Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Businesses Network Privacy Social Networks The Internet

Mark Zuckerberg Apologizes For the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, Says He Isn't Opposed To Regulation (theverge.com) 180

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Mark Zuckerberg apologized on Wednesday evening for his company's handling of the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal. "This was a major breach of trust and I'm really sorry this happened," he said in an interview on CNN. "Our responsibility now is to make sure this doesn't happen again." Zuckerberg's comments reflected the first time he apologized following an uproar over how Facebook allowed third-party developers to access user data. Earlier in the day, Zuckerberg wrote a Facebook post in which he said the company had made mistakes in its handling of the Cambridge Analytica data revelations. The company laid out a multipart plan designed to reduce the amount of data shared by users with outside developers, and said it would audit some developers who had access to large troves of data before earlier restrictions were implemented in 2014. Zuckerberg also told CNN that he is not totally opposed to regulation. "I'm not sure we shouldn't be regulated," he said. "There are things like ad transparency regulation that I would love to see."

Other highlights of Zuckerberg's interviews:
-He told multiple outlets that he would be willing to testify before Congress.
-He said the company would notify everyone whose data was improperly used.
-He told the New York Times that Facebook would double its security force this year, adding: "We'll have more than 20,000 people working on security and community operations by the end of the year, I think we have about 15,000 now."
-He told the Times that Facebook would investigate "thousands" of apps to determine whether they had abused their access to user data.

Regarding moderation, Zuckerberg told Recode: "[The] thing is like, 'Where's the line on hate speech?' I mean, who chose me to be the person that did that?" Zuckerberg said. "I guess I have to, because of where we are now, but I'd rather not."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mark Zuckerberg Apologizes For the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, Says He Isn't Opposed To Regulation

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    He is lying. Which he is not good at. Same with little Cheryl.

    • He might be uncomfortable with it, but he probably accepts it is better PR and business just to go with it. At least this way he can have a meaningful conversation as to what appropriate regulation is?

      • One also needs to consider that regulations also do a good deal to keep new competitors out of a market just as they curtail existing players. Social media may look like a juicy target for disruption or the incumbents ripe for toppling, but if a new entrant need jump through all manner of hoops to do so, they may turn their sites elsewhere.
      • By accepting the likelihood of regulation, Zuckerberg has at least some opportunity to shape it. Better to capitulate and retain some leverage than to fight it and have regulations imposed.

        • By accepting the likelihood of regulation, Zuckerberg has at least some opportunity to shape it. Better to capitulate and retain some leverage than to fight it and have regulations imposed.

          Exactly. He also knows that is going to come in from other territories, so trying to ensure it matches what is already there makes it easier to implement. Financial institutions on the other hand, often have to deal with conflicting regulations, leaving them in position of needing to comply with them in a way they incur the least penalties.

      • Lie? He basically contradicted himself in one sentence. The article says:

        He told the New York Times that Facebook would double its security force this year, adding: "We'll have more than 20,000 people working on security and community operations by the end of the year, I think we have about 15,000 now."

        If he's going to double the security force, he needs to go from 15,000 to 30,000. That's quite a bit over "more than 20,000".

        (Yes, technically 30,000 counts as "more than 20,000"-- but if he meant 30,0

    • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Thursday March 22, 2018 @09:10AM (#56305067)

      Having built a large company with a huge infrastructure. A set of regulations would probably hit a small portion of its budget, while having such rules in effect would raise the bar for any future competitors.

      Imagine Facebook trying to fight off MySpace, if it needed to comply with so many regulations from the start.

    • I'm not so sure he's lying. There's a handful of ways that regulating social media could help out facebook. They'd have to pay to jump through the hoops to meet compliance, whatever that looks like..... but so would all the competition. Imagine you're 4 guys in college cooking up a facebook-killer like every damn fool was doing ~5 years ago. Now you're going to fail because you have zero hope of complying, or even affording to know if you comply, with the laws and regulation surrounding the industry. (

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22, 2018 @08:08AM (#56304667)

    Wonder what was in these boxes ?

    https://twitter.com/bercbon4/status/976444112139366400

    The Consvervative party in the UK used Cambridge Analalytica to help them during their election, is it a wonder it is taking so long to get a warrant ?

    • Ohh, it's nothing. Remember Nix got suspended from his position as head of that shell company front - that's just them returning the contents of his virtual desk.
    • Also see http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2... [bellacaledonia.org.uk] which is about SCL, owner of CA.
  • Sorry (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Thursday March 22, 2018 @08:12AM (#56304697)

    Sorry you found out about Facebook's business model.

    • Sorry you found out about Facebook's business model.

      The Zuck apologizes, but still claims:

      "I did NOT have sex with your private data!"

    • He said he was sorry 60 billion times [techcrunch.com]. Give the guy a tax break already.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Fred fails to opt out of 'platform enable' which Facebook counts as permission to sell the data of his family friends and business colleges. FB lets all that data be used for 'research'.

      Which is bollocks, Fred cannot give permission to hand over the data of people he knowns, and anyway Facebook turned this feature on by default, and Zuck knows the 'research' is really a catchall privacy excuse to sell data for any reason. Because rigging an election is "researching how to win".

      In this case Aleksandr Kogan o

    • Re:Sorry (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Thursday March 22, 2018 @08:35AM (#56304853) Journal
      He's probably also sorry that Cambridge Analytica was able to monetise data that Facebook has harvested, without paying Facebook a cut.
    • by jebrick ( 164096 )

      My info is years old when I had to interact with Facebook's business API's but it is exactly their business model. A company could pay a certain amount to dig deep (via the APIs). Once a Facebook user used a Facebook login to another page or took a survey or played a Facebook game the company could use their API access to draw out everything about them and their friends.

      If what I read was true, the 50 million people came from about 127,000 people filling out a survey. So they not only got the friends of

      • the 50 million people came from about 127,000 people filling out a survey. So they not only got the friends of the people filling out the survey but their friends as well.

        It's digital HIV. You're as risky as the riskiest person you've ... interacted with.

        • You're as risky as the riskiest person you've ever interacted with.

          FTFY. As some TV show host put it: "This is like getting an STD because an acquaintance had unprotected sex with an infected person"

  • by Anonymous Coward

    A former media director for the Obama campaign said Facebook allowed them to access the personal data of its users in 2011 because the social media giant was “on our side.”

    "Davidsen said she built a database of every American voter by using the same Facebook tool that Cambridge Analytica exploited to amass information on 50 million users."

    https://nypost.com/2018/03/20/obamas-former-media-director-said-facebook-was-once-on-our-side/

    Are we in that double standards place again with the liberal medi

    • by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Thursday March 22, 2018 @08:30AM (#56304811)
      From my post on this last article:

      I don't really feel like defending Obama because I disagree with a lot of what he did but explain to me this:

      Did Obama's campaign hire foreign nationals to do the scraping? Remember, it's illegal to hire foreign nationals directly.

      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, Insightful)

        by Train0987 ( 1059246 )

        We have no idea if the Obama campaign did any of those things because ALL of the media and their "journalists" were too busy fawning and covering for him to do any actual investigating into what his campaign was doing. If the Obama administration and campaigns had faced 1/10th of the scrutiny that Trump has you might be shocked at was uncovered.

        • by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Thursday March 22, 2018 @10:09AM (#56305499)
          Oh I agree. Fox News just fawned over obamas every move, praising him constantly. They never really dig in to find any issues, but that's why they eventually ditched the whole "fair and balanced" motto. So at least they were honest about it.
          • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

            by Train0987 ( 1059246 )

            The demonization of Fox News is part of the strategy. The ops question about it being illegal to hire foreigners to a campaign? Did you know the Obama campaign also paid over $1 million to FusionGPS to dig dirt on Romney? Fox News reported it but since you've been programmed to ignore them completely I guess that'll be news to you.

            http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]

  • Mind boggled (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 22, 2018 @08:15AM (#56304713)

    >' I mean, who chose me to be the person that did that?" Zuckerberg said. "I guess I have to, because of where we are now, but I'd rather not."

    You did motherfucker!!

    Take some damn responsibility for your actions. You think those billions were free? With great something, something something, something? How does that go again?

    ffs.

  • In what universe doubling 15,000 gets you 20,000?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      When you start with 10k and are mid-process of doubling to 20k.

    • Well it's called the Zuckerverse, and the number base is a decimal between 9.1 and 9,.5 (I think).

  • by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Thursday March 22, 2018 @08:22AM (#56304763)
    Now that thousands of apps have downloaded it, and each has backed it up to multiple locations, it should be simplicity itself to stuff that cat right back into its bag.
  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday March 22, 2018 @08:22AM (#56304765)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • ... did you ever hear the expression, "The buck stops here?" You should be aware of the privacy issues that have been facing Facebook for years. You should be aware enough of those issues to testify before Congress. Not some underling, but you. The fact that you admit that you do not know enough about Facebook's privacy issues to testify, means that maybe you are in over your head in your current position. Or you are hiding something.

    .
    You are a CEO of a huge company, act like one.

  • ... Zuck's not publicly opposed to regulation now. He knows he's been caught, has to "do" or "say" something. His advisors will assure him, sooner or later, Facebook staff, lobbying and lawyers will guide the regulatory apparatus to stifle new competition.
  • this much attention and overall public scrutiny had been given to the Equifax and OPM breaches. Those were actually serious breaches impacting a ton of people if very real financial ways (~143M people for the Equifax, and most of the DoD Personal for the OPM). Those blew over quickly with no changes at all.

    Versus information that people voluntary put up on FB and only seems to be an issue because targeted ads to support someone they don't like.
    • I guess you missed the bit about "friends of friends" also having their data scooped without their knowledge or consent by a third party application they had nothing to do with, and used to target them when they had no idea they were being targeted.

      • I missed that actually so thanks for the added info! But my overall view doesn't change. Look at everything Equifax did without consent (collecting real personal information that can destroy people financial, selling said data, lobbying congress to put laws in place to ensure these unregulated companies have full power of our financial lives, hiding data breaches, hiding the fact they made negligent security mistakes, etc.) and that blew over quickly and people in general don't seem to care.

        People ga
        • SFW quote-of-the-day:

          "People are f****** stupid".

        • Facebook goes out of its way to hide its nature. You and I are aware of what it's about, but as far as most people are concerned, it's a harmless way to give up a little information about yourself and in return stay in touch with a lot of distant relatives and not-too-close friends you otherwise would maybe email every once in a while, if at all. Almost nobody understands how powerful meta-data really is. They're shocked and dismayed when you tell them (and maybe prove to them) that just from harvesting

  • by Anonymous Coward

    If I did that I would go to jail. Who's going to jail over this?

  • Prophesied in Song (Score:2, Insightful)

    by chill ( 34294 )

    Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
    Johnny Mathis and Denise Williams
    1978

    Guess it's over, call it a day
    Sorry that it had to end this way
    No reason to pretend
    We knew it had to end some day, this way

    Guess, it's over, the kicks are gone
    What's the use of tryin' to hang on?
    Somewhere we lost the key
    So little left for you and me and it's clear to see

    Too much, too little, too late to lie again with you
    Too much, too little, too late to try again with you
    We're in the middle of ending something that we do
    It's all over
    Oh, it

  • The value in Facebook is really the analytical data that Cambridge is claimed to have fondled.
    Nothing surprising really considering that he Facebook board is mainly composed of ex-alphabet mafia people.
    The whole thing is designed to get sheeple to post all of their juice details so that Facebook can sell trending data
    This in itself must be interesting considering that most Facebook users also have multiple accounts

    Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
    Zuckerberg: Just
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Of course he's OK with regulation.
    It practically kills future competition because no one will be large enough (in the early days of a company) to "comply" with all the nonsense regulations of how to properly care for you damn cat videos and gossip.
    I would love to create a company and then pull up the ladder when it got big enough. Who wouldn't.
    If you down FB, get ready for the next social media company to be..... Chinese!
    When you screech at them about privacy, the response will be...
    "GFY round eye."

  • That's what it sounds like to me.

    Facebook has been able to spend its way out of some competing social media trends (ie, buying Instagram) and somehow buck others they couldn't (Snapchat), but mostly they were negotiating from a position of strength due to their network effect.

    Now that their actual business model is exposed -- "You tell me, I sell you" -- and they're facing real risks of large-scale disaffection or defection to other platforms, of course they're fans of regulation. Broad social media regula

  • He is in no way sorry about this or the data they have collected.
    He is sorry they got caught.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      He also dumped a ton of stock before the scandal broke. Hmm, I wonder why, and why the media is not reporting it?

  • Facebook is no different.

    Any sort of regulation on Facebook's business model inarguably and by definition will favor Facebook over their smaller competitors.

  • "I'm not sure we shouldn't be regulated," he said. "There are things like ad transparency regulation that I would love to see."

    Really? Then just go ahead and institute whatever it is you think the regulations would/should ultimately be. Not only would that significantly decrease the odds of the government stepping in and doing it for you, but we could all enjoy the supposed benefits of that regulation right now rather than years from now.

    But that would mean you would own the decision (and its consequences) rather than being able to say "the government made me do it." And that would take some cajones that this last week has stron

  • Mark Zuckerberg has been doing a lot of apologizing lately and it all sounds very hollow, back-handed, and disingenuous. The best thing that one can do for themselves is to divorce themselves from Facebook altogether. Nothing good comes from having a Facebook account. Facebook encourages you to compare yourself to others and if you aren't as successful, handsome, or beautiful as they are then you psychologically feel really shitty. Furthermore, you are giving Facebook a treasure trove of information that it
  • He knows full well that--as a member of The Club--he'll be in a position to write his own "regulations." This is just his way of saying "Puhleeze don't throw me in that briar patch!"
  • by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Thursday March 22, 2018 @11:03AM (#56305809)

    ... because it's a goddam membership naivete problem.

    Facebook could spend more time/money educating its membership regarding the difference between bullshit and wild honey.

    Most people have grown up with the Internet and it's incorrect to suggest that they are duped.

    We don't fall for propaganda -- we embrace it and love it and feed it -- and we amplify whatever fits our world view.

  • Of course he wants regulation. Regulation will make it much harder for potential competitors to get started, helping Facebook maintain its market dominant position.

  • Oh great, so further merging with the feds? It keeps getting better.

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous

Working...