50 million Facebook profiles harvested for firm linked to former Trump adviser

[Sparko]

As I understand the article I read this morning, the issue is not so much the information of those who took the test (which as you note had a clause in its agreement allowing this), but the information of their friends which was also shared. This isn't the first time Facebook has been the focus of investigation over giving away private information. That it was given to an organization working for Trump isn't really relevant; it's just another excuse for outrage.

I wonder how much information was actually stolen from their friends? Usually the agreement you make is that they can get a list of your friends. If their software just trolls their friend's pages and gathers the publicly available info on their pages, then they are not violating anything. If they somehow stole the first person's credentials so they could see the private information on their friend's pages (what they shared with their friends) then that would be a problem and would pretty much constitute hacking or a breach by facebook itself.

[One Bad Pig]

I wonder how much information was actually stolen from their friends? Usually the agreement you make is that they can get a list of your friends. If their software just trolls their friend's pages and gathers the publicly available info on their pages, then they are not violating anything. If they somehow stole the first person's credentials so they could see the private information on their friend's pages (what they shared with their friends) then that would be a problem and would pretty much constitute hacking or a breach by facebook itself.

Perhaps I misread, but I understood that nothing was stolen; FB sold them the data.

[rogue06]

Perhaps I misread, but I understood that nothing was stolen; FB sold them the data.

That's pretty much what I understand. This is nothing new. The Democrats and their allies at Google and Facebook have been doing this for some time. Nothing illegal about it

[Mountain Man]

If their software just trolls their friend's pages and gathers the publicly available info on their pages, then they are not violating anything.

Which is exactly what Facebook is saying, that the information was collected legitimately and through the proper channels.

[Charles]

Which is exactly what Facebook is saying, that the information was collected legitimately and through the proper channels.

But the important part is about the further use of it by people connected to the Trump campaign. When it comes to that part, it gets a bit more muddy:

But in 2015, Facebook learned that Kogan had passed on that data to Cambridge Analytica, said Paul Grewal, a Facebook vice president and deputy general counsel, in a blog post late Friday. When Facebook found out, it demanded Cambridge Analytica and Kogan destroy the data. Facebook said it received certifications they had complied.

Now there are allegations that not all the data had been destroyed.

And another important part:

In reaction to the controversy, Facebook's most senior executives have been trying to stress that Facebook was deceived. Kogan shouldn't have passed on the data, they said, and those involved shouldn't have lied about deleting all of it.

[Sparko]

Perhaps I misread, but I understood that nothing was stolen; FB sold them the data.

I found the article a but confusing. It seemed to go all over the place.

On one hand the article says they gathered the information from facebook, but misused it in a way not covered by facebook's rules. But then later on, it says,



then it says:




so it is not clear where the data came from or whether it was legally obtained, or not, or if it was legally obtained but illegally used, or what.

[Mountain Man]

But the important part is about the further use of it by people connected to the Trump campaign.

Yes, Chuck, we've been over that: Facebook says that the information was legitimately collected. They just don't like how it was used. But they can't complain too loudly about it or they could inadvertently confess to breaking federal law with regard to data breaches, which they insist this wasn't a data breach, meaning that the manner in which the information was collected, and how it was used afterwards is all legit.


Here, Chuck, wanna take another run at the football?

52c813eba01927f66a80aa6791ef9ef9de0de1ff.gif

[Charles]

Yes, Chuck, we've been over that: Facebook says that the information was legitimately collected. They just don't like how it was used. But they can't complain too loudly about it or they could inadvertently confess to breaking federal law with regard to data breaches, which they insist this wasn't a data breach, meaning that the manner in which the information was collected, and how it was used afterwards is all legit.


Here, Chuck, wanna take another run at the football?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27000[/ATTACH]

I would like to see you support the "how it was used afterwards is all legit" claim. According to Facebook (and you generally seem to trust them) the situation was more like this: "In reaction to the controversy, Facebook's most senior executives have been trying to stress that Facebook was deceived." Is deceiving someone about the further use of data all legit?

[Mountain Man]

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/0...t-masses-data/

[rogue06]

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/0...t-masses-data/

[Tassman]

And according to Facebook, the information was gathered "in legitimate way and through the proper channels".

And just because it might have given Trump some small advantage in his epic defeat of Hillary, certain people are, of course, crying foul.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...raps-elections

[Tassman]

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/0...t-masses-data/

Oh Breitbart!

The Trump mouthpiece largely funded by the Mercers, who just happened to be the very people that paid for the scurrilous Cambridge Analytica dirty tricks against Hillary.

[Mountain Man]

Oh Breitbart!

The Trump mouthpiece largely funded by the Mercers, who just happened to be the very people that paid for the scurrilous Cambridge Analytica dirty tricks against Hillary.

Genetic fallacy. Try again.

Please demonstrate how the article in question is in error. Betcha can't.

[Charles]

Yes, Chuck, we've been over that: Facebook says that the information was legitimately collected. They just don't like how it was used. But they can't complain too loudly about it or they could inadvertently confess to breaking federal law with regard to data breaches, which they insist this wasn't a data breach, meaning that the manner in which the information was collected, and how it was used afterwards is all legit.


Here, Chuck, wanna take another run at the football?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27000[/ATTACH]

I wonder how you feel about supporting actions that not even Cambridge Analytica support any longer?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-alexander-nix

Are you still holdning on to the idea it was all legit?

[Mountain Man]

A yet Facebook had zero problem with it when the Obama campaign did the exact same thing.