Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cambridge Analytica May Have Had Facebook Data From 87 Million People (recode.net)

Posted by msmash on from the breaking-news dept.

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. "

8 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Always start low by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...hide the real and often scary number for a later 'confession'. This way people won't be upset...

    I'm about equally upset by 87M as I was by 50M. Both numbers translate to "way too fucking many".

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  2. Isn't This What Facebook Was Engineered To Do ? by dryriver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My impression of Facebook has always been a) a pretty poorly designed website with little going for it besides, erm, "connecting people" in a very basic way b) a massive database back-end that scoops up as much data about everybody as possible, analyzes it a bit, and then lets that data be sold to whoever the fuck pays enough money for it. Why is everybody suddenly panicking "Gosh-OMG-NoWay-They-Sold-Our-Datazzz". Isn't this what Facebook was engineered to do from day one? Why is anybody surprised by this at all???

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:Isn't This What Facebook Was Engineered To Do ? by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are just surprised the Trump campaign was able to pay for this data and actually use it. Had the data ended up in the hands of say the Obama campaign, nobody would have cared (nor did they when it happened). Had Hillary won, nobody would have cared then either.

      The issue here is Trump unexpectedly won and ANYBODY or ANYTHING that may have contributed to that is now subject to a proctology exam all the way up to the tonsils. Why? Because somebody needs to explain how this could happen when all the media funded polling data was clearly showing and the media was breathlessly reporting that there was no other possible outcome other than a Hillary win.

      So.. Because the obvious didn't happen, it's time to assign blame. We started with the "Russian collusion" story... Which morphed into a Facebook ads purchased by the Russians... Then it's a general social media trolling by the Russians... And now, after all that didn't wash, it's time to rap the knuckles of Facebook for letting folks scrape data and sell it to Trump...

      This really is nothing more than political theater for the mindless masses and Facebook is the current choice for the gladiator backed by the press to slay. It's not like Facebook did anything we didn't expect or already know they could or would. This is about getting elected in November and having plausible deniability for why some failed in that task in 2016...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Isn't This What Facebook Was Engineered To Do ? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My impression of Facebook has always been a) a pretty poorly designed website with little going for it besides, erm, "connecting people" in a very basic way b) a massive database back-end that scoops up as much data about everybody as possible, analyzes it a bit, and then lets that data be sold to whoever the fuck pays enough money for it. Why is everybody suddenly panicking "Gosh-OMG-NoWay-They-Sold-Our-Datazzz". Isn't this what Facebook was engineered to do from day one? Why is anybody surprised by this at all???

      Because of who did it this time. But you knew that ...

  3. Re:Always start low by gnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What data did you put on Facebook that you thought wouldn't be shared?

    I'm not worried about the data I put on Facebook. I'm worried about everything else they've dug up on me.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  4. Re:The most aggravating thing about this by farble1670 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What if I told you that you can condemn Facebook and call Obama's campaign and Cambridge Analytica symptoms of the disease...

    1. Two wrongs don't make a right. We don't ignore a crime just because someone else committed the same crime.

    2. Please hold your elected officials accountable for not prosecuting Obama et al. next time. It was (and is) a republican controlled fed. I'd look long and hard at who you vote for if you think they are letting such heinous crimes go unpunished.

  5. Re:Always start low by Obfuscant · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ah ok. If people would only listen to Stallman we would be better off. The only good data collection is none at all.

    Stallman is a nut.

    For example, Amazon collects data on what I've bought from them, tied to my login. This makes it easy to re-buy something I want more of. It makes it easier to get a refund/return. It allows Amazon to notify me if there is a problem with an order. It allows Amazon to lie to me about when that order has been delivered.

    Is that bad data collection? Of course not.

    The BAD thing would be if Amazon sold that information to someone else, or had poor data security and the information leaked.

    But to claim that the only good data collection is no data collection is just unfettered zealotry.

  6. Re:Always start low by chadenright · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your use of an ad hominem completely negates whatever point you're trying to make. I started reading your post and all I could see was, "This guy's making fart jokes, he must be twelve years old."