Federal Facebook Probe Now Includes FBI, SEC: Report (apnews.com) 77
A federal probe into Facebook's sharing of user data with Cambridge Analytica now involves the FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department, a report said. AP: Representatives from these agencies have joined the Federal Trade Commission in the inquiry, The Washington Post reported, citing five unnamed people familiar with the matter. The probe reportedly centers on what Facebook knew in 2015, when it learned that the political data-mining firm Cambridge Analytica had improperly accessed the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users. Facebook didn't disclose the incident with the political firm, which later worked for the Trump campaign and other Republican candidates, until this March.
Re:Good. Burn them all (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I'd love to see a good witch burning, I think a more realistic expectation isn't fire or even jail time. It'll be a couple million dollar fine and a shameful finger wave.
If and until fines become greater than profits for corporations bad behavior, this cycle of crap will continue.
Re: (Score:2)
At minimum there's a good chance Zuckerberg is forced out over this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Because they have enough cash to be innocent?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe anyone should be untouchable; nor do I believe anyone IS untouchable if the crime is popular enough with those prosecuting.
One can dream of a scenario where Hillary, Trump and Zuckerberg all share a cell together.
Re: Good. Burn them all (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"One can dream of a scenario where Hillary, Trump and Zuckerberg all share a cell together"
Which one still be the bitch?
Zuckerberg is probably the most feminine, with the most delicate features of the three- so probably him.
Re: (Score:2)
Zuck is a cuck installed by the NSA to helm the public rollout of their pet project.
At best, he believes his own bullshit. Realistically, he knows he's a useless piece of shit and he gets his marching orders from behind the scenes.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, while no one likes it, under current US law, there's really NOTHING that is codified as being illegal about it, otherwise we'd be stringing up tons of companies over this type thing.
The only good thing that could come out of this, is for the US to pass at least basic privacy laws for our citizens and let it be know that WE own our own data, have rights to
Too big (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Going to include the Obama campaign? (Score:1, Informative)
Keep in mind that Cambridge Analytica only "improperly accessed" the data based on Facebook's new rules, the old rules and Facebook's own API allowed them access to the data they acquired. There was no "illegal access" - this was data that Facebook happily gave the Obama campaign as well as just about any company that asked.
There's no clear reason for the FBI to be involved other than continued butt-hurt over the "wrong" candidate winning the election. No one cared when Obama used the same trick to steal th
Re: (Score:1)
So what you are trying to say is, that since the Democrats are shitbags, Republicans should get a free pass for being shitbags too?
Guess what, they're both shitbags, one just has R written on and the other has a D written on it.
The reason why this country is going to hell in a bucket is shit like this. Both sides just keep screaming at each other "BUT THEY DO IT TOO!"
This is how Liberty dies.
Re: (Score:1)
So what you are trying to say is, that since the Democrats are shitbags, Republicans should get a free pass for being shitbags too?
Exactly the opposite: Democrats are getting a free pass to be shitbags while Republicans are being prosecuted for things people happily ignored Democrats doing.
You're right, both sides are bad and both sides should be treated the same. But THEY ARE NOT. Just look at the way the media treats Obama versus Trump. Just look at the investigations against Trump for bogus charges while people ignore Clinton selling uranium to Russia or using Russian sources to "dig up dirt" on Trump.
For whatever reason, Democrats
Re: (Score:1)
Facebook's rules do not supersede federal privacy laws.
Re: (Score:2)
What Federal Privacy laws were broken? Didn't everyone agree to share there data?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get to opt out of the law. If you agree to let someone kill you they are still guilty of murder (under the law).
Re: (Score:2)
Except in Oregon (under certain circumstances -- assisted suicide)
Re:Going to include the Obama campaign? (Score:5, Informative)
Part of the legal issues is that agreement, the link below, requiring that facebook perform actions which is being investigated to see if they broke.
the issue with Cambridge Analytica is that they had access to people who had not given consent, so breaking the FTC agreement.
What Obama's 2012 team was allowed to do by facebook was take data only from people who had consented (you logged into obama's website using your facebook account). However they were given access to data that facebook never gives to anyone else and is listed as user data that will not be distributed and was not the list of information that would be shared, so consent for some data not given. In addtion obama's team was allowed to suck that data directly from the facebook databases and then keep the data indefinitely. All of that is in violation of the FTC agreement.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-event... [ftc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Also Trump did not illegally access the data, he hired a company which exceed the people, they would normally have which then sold services to the Trump campaign which included that data.
Re: (Score:1)
What federal privacy laws, exactly? The information shared was information Facebook was legally allowed to share. If it wasn't, then Obama is exactly as guilty as Cambridge Analytica and should be under investigation too, as his campaign pulled literally the same stunt that Trump's did. (And I'd be amazed if the same tools weren't handed over to the Clinton campaign as well.)
But there are no such laws. You might think there should be, but there aren't. The data Facebook shared was legally shared. If it wasn
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not making a political statement either way. I'm simply explaining that if the FBI is involved then that means they are investigating whether federal law was violated. It may be as simple as lying to Congress or it may be more than that.
Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
... this was data that Facebook happily gave the Obama campaign as well as just about any company that asked.
No they didn't. That is a lie started by Conservative Troll media (Fox News, Hannity, Rush, and all the idiots on political talk radio - and that makes you a rube.) I didn't start seeing ANYTHING from the Obama campaign until I signed up.
Now, what CA did was target people unsolicited with BS ads about immigrants , "America is for Americans only", stuff about infrastructure, and other issues that their data suggested - and targeted ads accordingly.
Trump then used that data to customize his speeches in thos
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is nonsense. 63 million people weren't persuaded to vote against Clinton by Facebook ads. That is, at best, wishful thinking. At worst it's willful self-delusion and cognitive dissonance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They cling to this Russians! nonsense as a defense mechanism against facing the reality that their worldview has been rejected. There must be some higher reason to explain how a circus clown was able to defeat them when the entire deck stacked in their favor.
Re: (Score:1)
I wasn't on the ballot and no politician is worthy of hero status. Your delusion is strong. Good luck with that in November.
Re: (Score:1)
Every post you make drives more voters away from the Democrats. Is that your purpose?
Re: (Score:2)
It's more likely that you're the Russian spy sent here to make Democrats look foolish.
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone knows that these less-than-ideal traits still make the holder way better than your standard candidate.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
In case anyone is wondering about the hypocrisy, read this article https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3)
this was data that Facebook happily gave the Obama campaign as well as just about any company that asked. ...No one cared when Obama used the same trick to steal the election from Romney.
The difference being what they used the data for. If you use the yellow pages to call people and tell them to vote for you guy, eh, fine. Annoying but not a crime. If you use the yellow pages to systematically murder people in a district to try and sway the vote, that's wrong.
Trump and Russia used and Internet propaganda campaign of lies to sway voters. This is, subtly, different from a campaign PR campaign. Namely:
- Is it clear who purchased the advertisement?
- Is it clear that it IS
Re: (Score:1)
So what exactly is the crime? They helped Trump get elected?
That should be reason enough to reinstate the death penalty.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with wanting to put your political enemies up against the wall with a cigarette and a blindfold is that there's a good chance that you yourself will either be joining them or that it'll be they who are the ones making up the firing squad.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with wanting to put your political enemies up against the wall with a cigarette and a blindfold is that there's a good chance that you yourself will either be joining them or that it'll be they who are the ones making up the firing squad.
Obviously it was a joke- I wouldn't really suggest anyone be executed for voting for Trump, or helping him get elected.
Re: (Score:3)
Apologies. Made the mistake of looking at Twitter earlier today, and my ability to distinguish between hyperbole and actionable rage is damaged at the moment.
Lock them up! Lock them up! Lock them up! (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
2016 was a really bad year for democracy. We were caught out, we thought social media wasn't a big deal and didn't notice Russia interfering.
We must fully investigate and learn everything we can about what happened. The chances of anyone significant going to jail are low and we aren't going to have a do-over now, but what is important is making sure it doesn't happen again. Not the same way, and not some different way with whatever new tech we come up with.
Re: (Score:1)
Given that the Russians are not about one party winning, but about divisiveness, I have to think that most posts like this these days are themselves coming out of Russian Troll Farms.
Re: (Score:3)
It was both good and bad for democracy.
Consider this: A political outsider running on a populist platform managed to get elected over the established candidate that everyone thought was going to win. That's amazing. An upset. A sign that we actually live in a democracy. Because even if everyone can vote, but there's only the illusion of choice and the party leaders are going to pick whom they want to run, then it's not really a democracy. And for all the elections I've been around for, the victor was pretty
SEC only has civil jurisdiction (Score:2)
The SEC only has civil jurisdiction, not criminal. They only have the authority to sue, levy fines and prohibit future involvement by bad actors. Only the DOJ can prosecute criminally for securities fraud.
The slow-motion Zuckerbook train-wreck (Score:2)
A bit confused (Score:3)
OK, I'm honestly a bit confused here.
Not making a political statement, but hasn't Facebook been selling data in violation of their own policies for the last few years? [slashdot.org]
I realize how one could potentially perceive this as unfair play during the election, but by Facebook's own admission, it doesn't really seem to be much different that the rest of the data sharing going on.