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

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.

Comments

Leave Zuck alone

[Anonymous Coward]

He deserves privacy in these trying times

Re:Leave Zuck alone

[Wrexs0ul]

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

Defend the undefendable

[sinij]

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.

Re:Defend the undefendable

[amicusNYCL]

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.

Re:Defend the undefendable

[Zocalo]

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.

Re:Defend the undefendable

[Rob Y.]

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).

Re:Defend the undefendable

[Luthair]

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.

Re:Defend the undefendable

[sycodon]

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).

Re: Defend the undefendable

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Defend the undefendable

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Defend the undefendable

[slew]

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...

Re:Defend the undefendable

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Defend the undefendable

[Luthair]

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.

Re:Defend the undefendable

[Zocalo]

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.

Re:Defend the undefendable

[DarkOx]

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.

Send in the attorneys, not the clowns . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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.

Re: Send in the attorneys, not the clowns . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: Send in the attorneys, not the clowns . . .

[sinij]

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.

Re:Send in the attorneys, not the clowns . . .

[quantaman]

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.

2016?

[ArhcAngel]

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.

Re:2016?

[XxtraLarGe]

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.

Re:2016?

[Skuld-Chan]

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)

Re:2016?

[reboot246]

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.

Re:2016?

[quantaman]

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.

Re:2016?

[liquid_schwartz]

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.

"strategy"....

[gDLL]

And by strategy you mean "narrative"...

Trump Aligned

[InvalidsYnc]

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".

Re:Trump Aligned

[labnet]

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

AWOL?

[Train0987]

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

Frustrated Facebook execs are asking...

[edi_guy]

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.

Re:Of course he's AWOL

[greenwow]

> 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.

Hey Zuckerberg

[93 Escort Wagon]

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

Russia is Deeply Embedded in Facebook

[chill]

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

Re:Facebook and MI6 were "The Russians"

[oh_my_080980980]

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Collected?

[jenningsthecat]

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.

Facebook has always been monstrous.

[jbn-o]

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.