[downandout]

Quite telling that it has been 'put on hold'. That in itself is a story.

It's been put on hold because Facebook PR knows that people don't read the details of stories. By and large, they read headlines - and many of those are misleading at best. The issue with CA, for example, wasn't a data breach - the data they had was collected in compliance with Facebook's rules at the time. Yet many headlines and soundbites have used the term "data breach" throughout this incident.

So, when 90% of the population incorrectly believes, based on some soundbites and a couple of headlines, that Trump hired CA to hack into Facebook and steal their data, read their minds, and steal the election, you don't want to go forward with something else that might sound scary in yet another mischaracterized headline or soundbite. If putting this project on pause is a story, that story is that Facebook has a PR department that understands its audience....I don't think it says anything one way or another about this project.

[IAmEveryone]

This again...

"Data breach" means an unauthorised access or use of data. Cambridge Analytica was not authorised to access or use the users' data. Therefore, it's a data breach.

It makes no difference if the breach uses a zero-day exploit to access FB's database, or if it uses social engineering to get someone at Facebook to send them a hard drive, or if it's some researcher being given access under false pretences.

"Data breach" is a catch-all like "homicide": that term encompasses murder but also involuntary manslaughter, euthanasia, and capital punishment.

[downandout]

>It makes no difference if the breach uses a zero-day exploit to access FB's database, or if it uses social engineering to get someone at Facebook to send them a hard drive

It makes an enormous difference because it affects what the public should reasonably be afraid of in the future.

Scenario 1 (what actually happened): Facebook used to have bad app policies that were too permissive, and political candidates like Obama and Trump abused data obtained under those policies. They were changed 4 years ago, and this behavior has not been possible since then.

Scenario 2 (what the media is implying to get clicks): Breach! Breach! We have a breach! Highly paid hackers are breaking into Facebook, stealing your data, and using it to brainwash you! Facebook is incapable of securing your information and therefore we must ensure that they never get any information about anyone ever again!

So, your personal definition of a “data breach” notwithstanding, it is both alarmist and inaccurate to use that term in describing the CA situation. Where news headlines are concerned, the most commonly accepted definition of that phrase, which is being intentionally used to conjure up false images of scenario 2 above, is the only thing that matters.

[nealdt]

Maybe, maybe not, but either way I don't want to give them the benefit of doubt for my reasons mentioned above. Cheers!