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

[Charles]

Very interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...ce-us-election

[rogue06]

And...?

[Mountain Man]

And...?

Apparently it's now considered wrong for a political candidate to attempt to influence people to vote for him.

This is getting very silly.

[Mountain Man]

[Charles]

There is nothing to see there? How about this part?

And for your the part you quoted, let's see the whole part:

[Charles]

Apparently it's now considered wrong for a political candidate to attempt to influence people to vote for him.

This is getting very silly.

I encourage everyone who believes this is a qualified response to actually read the article in order to see that what MM says about the points in this article is simply not true. It is certainly not the point that it is considered wrong for a political candidate to attempt to influence people to vote for him.

[Mountain Man]

There is nothing to see there?

Not really.

The issue is whether or not this technically qualifies as a data breach and whether or not Facebook acted appropriately. According to Facebook, everything was legal and proper.

[Charles]

Not really.

The issue is whether or not this technically qualifies as a data breach and whether or not Facebook acted appropriately. According to Facebook, everything was legal and proper.

That is not the issue but I understand why you would like to present that as the issue and everyone who actually reads the article will easily see that you are wrong. And what is your reason for trusting Facebook when experts claim they are wrong? You have not yet given any reason.

The real issue rather seems to be this:

I see why you would like it to be about something else.

[Mountain Man]

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.

[Charles]

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.

That is another misrepresentation of the facts. Let me repeat an important part:

Emphasis mine.

Are you ready to take a real debate instead of misrepresenting it? So far you have said quite a lot that every reader can easily see is wrong if they read the article.

[Mountain Man]

Let me repeat an important part...

Like I said, they didn't have a problem with them gathering the information, they just didn't like how that information was used, that is to Trump's advantage.

What's most interesting is that Facebook is in a Catch-22: they are actively anti-Trump, but if they press on this issue then they could be on the hook for breaking federal law. It will be interesting to see what they do

[Charles]

Like I said, they didn't have a problem with them gathering the information, they just didn't like how that information was used. that is to Trump's advantage.

That was what you said but like most things you have said in this thread it is quite far from the truth. What they actually said was that when sharing information with third parties they did not abide by the rules. That differs quite a lot from not liking Trump or not liking it to be used in Trumps favour. It was simply used against the rules. And as I mentioned this is the softest version of the story. Technical experts go quite a lot further.

[demi-conservative]

What's most interesting is that Facebook is in a Catch-22: they are actively anti-Trump, but if they press on this issue then they could be on the hook for breaking federal law. It will be interesting to see what they do

Progs are attacking own side, over everyday harvesting at facebook.

[Sparko]

The real problem is not a "data breach" it is people willingly giving away their private information in return for playing idiotic personality tests or stupid games on facebook and then crying about it later. People never read the fine print when they play these stupid games, it says right there that by playing the game or test you give them permission to access your profile, friends, and other information.

It used to be people were afraid of "Big Brother" spying on them, yet now they just give away their information. And they post everything on facebook to "public" because they want to get more "likes" and "shares" but when you do that, you are giving everyone access to your page and information too. I work at a law firm and one of the first things a law firm does when there is a case is gather a person's public social media. Everything they post public on facebook, instagram, twitter, etc gets captured. People are stupid. Lock down your social media and don't play games on facebook unless you trust the company with your information.

That's the lesson to be learned here.

[One Bad Pig]

The real problem is not a "data breach" it is people willingly giving away their private information in return for playing idiotic personality tests or stupid games on facebook and then crying about it later. People never read the fine print when they play these stupid games, it says right there that by playing the game or test you give them permission to access your profile, friends, and other information.

It used to be people were afraid of "Big Brother" spying on them, yet now they just give away their information. And they post everything on facebook to "public" because they want to get more "likes" and "shares" but when you do that, you are giving everyone access to your page and information too. I work at a law firm and one of the first things a law firm does when there is a case is gather a person's public social media. Everything they post public on facebook, instagram, twitter, etc gets captured. People are stupid. Lock down your social media and don't play games on facebook unless you trust the company with your information.

That's the lesson to be learned here.

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.