DC Attorney General Sues Mark Zuckerberg Over Cambridge Analytica Data Breach (go.com) 44
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine has sued Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg for allegedly failing to protect consumer data following the Cambridge Analytica data leak. "The evidence shows Mr. Zuckerberg was personally involved in Facebook's failure to protect the privacy and data of its users leading directly to the Cambridge Analytica incident," Racine said in a statement about the lawsuit released Monday. "This unprecedented security breach exposed tens of millions of Americans' personal information, and Mr. Zuckerberg's policies enabled a multi-year effort to mislead users about the extent of Facebook's wrongful conduct." He added, "This lawsuit is not only warranted, but necessary, and sends a message that corporate leaders, including CEOs, will be held accountable for their actions."
The lawsuit alleges that Zuckerberg was "responsible for" and "had the clear ability" to control Facebook operations and enabled Cambridge Analytica to use consumer data. The lawsuit alleges that third-party firms like Cambridge Analytica got data from 87 million Americans and half of District of Columbia residents. Racine filed a lawsuit against Facebook in December 2018 for the data leak and is bringing this suit following evidence found during that litigation, according to the attorney general. In March, a judge ruled against an effort by Racine to add Zuckerberg as a defendant in the ongoing 2018 case. [...] The lawsuit filed by Racine takes issue with what it appears to consider a central business objective of Facebook. The suit accuses the company of aiming "to convince people to reveal the most granular details of who they are to Facebook -- their religions, their work histories, their likes -- so that it can be monetized, and Zuckerberg and his company can continue to grow even wealthier." On multiple occasions, the lawsuit notes that the company pursued its policies "at Zuckerberg's direction."
The lawsuit alleges that Zuckerberg was "responsible for" and "had the clear ability" to control Facebook operations and enabled Cambridge Analytica to use consumer data. The lawsuit alleges that third-party firms like Cambridge Analytica got data from 87 million Americans and half of District of Columbia residents. Racine filed a lawsuit against Facebook in December 2018 for the data leak and is bringing this suit following evidence found during that litigation, according to the attorney general. In March, a judge ruled against an effort by Racine to add Zuckerberg as a defendant in the ongoing 2018 case. [...] The lawsuit filed by Racine takes issue with what it appears to consider a central business objective of Facebook. The suit accuses the company of aiming "to convince people to reveal the most granular details of who they are to Facebook -- their religions, their work histories, their likes -- so that it can be monetized, and Zuckerberg and his company can continue to grow even wealthier." On multiple occasions, the lawsuit notes that the company pursued its policies "at Zuckerberg's direction."
Are robots suable? (Score:2)
Just asking..
Re: (Score:1)
If the SCOTUS declares corporations are people, then so are robots, dammit!
Re: Are robots suable? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Being comprised of people and functioning as a legal person are not nec. the same thing. The SCOTUS has given corporations increasing people-like rights over time.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course not. Robots are just tools - you can't sue a saw, or a car. You can however sue the person using them, if they were used in a maliciously or recklessly illegal fashion. And you can sue the person who made them if there's a fundamental flaw they failed to address.
Re: (Score:2)
So who is the person using it?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they could be dismantled for spare parts.
Re: (Score:2)
> and also robots are not suable anyway.
Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine seems to disagree.
Who? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that any relation to that company that did something over 4 years ago that the world + their dogs did something about 3 years ago?
And I thought the EU was slow to move... which makes me only wonder what political benefit is there to be gained from necromancing this skeleton now.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't undo the damage already done. Can't reverse brexit.
The focus should be on making sure it never happens again. In that sense it might help to do a forensic examination of Cambridge Analytica's operation.
Re: Who? (Score:3)
Same problem as the Panama papers.
Cambridge is just one. The one you know about.
There are countless others just like it doing the same things without your knowledge.
Focusing on C.A. makes sure no one looks for others doing the same or similar.
Re: (Score:3)
Focusing on C.A. makes sure no one looks for others doing the same or similar.
CA seems to have very successfully protected the politicians that used it from any responsibility for their illegal actions.
Still, this is a lawsuit against Facebook/Meta, not CA and most of the other companies will have Facebook and related data providers in common. Getting some sort of legal responsibility from Facebook/Meta recorded is important.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they are a private company entiled to do what they want? At least that is what we were told when the blacklisted Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't reverse brexit.
Something I'm sure that weighs deeply on the DC Attorney general's conscience... You know Cambridge Analytica already went through this process in the UK 3 years ago for their role right? What does this have to do with what's going on now.
The focus should be on making sure it never happens again. In that sense it might help to do a forensic examination of Cambridge Analytica's operation.
The question is one of timing. I agree with you, and would be right with you if it was 2019.
Re: (Score:1)
He's not prevaricating (Score:3)
"The lawsuit filed by Racine takes issue with what it appears to consider a central business objective of Facebook. The suit accuses the company of aiming "to convince people to reveal the most granular details of who they are to Facebook -- their religions, their work histories, their likes -- so that it can be monetized, and Zuckerberg and his company can continue to grow even wealthier."
I generally applaud any attempt to curb the carelessness with which these companies treat their customer's data, so I will withhold any cynicism regarding the timing.
Still, any penalty wrangled from Meta will likely be a fine equal to a rounding error from the Corporate budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why it's important to sue the actual people making the decisions. If the crimes they encouraged the company to commit were severe enough they can face significant prison terms.
Aw, who am I kidding - prison is for small time drug dealers and petty thieves. Once you hit the big time you can just pay some pocket change for your problems to go away.
Re:Of course he enticed users for data (Score:4, Informative)
Specifically, he designed the system to mislead and the ToS to outright lie to users about who gets your data and how much of it, and he then lied to congress (under oath) about both having done all that on purpose and whether or not he could have prevented the company from doing it accidentally. This is all completely illegal, and that doesn't even touch on what Cambridge Analytica actually did with the data, which is all also completely illegal an this country and theirs, and possibly a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Re: (Score:2)
And since we're here talking about unpunished actions that are literally years old, I wonder why you're still using that word "illegal".
People really fail to see or address the actual problem of massive corruption. Why? Because their job likely depends on it now.
Re: (Score:1)
That doesn't change the letter of the law or the definition of the word illegal. It only means there's a lot more than just these people involved. So far however, they've managed to use trickery to stay under the radar, not actual legislation, which means they're still doing things that were and are illegal even if they haven't been actually caught or have been caught but just not prosecuted yet.
Re: (Score:2)
But is any of that illegal?
Name the US Code number.
Uhhh, like, all of them! Facebook is nothing but one massive criminal operation.
Zuck should always be primary defendant (Score:2)
If he wants majority ownership, that means he gets majority of the blame and repercussions, including any suits against him and/or Facebook (or whatever name-du-jour those privacy rapists operate under now).
Re: Big brain morons. (Score:2)
This won't be a popular opinion but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, I know this position is going to be extremely unpopular here, and I'm no fan of Facebook nor am I a big fan of Mark Zuckerberg, but here it is. Zuckerberg is being sued for failing to protect customer data. Here's the problem with that: Facebook users are not customers. You don't pay Facebook to set up a Facebook account, nor do you pay a monthly fee for the service. Therefore, Facebook is under no obligation to protect the information you voluntarily upload to them. I would have thought that was obvious: I'm always very careful of what information I send to unpaid "services". Yes, it may be true that Facebook makes money indirectly off its user base through targeted ads, etc., but that doesn't establish a business relationship between Facebook users and Facebook, anymore than you have a business relationship with companies that rent ad space on billboards that you happen to see by the side of the highway as you drive to work.
As such, I think this type of lawsuit should be thrown out. It would be very different if a paid service, such as an email service that you pay a monthly fee to use, were careless with customers' private data, but that isn't the case here. As I said, I'm no fan of Zuck, but this just doesn't feel right to me.
Re: (Score:1)
well stated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think not using it is protection? There have been allegations that they create shadow accounts for people who never sign up with facebook. AFAIK there's no way to tell whether those allegations are valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bu that is not what this lawsuit is about.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It goes beyond that too. Cambridge Analytica used an API and a database that was readily available to anyone who understood how to use it. It wasn't a secret. Nobody hacked anything. The fact that it was used successfully and effectively by one political campaign and that doorway got bricked up afterwards and now Facebook is getting sued now tells you that this whole thing is politically motivated especially when you look at it in the context of the Durham court case. The opposing party is getting thei
let's just say it as it is (Score:2)
...he's suing Zuckerberg for not working as hard as all the other media organizations against Trump.
Because aside from that, I'm not sure what actual wrongdoing is being asserted here.
Grandstanding much (Score:1)
corporate shield lets people avoid responsibility (Score:2)
incentives are important, and presently the incentives are to maximize profit, no matter the harm to others.
The corporate shield is granted by government to every corporation and allows the individuals running the business to do things without being personally liable for their actions.
I think this is a huge problem because it removes personable responsibility.
Imagine if a CEO and/or shareholders could be held personally responsible every time a customer is defrauded, harmed, loses privacy, or is poisoned by
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, officially the "corporate shield" can be penetrated by a court if you own more than 10% of the stock in a corporation. It's quite rare that it happens, but I don't believe the barrier is legal, but rather "custom".
A bit late (Score:1)