
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-... [wikileaks.org]
What's next? "Primary sources are not good sources."?
Re:Sorry I got caught defense (Score:4, Insightful)
The Daily Mail is not a reputable source.
The Daily Mai (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
COO of Facebook.
Wikileaked email [wikileaks.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The best part is the media is now trying to discredit all of it by pumping out "news" and late night monologues that lambaste the conspiracy as fake, baseless, etc., Q as a nutjob or possibly some dangerous individual, and the people following the whole mess as stupid, gullible losers.
Expect to see a lot about Q and this conspiracy in the media soon, as they try to laugh it off the stage.
All they'll do is bring it to more people's attention, and get more people on the side of exposing this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/21... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words "Pot meet Kettle"
Re: Sorry I got caught defense (Score:4, Informative)
That's a financial blog closely connected to Breitbart and a few other "alt-right" sites. In other words, information value = -1.
Re: Sorry I got caught defense (Score:5, Informative)
Did you actually read the article at the link? There are plenty of links to sources there - Time, Twitter, The Guardian etc. You can't really disregard them simply because they happened to appear in an article on a website you do not like or do not consider reputable.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure I can. And I have plenty of modpoints cached away on other UIDs to make my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with legitimate sources, it's extremely easy to twist the truth to fit an agenda, by either picking and choosing what to cite in your article, or even by deliberately misquoting the sources (because very few people care to check)
Zerohedge.com has done this a lot in the past, so it is only natural to distrust them.
Re:Sorry I got caught defense (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news, Hitler said he "made mistakes" in protecting Jews.
That Godwin was too easy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Sorry I got caught defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it is. Cambridge Analytics bought the data from third party apps though, not Facebook, thus undercutting Facebook's business model. This is why Facebook is cracking down.
Re:Sorry I got caught defense (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus fucking Christ. This 100%. Not even getting into the 'Trump did this, Obama did that bullshit'..
These clowns have been hoovering as much fucking data as possible about everyone, going so far as building shadow profiles for non-members. Why else would they do this, other than to sell it?
Zuck, no one fucking believes you, I hope you, and your your company goes the way of Myspace.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But how will people be able to post their drunken party pictures for the world to marvel over, if Facebook is gone?
BTW, MySpace still exists. The last that I read about it, it was THE go-to site for following bands.
Re: (Score:2)
> "we don't deserve to serve you"
When most leaders say they "serve" people, they mean as a servant, to help and support the people they lead.
Zuckerberg means to serve you and your identity as in serving a slice of pie to the highest bidder, like the monstrously obese Mr. Creosote [wikipedia.org] in Monty Python's Meaning of Life. Only Facebook is as monstrously obese.
So it's a monstrously obese Mr. Creosote serving you to another monstrously obese Mr. Creosote. But the movie scene is less disgusting than Facebook.
ok (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks (Score:2)
we don't deserve to serve you
... That's all I needed to hear, and I couldn't agree more.
#winning (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL (Score:5, Informative)
It's so much bullshit, because it is a damage-control response to the CA issue only.
The problem -- of which they are deeply and keenly aware -- is MUCH larger than just CA, and has existed this way, intentionally, for YEARS.
This is a farcical non-response, though some of the measures they are now forced to take will indeed partially address the broader issues.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd assume: Cambridge Analytics.
GP define you acronyms first use.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who can't figure out your lame attempt at communication is a moron?
email address? (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook 'Made Mistakes' in Protecting Data (Score:2)
Obviously, the fact that Cambridge Analytica was linked to Facebook was a grand mistake on their part. There shouldn't had been any connections to Facebook.
I don't use Facebook (Score:1)
and neither should anybody else.
OK... (Score:5, Insightful)
"And if we find developers that misused personally identifiable information, we will ban them and tell everyone affected by those apps."
The official Facebook app doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't matter. WIth the entire EU bureacracy involved in rolling out GDPR, you can bet your arse that those responsible for enforcing data protection directives are casting eyes at Facebook and Cambridge Analytics already.
It makes for such a nice test case: "Look, it is already illegal under the old rules, and under the new rules we can really put the hurt on them". And since CA is still an EU company (Brexit won't happen for another year), and Facebook does substantial business in the EU, I expect they ar
Re: (Score:2)
Obama, Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
So have I got this right.
Obama scrapes Facebook data for two elections = okidoki
Trump may have used Facebook data = SJW fainting scandal.
https://www.fastcompany.com/40... [fastcompany.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obama, Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama scrapes Facebook data for two elections = okidoki
Trump may have used Facebook data = SJW fainting scandal.
Obama used Facebook data = Facebook is bad
Trump used Facebook data = Facebook is bad
Facebook = bad
Re: (Score:2)
That was the prevailing viewpoint at the time, yes. We have learned a lot about Facebook's behavior since then, and have become a lot more critical.
Future presidential candidates will not be allowed to do the same things with FB data, no matter which party they're from.
Re:Obama, Trump (Score:4, Interesting)
This says it all https://i.imgur.com/hHX2L0d.pn... [imgur.com]
Re:Obama, Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Did Obama's campaign hire foreign nationals to do the scraping?
Did Obama's campaign break the TOS of facebook or any other data privacy laws?
Was Obama's campaign transparent in his methods? Because Cambridge Analyitica is secretive, uses shell companies and encrypted self deleting emails, and Nix is on tape saying he happily lies, uses honey pots and the like, and misdirects - did Obama engage in hiring people who use those methods?
Did obama's campaign use fake web logs, fake news articles, and other knowingly factually incorrect sources, in a highly targeted approach to misdirecting unsuspecting undecided voters?
You may consider it splitting hairs, I certainly don't approve of Obama's use of invasion of privicy for his social media campaign, but this looks like a case of comparing theft of a stack of free newspapers to a bank robbery.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to look up the company Hakluyt before you get all righteous on this one.
Re: (Score:3)
I feel like this may be a waste of time, but, I'd like to answer your questions.
Did Obama's campaign hire foreign nationals to do the scraping?
If anyone at facebook was working on a H1B visa, -or- if there were any foreign offices of facebook during '12, then yes, there were foreign nationals involved with the scraping.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is a difference. You cannot directly hire foreign nationals and pay them like CA. For example, AT&T may have H1B employees, but that dosent mean a robocall campaign would run afoul of campaign finance law. If obama paid foreign nationals directly, I'd like to know.
Was Obama's campaign transparent in his methods? Because Cambridge Analyitica is secretive, uses shell companies and encrypted self deleting emails, and Nix is on tape saying he happily lies, uses honey pots and the like, and misdirects - did Obama engage in hiring people who use those methods?
No, I'd say his campaign was downright giddy and braggadocious about invading 1 billions people privacy. As for CA's shifty dealings, I'll agree they were underhanded, but pail in comparison to the free information shoveled to the DNC about, well, basically anyone who has a facebook account, or even is close friends IRL with someone who has a facebook account.
That to me sounds like obama was fairly open with what he was doing, though I do not agree with it due to privacy reasons myself
Did obama's campaign use fake web logs, fake news articles, and other knowingly factually incorrect sources, in a highly targeted approach to misdirecting unsuspecting undecided voters?
Yes.
I realize he did targeted ads, but I can't find purposefully fake informa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama campaign "asked" users, not the same thing.
The mistake is actually... (Score:1)
... on the hands of those who use Facebook at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Facebook, or similar, could make plenty of money just selling advertising. Wouldn't have to be targeted advertising. All uploaded info should be encrypted while it's not on the users device.
No Explict Apology? (Score:2)
Gee, does that surprise you? They are being investigated by the FTC and who only knows how many private practice lawyers looking for a pay day on this one.
It would be stupid for him to apologize or offer any sort of statement that could be construed as culpability.
I can see the updated FAQ already! (Score:1)
For example, we will remove developers' access to your data if you haven't used their app in 3 months.
In order to protect your privacy Facebook recommends that you change your name, date of birth and social circle at least once a quarter.
Only happening because Hillary lost (Score:3, Insightful)
Translated ...
"We didn't mean for our longstanding creepy privacy destruction policies to benefit a Republican rather than a Democrat this election cycle, and we promise it won't happen again"
Where is his morality? (Score:1)
From all I've read about Mr. Zuckerberg, he is a sociopath, someone who cannot understand how his actions cause hurt to other people. As long as he and his little circle of people are taken care of, that's all that matters to him. To him, it's otherwise all just business. Hit him where he lives in order to wake him up to the fact that he has taken on a great responsibility. A moral responsibility to the entire human race. Either he takes his responsibility correctly, as a good human should do and fix the mi
Media company issues... (Score:3)
In any publicly listed for profit media corp the tussle will be between the editorial department which wants full control on content vs marketing / sales which needs sales from selling space. FB has no editorial department, its the users for most part and algos, but marketing / sales is where FB earns its valuation and profile.
What do marketing/sales do? Sell space on news feed, and sell user data.
I feel FB will be profitable even if it stops selling user data. But then almighty greed.
The only plus for current fiasco..."FB boy for POTUS" is DOA.
Well, we "knew" that it happens... (Score:1)
So what were the mistakes? (Score:2)
If he were being honest, it's my guess that he would list the mistakes as;
1. Not being paid enough for the data, and
2. Getting caught.
Policy change is not enough after causing damage (Score:2)
When you have a billion dollars, you have no excuse for not understanding the harm you product can cause. If your product is a car, you're on the hook for failed airbags, or whatever negligent harm your product causes. In the case of THIS SITE, that harm is towards civil society and democracy itself.
How do you measure that level of damage and liability? And what is the adequate response to what is either epic negligence, or a shadowy sell-out? In either case damage has been done and someone owes us a lot mo
Re: (Score:2)
I am neither of those things, not being an American. By seeing this as DEMS vs. GOP you've already put the blinders on, and that's exactly why this is dangerous.
"MIatakes were made" (Score:2)
No, Facebook did not make any mistakes, because Facebook is a faceless abstraction. People at Facebook made mistakes (or more likely, knew exactly what they were doing and how much money it would make them). So who exactly were those people, Mark?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember facebook beacon!! (Score:1)