|
|
|
|
|
|
by plusbryan
3016 days ago
|
|
|
"It was installed by around 300,000 people who shared their data as well as some of their friends' data... this meant Kogan was able to access tens of millions of their friends' data." I wonder why the Facebook of pre-2014 thought that this was an acceptable level of data sharing to developers? Did they trust that all platform developers would forever have good intentions? Or perhaps they felt the data being collected was harmless in perpetuity (i.e. did not anticipate the political ramifications of the CA abuse)? Or that their legal team could effectively enforce their TOS to prevent abuse? In hindsight, the pre-2014 policy seems ridiculously careless - but I'd love to understand why they didn't anticipate a breach of this magnitude at the time (or if they did, why they dismissed the concern). |
|
|
The reason this whole thing became a scandal is because data is powerful at scale. To quote The Guardian's original article:
"(Cambridge Analytica) used them (data) to build a powerful software program to predict and influence choices at the ballot box."
Facebook now have a $50bn business based on using exactly this kind of data "to predict and influence choices" people make. That's why their ad system works now, and didn't just a few years ago. They got very good at using large quantities of otherwise mundane data to guess who will click an ad and sign up to a cookie subscription or who needs a mortgage.
This is the same thing. If you know who's a maker and what seminar's they'll like, you know whos a Tory and what conspiracy meme they like. FB now know how powerful that is, but I'm not sure they did then.
Still... this sounds only semi-tangentially related to privacy. It is technically user data, but IDK if individual users were violated that much, at least relative to other breaches. It's not like the icloud breech, or Ashley Madison. Generally not data that people are horrified to find someone knows.
I think the meat of this issue is "power got into the wrong hands." At least that's what The Guardian was concerned with. User privacy is just the only violation. Power is the problem.
On that note, is FB the "right hands?."
Incidentally, all this is interesting in the context of Zuck running for office, or even just being involved in a politics. Whatever Cambridge Analytica could do, Zuck could day a lot more.
On top of that, he heads the biggest and most influential news/media company that ever existed. He should probably be banned from political involvement.