Facebook To Share Private Data With Politico

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook To Share Private Data With Politico

Posted by Soulskill on Monday January 16, 2012 @06:39AM from the sharing-is-caring dept.

tomhudson writes "AllThingsD is reporting that Facebook has agreed to share users' private data with Politico. Quoting: 'Most notably, the Facebook-Politico data set will include Facebook users' private status messages and comments. Every post and comment — both public and private — by a U.S. user that mentions a presidential candidate's name will be fed through a sentiment analysis tool.' Yes, they claim it will be anonymized, but we've seen that doesn't really work in real life."

36 of 157 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Google does the same by TechGuys · 2012-01-16 06:39 · Score: 5, Informative

Even the article mentions it:

This is similar to the way Google offers reports on search trends based on its users’ aggregate search activities.
In fact, all of this is public information too. You can look at search amounts for specific searches here.

It's just numerical data. Facebook seems to do this analysis by searching all the posts that mention candidate's name and if the associated words are positive or negative.

The comparison to anonymized data in the summary is stupid. Facebook publishing any of those messages, they're just doing analysis on them. There would be good point in this article if they actually published those messages because then anonymizing doesn't work, but it's a moot point because they aren't making anything public. Only the aggregated search amounts.
1. Re:Google does the same by ThisIsSaei · 2012-01-16 06:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's cool to hate facebook + sensationalist headlines get more attention = this article.
2. Re:Google does the same by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 06:47 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  But would they properly aggregate posts about Mittens?
3. Re:Google does the same by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is completely different.
  Google is taking data that users are providing them, and doing statistical analysis on that data. There's no issue with this, because it's not leaving Google.
  Facebook is taking data that users are providing them, and sending it off to a third party to do statistical analysis on it. This is a terrible invasion of privacy, because Facebook users never intended for their private data to be shipped off to other companies.
  If you can't see the difference here than you're either dumb or an anti-Google shill.
4. Re:Google does the same by Penguinisto · 2012-01-16 06:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Small point: There is a vast difference between some half-cobbled search term pecked in, and a statement of personal ideology. I mean, something like "Sen. Congresscritter criminal record" on Google has a lot more variations of context that could be applied than a Facebook-borne "Senator Congresscritter is a friggin pedophile/terrorist that stomps on puppies and then enjoys beating up old ladies while forcing his wife and kids to watch. If it wasn't for his money and status, he'd be enduring 30 years fo hard sodomy at the nearest federal penitentiary! Oh, and he cheats on his taxes - I have proof!"
  Otherwise? While it would likely begin as just numerical data, I can see how the Facebook setup could be very easily abused. You're still parsing the words, after all, and those can easily contain the owner's name, or at least enough references to infer it quite easily.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
5. Re:Google does the same by gnick · 2012-01-16 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  Google is taking data that users are providing them, and doing statistical analysis on that data. There's no issue with this, because it's not leaving Google.
  Umm... Sure it is. In fact, you can go look at anonymized aggregate search trends from Google yourself. For free.
  I am a huge Google fan, but don't think that anything you do with them is kept private unless they specifically tell you so.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
6. Re:Google does the same by TechGuys · 2012-01-16 06:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Yes, the summary is badly worded. Facebook themselves clearly say that it is Facebook who will run the statistics software.
7. Re:Google does the same by TechGuys · 2012-01-16 06:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  facebook is sharing anonymized personal messages and typed posts. the difference here is night and day.
  No they aren't. Summary is just badly worded. Facebook will not share any messages with anyone, they will run the statistics tools themselves. Read the announcement by Facebook, where they clearly state that. Politico will not get the messages.
8. Re:Google does the same by TechGuys · 2012-01-16 07:01 · Score: 2
  
  With this new Facebook/Politico thing, Facebook is giving the data to Politico to analyze. There's the problem. They are taking what I put on Facebook and giving it to someone else without my permission. That would be like Google taking your emails and giving them to a 3rd party to look at.
  That is entirely false. Facebook is not giving Politico any private messages. They will run the statistics tools themselves.
9. Re:Google does the same by sakdoctor · 2012-01-16 07:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I was hating facebook before it was cool to hate myspace.
10. Re:Google does the same by gnick · 2012-01-16 07:05 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think that saying that FB is "sharing" the personal messages and such is a little bit of a stretch though. Yes, they have partnered with Politico (they've been working with them for years), but according to their announcement, the only things that are viewed or shared to anything but the automated analysis program are stats on how many mentions each candidate gets and aggregations of positive or negative "sentiment."
  It's uncomfortable, and I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I don't think it violates the TOS that I, of course, read thoroughly before agreeing to it. The only part that really chaps me is that, if I were offended enough that they were doing this, I'd have no way of retracting posts that I'd already made even if I discontinued my account.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
11. Re:Google does the same by Synerg1y · 2012-01-16 07:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Coincidentally, I bet most slashdotters can't provide a valid reason (no imagination, no tinfoil) for hating any of them. And I'm accomplishing nothing by stating so besides ruffling the herd :)
12. Re:Google does the same by TechGuys · 2012-01-16 07:18 · Score: 2
  
  No. Facebook will compile the mentions of the U.S. candidates. Then Facebook's data team will use automated software tools to do the statistics. These statistics are given to Politico, not the actual messages.
13. Re:Google does the same by gatkinso · 2012-01-16 07:19 · Score: 3
  
  I hated AOL way before you owned a computer.
  
  --
  I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
14. Re:Google does the same by ilguido · 2012-01-16 07:27 · Score: 2
  
  I don't think that I'm offtopic if I ask you how you could read the FTA and write the first post (citing the FTA btw) in less than a minute after that the story was published. I'm not offtopic because the answer could invalidate all your points.
15. Re:Google does the same by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-01-16 07:27 · Score: 2
  
  Pfft, hating M$ and F-UB are SO mainstream.
  I hate slashdot.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
16. Re:Google does the same by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-16 07:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If Politico actually believes that it can get useful information from the statistics alone, they paid a ton of money for absolutely nothing. People can hawk the social media tools all they want, but all they do is keyword analysis with some language heuristics thrown in. The vendors themselves will tell you (if they are honest) that they cannot tell you what the accuracy of their tool is, because nobody knows for sure how the training posts correlate with the posts in the wild.
  And DCTech/InsightIn140Bytes/SmithZ/Whatever else you will post under in the next FB/MS/Google stories, I hope you get paid well. Your job is worse than that of a used car salesman. At least they don't lie about whether they are used car salesman.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
17. Re:Google does the same by mr1911 · 2012-01-16 07:46 · Score: 2
  
  Coincidentally, I bet most slashdotters can't provide a valid reason (no imagination, no tinfoil) for hating any of them.
  Because I want to.
  
  Valid enough for me.
  
  --
  This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
  Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
18. Re:Google does the same by garaged · 2012-01-16 08:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, you must be new around, I have seen WAY too much reasons to hate pretty much any existing company just in the last couple of months :D
  
  --
  I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
19. Re:Google does the same by Wrath0fb0b · 2012-01-16 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  Facebook is taking data that users are providing them, and sending it off to a third party to do statistical analysis on it. This is a terrible invasion of privacy, because Facebook users never intended for their private data to be shipped off to other companies.
  Facebook never intended for users to give them data that they considered private. If you want to keep something private, common sense dictates that you not give it to other people. Heck, it's not even common sense, it's tautological -- data that you give to other people isn't private (anymore) unless there are specific safeguards (attorney-client privilege, HIPAA comes to mind) that create a positive duty on them not to share it.
  Seriously folks, if you've sent it to someone else, it's not private. If you've kept it to yourself, no one can leak it but you.
20. Re:Google does the same by NeutronCowboy · 2012-01-16 09:17 · Score: 2
  
  You're assuming that just because someone ran some posts through some number-crunching software, the numbers you get back are somehow meaningful. They may be, or they may not be. The point here is that no one can say for sure exactly what the numbers. Example: "I think that the ads portraying Romney as a douchebag are wrong." Is this is a positive for Romney? Maybe. For Gingrich? Maybe. For the SuperPAC running the ads? Probably not. Now realize that the best that the system can do is to run keyword frequency and position analysis. Romney is followed by douchebag is followed by wrong. Is douchebag in their keyword dictionary? How does it weight the fact that douchebag is wrong? Here's some more fun: "I think Romney is a douchebag.", "I think Gingrich thinks Romney is a douchebag", and "Romney sucks! The wind out of Gingrich's campaign. Hahah!"
  Political sentiment analysis via semantic number crunching is nothing but snake oil. And yes, I studied semantic analysis in school and now have to answer people's questions about what our social metric software actually does.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
21. Re:Google does the same by CCarrot · 2012-01-16 09:23 · Score: 2
  
  Pfft, hating M$ and F-UB are SO mainstream.
  I hate slashdot.
  Well, I hate everybody.
  Oh yeah? Well I hate myself!
  <pause>
  *sniffle*
  
  --
  "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
22. Re:Google does the same by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-01-16 09:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  That's okay, everybody hates themselves at least part of the time.
  Do you want a hug or some whiskey?
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
23. Re:Google does the same by CCarrot · 2012-01-16 09:48 · Score: 2
  
  That's okay, everybody hates themselves at least part of the time.
  Do you want a hug or some whiskey?
  Oh damn, you mean I circled right back to mainstream again? How embarrassing!
  Gimme that whiskey...got any scotch? :)
  
  --
  "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
24. Re:Google does the same by ckaminski · 2012-01-16 12:48 · Score: 2
  
  I have a whole shelf full. I'm thinking a glass of Cardhu tonight will hit the spot!
when will the FBI come for me? by alen · 2012-01-16 06:44 · Score: 5, Funny

i LOVE our glorious President. he's the Dearest Leader i've ever had
1. Re:when will the FBI come for me? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 07:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  He's also an internet expert.
It's simple... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-16 06:44 · Score: 5, Funny

We just have to troll the data by posting nothing but Ron Paul links on Facebook. /looks at Facebook feed
See! Everyone's already doing it!
Facebook posts and lawn signs.... by Shakrai · 2012-01-16 06:58 · Score: 2

If either of those things translated into real votes Ron Paul would be President. Seriously, I see four of his lawn signs around these parts for every one I've seen for another candidate.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:"Facebook To Share Private Data" by Kenja · 2012-01-16 07:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you gave the data to Facebook, it was never private in the first place.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
data set? by whereiswaldo · 2012-01-16 07:30 · Score: 2

If I put on my I-want-your-data hat for a second, I think giving a data set is the wrong approach. Give Politico a search interface to perform research on. Then I get to collect data on the things that Politico cares about and do my own tertiary data mining. Maybe that's a bad idea, I don't know. I'm not very good at being evil. ;)
Okay, but only if I get the same courtesy. by blair1q · 2012-01-16 07:40 · Score: 2

Let me see everything written by any Politico employee, published or private. You can anonymize them if you like.
Re:"Facebook To Share Private Data" by forkfail · 2012-01-16 07:49 · Score: 2

Big Brother may have gotten his start in the public sector, but he's shifted to the private one these days.
Our government is the tool of the corporations and the big money. So, yes - this is an Orwellian trend, but nevertheless - look at who pulls the strings.

--
Check your premises.
Ron Paul will have a JFK moment. by Colin+Smith · 2012-01-16 07:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

If he ever becomes president.
Seriously, it won't be allowed.

--
Deleted
Re:Its not private data by forkfail · 2012-01-16 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

You do not buy rights. If you did, they'd be privileges.
We all know that the user is the product on Facebook. However, there are limitations on how Facebook can sell its product, and those are determined by the EULA, terms of service and privacy policy documentation.
I can't imagine a less correct statement concerning privacy in general and Facebook in particular than yours.

--
Check your premises.
Why pay for that? by Lawrence_Bird · 2012-01-16 09:48 · Score: 2

Dear Politico,
There is no need to pay Facebook for infomation regarding political sentiment of their user postings and messages. For free I can tell you the answer:
RON PAUL
I am available for hire as a political consultant.
Thank you
LB