Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mark Zuckerberg AWOL From Facebook's Data Leak Damage Control Session (thedailybeast.com)

Posted by msmash on from the where's-mark dept.

An anonymous reader writes: It's not just that he's silent in public. Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg declined to face his employees on Tuesday to explain the company's role in a widening international scandal over the 2016 election. Facebook employees on Tuesday got the opportunity for an internal briefing and question-and-answer session about Facebook's role with the Trump-aligned data firm Cambridge Analytica. It was the first the company held to brief and reassure employees after, ahead of damaging news reports, Facebook abruptly suspended Cambridge Analytica. But Zuckerberg himself wasn't there, The Daily Beast has learned. Instead, the session was conducted by a Facebook attorney, Paul Grewal, according to a source familiar with the meeting. That was the same approach the company used on Capitol Hill this past fall, when it sent its top attorney, Colin Stretch, to brief Congress about the prevalence of Russian propaganda, to include paid ads and inauthentic accounts, on its platform. Further reading: Where in the world is Mark Zuckerberg? Frustrated Facebook execs are asking.

88 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Leave Zuck alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    He deserves privacy in these trying times

    1. Re:Leave Zuck alone by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 5, Funny

      Too late, he clicked a friend's link to discover what kind of potato he was :(

      --
      --- Need web hosting?
    2. Re:Leave Zuck alone by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      Maybe he should go on another "Listening" tour... with his ear even further up everyone's rear end.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    3. Re:Leave Zuck alone by wiretrip · · Score: 1

      Comment of the year! :-)

  2. Defend the undefendable by sinij · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't blame him, how would you defend the obvious fact that FB collected way too much information and does not tightly control who uses it and for what purpose? Leaking your data all over is their core business model.

    1. Re:Defend the undefendable by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's kind of telling when your company needs to do a "damage control session" because the public finally figured out what your business model is.

      Here's a hint: if there's a company with a market cap of almost $500 billion, and you don't know what their product is, you're probably the product. Cambridge Analytica is the customer, they buy you.

      I would be more interested in hearing about what data they actually got and what they paid for it, I want to know more about that market value.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:Defend the undefendable by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would be more interested in hearing about what data they actually got and what they paid for it, I want to know more about that market value.

      Can't help you on what they paid, but it seems pretty clear that one way or another Cambridge Analytica got hold of pretty much the entire contents of all those 50m Facebook profiles, including stuff that their owners (or as Zuck once supposedly called them, the "dumb fucks") thought was actually "private". If you're in the EU and have a FB profile then you can find out all about want profile contains - and much, much, more! - come May 28th when the GDPR comes into force by hitting them up with a Subject Access Request, or "SAR". Here's a template to get you started.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:Defend the undefendable by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      To tell the truth, the fact that Facebook is leaking this info isn't the worst thing about it. As others have said, you're putting it up there, and presumably if you didn't participate in the bogus 'study' (which is a case of flat out fraud that should be prosecuted separately from any punishment meted out to FB), then all they got was the stuff you posted as public. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know.

      Anyway, the real problem is that they're so willing to take advertising money from anybody - and to allow their advertisers to disguise false, propaganda ads as legitimate 'news' content. All this admittedly stolen info would be useless without Facebook's ad platform existing to allow manipulative content to be targeted using it. And (as the Cambridge Analytics exec admits on video), propaganda is worthless without being able to portray it as real information. If all Facebook paid content were clearly labeled as such - and formatted as an ad (i.e. clearly not news), and if all political advertising were required (like everywhere else) to disclose its source, Facebook wouldn't be such a target.

      Interestingly, this comes at the same time as the story about Uber's first self-driving traffic fatality. It's long past time to admit that what passes for artificial intelligence these days is not intelligent at all. All it is, is various mechanisms to allow these kids to run huge businesses with next to no employees. But the nature of those businesses is phony. Facebook claims to be a 'media' outlet that ends up being cat videos + the National Enquirer. And Uber claims to empower regular folks to make some cash on the side, when all they really are is a sweatshop working their hearts out to lay off all of their employees. And the worst part about it is that the shit doesn't work - it's all hype, for and by Venture Capitalists to pump up huge market valuations. How about this: We wait until artificial intelligence is truly intelligent (which will happen in about 50 years, give or take) before we let it loose piloting 2 ton machines on our streets. The only intelligence these things have is in their crummy ability to recognize objects almost as well as a toddler. The rest of it is a Rube Goldberg mechanism of maps and specific programming on what to do in the few thousand situations that their programmers have thought of.

      I'd feel a little safer with self flying quadcopter taxis than with self-driving cars. Those at least would only have to contend with buildings and other robot quadcopters (i.e. with similar, known algorithms that can be coordinated).

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    4. Re:Defend the undefendable by Luthair · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that isn't what happened at all. They allowed a researcher access for research purposes and that guy violated the terms of his agreement and sold the data. What should be happening however is a massive lawsuit against that researcher (he should lose all the money he made, plus an additional punitive amount) and possibly Cambridge Analytica too if there is evidence they knew.

      Personally I'm not concerned about the current leadership at major tech companies, yes they collect far too much data about individuals - however they want to use it themselves, not sell it to third parties. The tech companies you should be worried about are all the other ad networks, analytics services and plugins (e.g. gravatar, diquss) who are also slurping up just as much data and are happy to sell it to everyone.

    5. Re:Defend the undefendable by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The allowed Obama to do it and didn't bat an eyelid.

      So Big Data for Oabama, Good.

      Big Data for Trump, Bad (even though he didn't even use it in the general campaign...RNC data was more accurate).

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:Defend the undefendable by Luthair · · Score: 1

      The researcher didn't - turns out while Facebook for some reason has been saying researcher its actually a company called Global Science Research the Guardian has a story about it https://www.theguardian.com/ne...

      The interesting side note is that Facebook actually hired one of the companies founders a couple years ago.

    7. Re: Defend the undefendable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here are the details, oulined by a former Obama campaign manager:
      https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-19/obamas-former-campaign-director-makes-bombshell-facebook-claim-they-were-our-side

    8. Re:Defend the undefendable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'll spoon feed you baby bird

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/03/19/why-are-we-only-now-talking-about-facebook-and-elections/#4d3432924838

    9. Re:Defend the undefendable by slew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please google for information about Carol Davidsen, director for media analytics for Obama's 2012 campaign and Ken Strasma, Targeting Director for the 2008 Obama and 2004 Kerry campaigns.

      Apparently Christopher Wylie (the renegade from Cambridge in the crosshairs of facebook) learned the craft from about micro-targeting and data politics from Ken Strasma.

      If you are search engine impaired, you can start here...

      https://heavy.com/news/2018/03...

    10. Re:Defend the undefendable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The article "forgets" to mention differences on how Obama used the data (i.e. to send messages to his supporters) and omits how CA used it (i.e. to create fake, untraceable, news).

    11. Re:Defend the undefendable by Luthair · · Score: 2

      Here is a better article: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      Any time people used Facebook’s log-in button to sign on to the campaign’s website, the Obama data scientists were able to access their profile as well as their friends’ information. That allowed them to chart the closeness of people’s relationships and make estimates about which people would be most likely to influence other people in their network to vote.

      There is a huge distinction between a person proactively going to a campaign website and Facebook's API providing information, and a researcher granted a level of access provided for research using that to obtain private data to sell for commercial purposes.

      To be clear - in my estimation Facebook should not be providing extensive information about people, especially people who simply happen to know someone who granted access.

    12. Re:Defend the undefendable by ohnonononono · · Score: 1

      The public didn't figure out anything. Don't give them credit as such.
      The plutocracy decided it was worth it to cannibalize a portion of the failing facebook business to keep driving the wedge between the public.

    13. Re:Defend the undefendable by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      They allowed a researcher access for research purposes and that guy violated the terms of his agreement and sold the data.

      From what I hear, that's not true. It sounds like one of the apps that CA developed, some survey app, was used by 270,000 people. Per the terms (and capabilities) of Facebook's Social Graph API, CA then had access to all of the data for every "friend" of those 270,000 people, which got them to the 50 million number. And those people never agreed to the terms of the app or necessarily had anything to do with CA, they're just Facebook's product. It sounds like CA were doing exactly what Facebook allowed at the time, and the damage control is Facebook trying to convince everything that they don't do that now.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    14. Re:Defend the undefendable by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      What's the point of this message? Should we allow everyone to do it, since Obama did it, is that your point? Should we get in a political partisan pissing contest and argue amongst ourselves while nothing gets done about the actual issue? Is that what you're suggesting? If Obama did anything to break the law, great, let's go after him for that. Otherwise, let's focus on individual data privacy while it's actually being talked about and on everyone's minds instead of some stupid political bullshit. Maybe we can take the opportunity to pass some legislation protecting individual data, or are you trying to derail that and get everyone to start slinging mud and shit at each other.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    15. Re:Defend the undefendable by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      You can, but the GDPR takes that even further by letting you request information on all the policies and procedures surrounding that data, as well as those of the partners that the recipient is sharing your information with. Most current data access requests essentially just let you ask "What?", the GDPR gives you the right to ask "How?", "When?", "Who?", and "Why?" as well. I think most of us here are probably well aware of what kinds of information Facebook etc. have and a vague idea of how they use it, but beyond that it all gets very opaque, very fast. That opaqueness is really the key point of the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica story, and something that I suspect the GDPR's SARs in the hands of privacy focussed activists and journalists are going to blow wide open. I'm fully expecting that the rabbit hole is going to go a *lot* deeper than all but the most suspicious/paranoid suspect.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    16. Re:Defend the undefendable by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Just stop. Don't make it about your guy. Let it just be about Facebook for a little while.

    17. Re:Defend the undefendable by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      The thing is so far nobody has made any credible claim anyone broke any laws as related to this! Not the Obama campaign, not the Trump campaign, not even Cambridge Research.

      At most what we have here is a Cambridge violating facebook's TOS; and facebook with a history of allowing TOS violations by people the happen to like. You were not allowed to extract the entire social graph, facebook thought their controls at the time were adequate to prevent it; when they discovered the Obama people were doing it they allowed it to continue. Before that there was Zinga (sp?) and other issues about privacy where facebook did not really take the high road. They seem to be upset about what Cambridge primarily because a group of "conservatives" (not sure Bannon really fits that definition) used their site for propaganda and facebook's sensibilities nominally only allow liberal propaganda (a point that if you want to argue at this point is silly the evidence is clear).

      The political class has already derailed it; you had in 2k12 DNC Senators and House reps singing the praises of the Obama facebook and data efforts. You had the media claiming Romeny lost because he had not got a data game. Suddenly when the other side does the same kinds of things they have problem with it. Meanwhile you have conservatives also up in arms because there is real fear when you look at whats happen to sites like the NY Post dues to FB and Twitter censoring that the DNC is going to use these tools to hit back, and because the owners of these tools are friendly with the DNC its a fight conservative groups ultimately can't win. So everyone now wants to do something but those are different somethings for different reasons, with different objectives.

      Mudslinging is actually the order of the day because I assure you the status quo is better for our democracy over all than anything that is about to come out of the political class on this for either side of the isle.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    18. Re:Defend the undefendable by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      The thing is so far nobody has made any credible claim anyone broke any laws as related to this! Not the Obama campaign, not the Trump campaign, not even Cambridge Research.

      Well, maybe we can take the opportunity to pass some legislation which would make this kind of thing illegal.

      Or, we can sit here and yell about political parties. Whatever you prefer.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    19. Re:Defend the undefendable by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I made it clear - I'd much rather us sit and yell about parties because the alternative is some really draconian anti-1A and anti-10A legislation will get passed.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    20. Re:Defend the undefendable by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Well, in that case let's skip the yelling about parties and just act like it never happened. Let's just jump straight to the end.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  3. Send in the attorneys, not the clowns . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you don't appear . . . and don't answer questions . . . you don't commit perjury.

    Hey, even a US government IRS employee refused to testify in front of Congress. Of course, Zuck just sent his lawyer.

    He's not going to say anything in public or on the record until his legal team has sorted their strategy out.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re: Send in the attorneys, not the clowns . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're correct that one cannot be guilty of perjury for refusing to answer questions. However, refusing a subpoena can result in being held in contempt of Congress. And yes, that can result in imprisonment.

    2. Re:Send in the attorneys, not the clowns . . . by sinij · · Score: 1

      He's not going to say anything in public or on the record until his legal team has sorted their strategy out.

      You mean pleading the fifth, right?

    3. Re: Send in the attorneys, not the clowns . . . by sinij · · Score: 2

      refusing a subpoena can result in being held in contempt of Congress. And yes, that can result in imprisonment.

      So you expect GOP controlled congress to issue a subpoena to publicly air their own sausage making? If anything, it will be congratulatory closed door hearing with free hookers and blow.

    4. Re: Send in the attorneys, not the clowns . . . by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      You never know - they may just do it to appease the opposition party. It costs them nothing, won't reveal anything useful (at least not w/o implicating both parties in the process, which neither side will allow to happen), and it allows the opportunity to show off how 'bipartisan' everyone is in the process...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:Send in the attorneys, not the clowns . . . by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you don't appear . . . and don't answer questions . . . you don't commit perjury.

      Hey, even a US government IRS employee refused to testify in front of Congress. Of course, Zuck just sent his lawyer.

      He's not going to say anything in public or on the record until his legal team has sorted their strategy out.

      There's also a big PR aspect.

      Zuckerberg, as the founder and CEO, is a very big part of Facebook's brand. And keeping him as a likeable trustworthy figure means that people are more likely to trust the company as a whole.

      Zuckerberg on camera talking about FB related scandals leaves an impression that Zuckerberg personally knew and approved of the scandal causing behaviour, and that leaves a much bigger mark on FB's reputation.

      It's much better to have some non-identifiable lawyer or PR person speak on behalf of FB, then it seems like this was just some rogue group or misguided executive. Zuckerberg might have to step in eventually, but they're probably better off protecting his reputation.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:Send in the attorneys, not the clowns . . . by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      ^^ Mod parent up!

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    7. Re:Send in the attorneys, not the clowns . . . by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      Zuckerberg, as the founder and CEO, is a very big part of Facebook's brand. And keeping him as a likeable trustworthy figure means that people are more likely to trust the company as a whole.

      What?!

      Likeable? Trustworthy?

      Are these still possible descriptors that can be applied to him? Really?

    8. Re: Send in the attorneys, not the clowns . . . by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      They haven't done anything I've seen to appease the opposition party. Why start with this? My bet is on the closed session with hookers and blow.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. Doesn't want to be connected by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    I suspect he wants his name associated with positive news, not negative news.

    Can you blame him? Let the lawyers take the bullets!

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Doesn't want to be connected by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Legal dept might have advised meeting should be conducted by attorney and not him. Then what happened would be the smart thing to do.

      I hate facebook, but sometimes the kiddies here don't understand how things should be done in the real world.

    2. Re:Doesn't want to be connected by mrbester · · Score: 1

      That's going to go well if a lawyer goes to the Parliamentary Committee instead of him as requested.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    3. Re:Doesn't want to be connected by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      for Congressional investigations a lawyer can accompany but person requested must be there.

    4. Re:Doesn't want to be connected by Miser · · Score: 1

      It's still bullshit. It's a situation that's being handled not for legal reasons (well, perhaps partially for legal reasons) but for PR reasons.

      Whatever happened to someone's word being their bond? The meaning of a handshake deal? Having to muddy the waters with lawyers, legalese, doublespeak and the myriad of bullshit in today's society just to get something done just wears me out.

      I really hope this marks the beginning of the end for Zuck and Facebook. Nothing of value would be lost and society would be a much better place without it, IMHO.

      In before "get off my lawn". :)

  5. 2016? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it a scandal when a company is working for a conservative/GOP candidate but not even a story when it isn't. This type of data collection has been going on for years.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:2016? by sinij · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely correct, it should be scandal every time it happens, but I will settle for even occasional scandal in hopes that it gives the people back some of the privacy.

    2. Re:2016? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it a scandal when a company is working for a conservative/GOP candidate but not even a story when it isn't.

      Because the mainstream media, Obama and Clinton were all fellow travelers. From their perspective, it's only wrong if it's being done by someone you disagree with.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    3. Re:2016? by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      Because this time it's the liberal spin doctors who got lucky. Don't worry, there is plenty of dirt to go around and some of it will stick to your political enemies soon enough.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    4. Re:2016? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is also going on in the UK over the Brexit referendum. All of the mainstream media is painting it as being why the UK voted to leave - because the plebs were manipulated.

      I don't think the establishment and their media lapdogs fully appreciate just how they are now being seen by the vast bulk of ordinary people in the UK. We see right through this bullshit and are beginning to openly despise the political and media class.

      Add in the information coming out about how the gang rape/abuse by Muslims in the UK has been hidden by the establishment - not overlooked... hidden. And this isn't the general dislike or apathy I've watched for years. There's a genuine anger boiling up.. the kind of stuff that causes major change... we'll be extremely lucky if it's doesn't end up with violence.

    5. Re:2016? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And yet Obama said his administration was scandal free....and the media reported it that way verbatim without commentary.

      So apparently he was lying, and the media was covering it up.

    6. Re:2016? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2

      Cambridge Analytica wasn't just about collection data - it is about weaponizing it. Watch the channel 4 documentary about this - its rather shocking what they tell a potential client what they have done and what they will do for him

      https://www.channel4.com/news/... (keep in mind this is part 4)

    7. Re:2016? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      I thought Russia told Facebook users to vote Trump...

    8. Re:2016? by Balial · · Score: 1

      They also violated the terms of service of Facebook data collection. ie. Facebook has a stupid honor system. If you're saying Obama did the same, you'd better show up with some proof.

    9. Re:2016? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why is it a scandal when a company is working for a conservative/GOP candidate but not even a story when it isn't.

      Because the mainstream media, Obama and Clinton were all fellow travelers. From their perspective, it's only wrong if it's being done by someone you disagree with.

      Is that why the tax story where the republicans got scrutinized got such attention?

      It is funny how all sides seem to have such short memory.

    10. Re:2016? by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you just figure that out today? Most people have known it for years. The left knows it and doesn't care. The right knows it and can't do anything about it. The mainstream media is the propaganda department of the Democrat Party.

    11. Re:2016? by Kurrelgyre · · Score: 1

      "In Obama’s case, the original contributors at least explicitly knew they were contributing to a campaign effort, even if their millions of unwitting friends had no idea their private information was being harvested to attempt to sway their voting behavior. In Cambridge Analytica’s case, users knew only that they were contributing to an academic research project..."

    12. Re:2016? by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is it a scandal when a company is working for a conservative/GOP candidate but not even a story when it isn't. This type of data collection has been going on for years.

      For the same reason that anytime the word "email" came up in conjunction with Clinton it became a major news story but historically stories related to record retention or classified information barely made a blip.

      It feeds into the narrative. Right now voter manipulation by Russia, particularly over the Internet, is a big story. And Cambridge Analytica is actually under suspicion as a possible link between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives.

      Any story involving voter manipulation, the Internet, and Cambrige Analytica is going to be big news.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    13. Re:2016? by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 4, Informative

      And yet Obama said his administration was scandal free....and the media reported it that way verbatim without commentary.

      So apparently he was lying, and the media was covering it up.

      Obama was the most protected president *ever* by the media. Even more than JFK which I would have thought hard to imagine. His many flaws are slowly starting to leak out, like his association with Farrakhan, his lifting sanctions on Myanmar as they kill their own civilians, Assad getting away with genocide, slavery increasing on his watch, etc. He competes with Bush II for worst foreign policy in recent memory.

    14. Re: 2016? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Obama got caught just as much as Trump did (neither of them did) however there is a narrative in the media shaping it like one did and the other didn't. Until one or the other is led away in handcuffs for their crimes, they haven't been caught. Clinton is way more "caught" with documented evidence and she is still roaming free, stumbling around drunk in India.

      If you have a top attorney scrutinizing documents for half your presidency and unable to bring charges, you know you're doing pretty good. Capone eventually got caught for tax evasion though, so you never know where Obama/Clinton/Trump will make (or have made) their legal missteps, but it won't be in the political arena.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    15. Re: 2016? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Clinton has been investigated inside and out. Her opponents haven't come up with anything warranting perp-walking her to the jail, and it's not for a lack of trying or lack of sympathy for their cause. Clinton really hasn't done anything calling for criminal prosecution. The investigations on Trump are ongoing.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re: 2016? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Depends on who you ask, it's been pretty clear that the FBI deliberately botched their investigations into Clinton's e-mail server and those scandals are now hamstringing their capabilities to prosecute Trump.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    17. Re: 2016? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It has? The email servers themselves were legal (they wouldn't be now). The mishandling of classified information was inadvertent (I've never seen any sort of argument that it was deliberate, except for that one document she ordered sent by nonsecure channels, and if that was a State Department document she's the classification authority), and I couldn't find any case of a person prosecuted for such. (There was one person who agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges, but that was dropped.) I'm not real happy about how she handled them, and I'm never going to take her advice about IT, but I don't see where she would have done anything worthy of prosecution.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. "strategy".... by gDLL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And by strategy you mean "narrative"...

  7. Facebook and privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
    Zuck: Just ask
    Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
    [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
    Zuck: People just submitted it.
    Zuck: I don't know why.
    Zuck: They "trust me"
    Zuck: Dumb fucks

  8. Trump Aligned by InvalidsYnc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That company is used by a TON of other companies and entities, just because they also happened to be employed by Trump at the time, doesn't mean that they haven't done the same for countless others, even people on the other side of the aisle. The blatant politicization of EVERYTHING is getting so fricking annoying. Soon every breath you take will be analyzed to see if it "leans to the left, or the right, politically speaking".

    1. Re:Trump Aligned by labnet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oligarchs don't care if you vote left or right, as long as you are distracted by it!

      --
      46137
  9. You can't blame him? Really?! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
    Zuck: Just ask.
    Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
    [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
    Zuck: People just submitted it.
    Zuck: I don't know why.
    Zuck: They "trust me"
    Zuck: Dumb fucks.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  10. AWOL? by Train0987 · · Score: 2

    The Facebook app has his phone's GPS location so he isn't missing.

  11. Frustrated Facebook execs are asking... by edi_guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you are an executive at FB you dug this hole on your own. You made the FB system work the way it did, you were fine with the low level of privacy protections you had in place, and were super fine with packaging, selling, re-selling and marketing people's digital lives. You are remunerated handsomely for those decisions and probably gave yourself lots of credit for being so strong, so independent, so smart in all those meetings. But now that your decisions are viewed under a different light, you go crying for you parents (Zuck and Sharon). Yes, they also need to be held to account, but not much more than you FB execs.

  12. Collected? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They didn't collect anything. It was all fed to them by users.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Collected? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

      They didn't collect anything. It was all fed to them by users.

      Yes, much of it was fed to them by users. But FB Hoovered up a shitload of additional data by stalking their users, (and non-users), all around the Web. Perhaps the users should have known better; but I'm sure they had a reasonable, (if entirely unrealistic), expectation that when they weren't actively using Facebook they weren't continuing to surrender details of their supposedly personal lives. It's easy to blame the users, but let's keep in mind that in large part they are victims of a sleazy, cynical, and utterly evil corporation.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  13. Re:Facebook and MI6 were "The Russians" by greenwow · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But the foreign British spy Hillary hired was doing work at her direction. A foreign government wasn't interfering with our election. In this case, they were ordering Trump to do their bidding so it was a foreign government interfering with our election.

    Same with Obama using Facebook data. An American company was helping an American candidate. In Trump's case, a foreign company was using Facebook data. It's completely different.

  14. Re:Of course he's AWOL by greenwow · · Score: 2

    > the adults

    I do feel a little sorry for him, because I don't think he quite understood the gravity of the situation when he started interfering in elections in 2012.

  15. Hey Zuckerberg by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    Your rumored 2020 presidential campaign may have just gone down in flames...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  16. Russia is Deeply Embedded in Facebook by chill · · Score: 5, Informative

    Original post by Puffin Fitness: https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/85p30j/deletefacebook_movement_gains_steam_after_50/dvz4y6o/

    * * *

    In 2009, Russian social-media mogul Yuri Milner invested $200 million into Facebook at a valuation of $10 billion dollars without voting rights or a seat on the board. To understand this investment, at the time the world was going through a global recession and Facebook's general valuation had dropped from the $15 billion from the year prior to $4-$6 billion in 2009.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/facebooks-valuation-the-cheat-sheet/

    One company did offer a valuation of $8 billion, but with a seat on the board, which Zuckerberg was strongly against. In other words, Yuri Milner invested in Facebook when they were strapped for cash and at an inflated price without voting rights or a seat on the board. That's an amazing deal for Zuckerberg!

    Here's Yuri Milner and Mark Zuckerberg hanging out for an interview: https://techcrunch.com/2009/05/26/mark-zuckerberg-and-yuri-milner-talk-about-facebooks-new-investment-video/

    The deal was coordinated by Alisher B. Usmanov, a Russian oligarch that earned his fortune managing steel mill subsidiaries for Gazprom.

    Usmanov spent six years in prison for fraud and embezzlement in the 80's.

    In 2008, Usmanov fired a publisher and editor at one of Russia's most respected news paper after it published detailed accounts of Russian election fraud.

    It is said, "His ties to the Kremlin and Facebook have stirred concerns that he might influence the companyâ(TM)s policies in subtle ways to appease governments in markets where Facebook is also an important tool of political dissent, such as Russia." This was in 2009.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/technology/a-russian-facebook-bet-pays-off-big.html

    Usmanov is close friends with Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alisher_Usmanov

    Ivanka Trump and Wendi Deng are good friends with Abramovich's then wife, Dasha Zhoukova. Here they are watching a tennis match.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3784716/Ivanka-Trump-Karlie-Kloss-Wendi-Deng-Murdoch-watch-Open.html

    The leak of the Paradise Papers revealed the money Yuri Milner used to invest into Facebook came from Gazprom, a US sanctioned Russian oil and gas company, at one point owning 9% of the company.

    http://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-the-paradise-papers-leak-facebook-yuri-milner-facebook-twitter-russia

    Soon after, Zuckerberg and Milner became friends, meeting monthly:

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/zuckerberg-got-early-business-advice-194957335.html

    And even spoke together in November 2015 at the 2016 Breakthrough Prize Ceremony.

    http://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-the-paradise-papers-leak-facebook-yuri-milner-facebook-twitter-russia

    In May 2012, Milner attended Zuckerberg's wedding. In 2014, Milner moved to California home he paid 100% above value on.

    http://time.com/5011000/paradise-papers-tax-ha

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Russia is Deeply Embedded in Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Russia is Deeply Embedded in Facebook

      This could explain the marked rise in the popularity of communism/socialism since the early 2000's. The russians have vast experience in this department and know it's the only way they can catch up in the wold having gone down the wrong path for 70 years.

      captcha: control

    2. Re:Russia is Deeply Embedded in Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Russia is not communist or socialist, it is a kleptocracy. The same place we're headed.

  17. SAVE US, BATBOY! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Zuck's evacuated to his survival pod in an undisclosed location since events have started counting down to the end of the world when Stephen Hawkwind was raptured back up to Valhalla.


    every single word in this post is TRUTH.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  18. When you learn your buness was a bad idea by Dusanyu · · Score: 1

    Who knew that people posting there dirty laundry on the internet was readily and easy to be abused? Giving a voice to Radical nut jobs ((from both sides of the fence)) that would have otherwise been ignored nah not that big of a issue. I may have been part of the fall of western civilization but i can go swim in my money

  19. History repeating by bitchtits · · Score: 1

    In the Facebook movie, Zuck scrapes Harvard college websites for portraits of students to create a "hot or not" type game. Years later Cambridge Analytica scrapes facebook profiles. Sure demonstrates how insecurely your data is held.

    1. Re:History repeating by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Because it was secure?

  20. Re:Facebook and MI6 were "The Russians" by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As opposed to Clinton supporters...two peas in a pod...

  21. Not AWOL by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    He might have been absent. But not AWOL. He is his own boss and he does not need any one's permission. He can not go Absent WITHOUT LEAVE by definition.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  22. Is This Even a Data Leak? by Dangerous_Minds · · Score: 1

    Not to say that what is happening isn't wrong, but is this really a "data leak"? We're talking information that was harvested on apps where users likely gave their consent to have their information sold anyway. I'd call this more of a clear cut case how Facebook is by no means something you should use if you want privacy. Reference.

    --
    Daily read for tech news: Freezenet.ca
  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  24. Whatabouttery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is misleading to try to compare the two - the Obama campaign told the individuals what they were sharing, and why, whereas Cambridge Analytica acted fraudently.

  25. Absent without leave? by mi · · Score: 1

    Mark Zuckerberg AWOL From Facebook's Data Leak Damage Control Session

    From whom would the company CEO (and the biggest share-holder) need a leave to skip a meeting?

    Maybe, the term "AWOL" is not entirely appropriate here, editorial wordsmiths?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  26. funny by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Hillary fanboy Mark Zuckerberg butthurt that his push to monetise his platform and sell everyone's personal data ended up putting Trump in office.

  27. Facebook has always been monstrous. by jbn-o · · Score: 5, Informative

    Objecting to Facebook on the basis of surveillance? That's hardly new. Software freedom fighters got there years ago.

    Free Software Foundation got there earlier. From publishing https://www.fsf.org/facebook published on on Dec 20, 2010. FSF & GNU Project founder Richard Stallman has been rightly objecting to Facebook for years in his talks and on his personal website.

    Long-time former FSF lawyer Eben Moglen rightly called Facebook a monstrous surveillance engine in talks and he pointed out the ugliness of Facebook's endless surveillance (at length in part 3 but in other places in the same lecture series as well). See http://snowdenandthefuture.info/ for the entire series of talks.

    --
    Digital Citizen
  28. Who did Mark piss off? by sad_ · · Score: 1

    Somehow everybody is acting surprised and stock fall and people leave facebook... for something we already know for years.
    Who did Mark Zuckerberg piss off to create this mass revolt?
    Looks to me the same machine that was using facebook earlier as his ally has now turned against it, the question is - why?

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  29. LOL! by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    Facebook. ROTFLMFAO! Facebook! LOL!

  30. AWOL? Probably not. by McFortner · · Score: 1

    He's just keeping his mouth shut so he doesn't say anything on the record that can be used against him in a criminal and/or civil trial. It's the most important thing your lawyer tells you to do when you are in deep trouble. Few people actually follow this advice. Apparently he is.

    --
    Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
  31. Re:Election? by ahodgson · · Score: 1

    You see those Facebook "Like" buttons and Login With Facebook forms all over the Internet? Well every time you see one of those, Facebook sees you and the exact page you're looking at when you see it. Even if you're never used Facebook in your life, they have a pretty good profile on you and what you do on the Internet. And it just gets worse for actual Facebook users.