Slashdot Mirror
Cambridge Analytica May Have Had Facebook Data From 87 Million People (recode.net)
Cambridge Analytica may have had data from more unwitting Facebook usersthan originally thought. From a report: Facebook now says that the data firm, which collected data about users without their permission, may have collected data on as many as 87 million people. Original reports from the New York Times pegged that number at closer to 50 million people. "In total, we believe the Facebook information of up to 87 million people -- mostly in the U.S." may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica by apps that they or their friends used," Facebook CTO Mike Schroepfer wrote in a blog post Wednesday. From Facebook's blog post, "Given the scale and sophistication of the activity we've seen, we believe most people on Facebook could have had their public profile scraped in this way. "
...Obama campaign for doing this same thing.
Both campaigns accessed users' friends information without consent. But there were several differences between what Obama's campaign did and what Cambridge Analytica did. A couple:
But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes.
The Obama campaign used the data to have their supporters contact their most persuadable friends. Cambridge Analytica targeted users and their friends directly with digital ads.
That doesn't remotely excuse what O's campaign did, but it's not entirely the same.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
If you don't want someone seeing your public profile data, don't take their "personality quiz"...
Most of the people exposed did not take the "personality quiz" nor did they consent to their friends sharing their information.
The only difference is a difference that isn't a difference.
That wasn't the only difference. It wasn't even the only difference I quoted.
If you don't want anyone to know your public profile data, don't post it to a place where they call it a "public profile".
Most of the harvested accounts were not "public profiles".
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO USES THAT YOU LISTED IN THAT ONE QUOTE is a difference that makes no difference.
You don't think that it's significant that in one instance the user knew they were handing over their information to a political campaign and in the other the user thought they were taking an innocent personality quiz? It doesn't excuse either one, but I think it's significant.
From Facebook's blog post, "Given the scale and sophistication of the activity we've seen, we believe most people on Facebook could have had their public profile scraped in this way. "
Every Facebook user has a "public profile". And when they say "most people on Facebook", they're not just talking about the Cambridge Analytica leak. They mean most users.
Information you share that is always public: Some of the information you give us when you fill out your profile is public, such as your age range, language and country. We also use a part of your profile, called your Public Profile, to help connect you with friends and family.
Cambridge Analytica accessed more than just the public profile. From that same Post article:
The third-party firm (Global Science Research) used a clicky personality quiz to get people to interact with the app, which then used a loophole to pull all the behind-the-scenes data of that user, and also the same data relating to all their friends -- typically 200-300 other people per user.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Nobody was upset with the Obama campaign for doing this same thing.
Because the Obama campaign did not do the same thing.
No, Obama did much worse - hack into FB and get their entire social graph:
Data You Can Believe In
The Obama Campaign’s Digital Masterminds Cash In
And the NY Times wrote and entire article celebrating it.