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. "

67 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Always start low by bobm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, after observing issues like data leaks it looks like the corporate plan is to report some low number that will get people upset but hide the real and often scary number for a later 'confession'. This way people won't be upset with the now much bigger number.

    I swear that they must teach this in evil^H^H^H^H MBA school.

    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. Re:Always start low by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      I don't get what people are upset about. What data did you put on Facebook that you thought wouldn't be shared? Don't you assume the information you put into a website is going to be shared by that company?

    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:Always start low by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

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

    5. Re:Always start low by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      My bank has a website. I put data "on" that website, and I certainly expect it won't be shared by the bank.

      Facebook users who left their profiles public have no reason to object to someone using their data.

      Facebook users who clicked on some stupid survey and gave Facebook permission to give the shady author of the survey permission to use their data have no reason to object to someone using that data, except perhaps if the Facebook permission request was misleading.

      Facebook users who set their profile private and did not click on a stupid survey, but were friends with someone who did, have a legitimate complaint against Facebook for sharing their data.

    6. Re:Always start low by gnick · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...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.
    7. Re:Always start low by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I knew someone would bring up a "bank". Guess what? Your bank definitely shares some of that information with all their corporate partners. People are naive.

    8. Re:Always start low by gnick · · Score: 2

      Facebook users who clicked on some stupid survey and gave Facebook permission to give the shady author of the survey permission to use their data have no reason to object...

      What about the Facebook user whose friend decided to take the survey. Most of the people targeted did not click the link or give consent.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    9. Re:Always start low by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Or, more interestingly, what kinds and quantity of data they have on people who have never had an account to start with, but have been tagged by family/friends/colleagues that do. Really curious to see what kinds of data people in that situation who hit Facebook up with an SAR once the GDPR comes into force are going to get back, although they may need to create an account and make a few posts to it in order to link their "offline profile" data to their personal ID.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    10. 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.

    11. Re:Always start low by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No, you are just dumb.

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

      They already do share that information with others. Also, how many more hacks do you need to hear about until you realize that companies aren't keeping your data secure. You guys are hopeless.

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

      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.
    13. Re:Always start low by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Who is "they have"? There are thousands of these companies now. Are you going to contact each one? You don't even know who these companies are. You guys don't get it. The only way to stop this is to ban data collection completely.

    14. Re:Always start low by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Didn't read the last paragraph hey?

    15. Re:Always start low by gnick · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    16. Re:Always start low by gnick · · Score: 1

      It got by me until about the time I hit "Submit". Apologies.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    17. Re:Always start low by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The only way to stop this is to ban data collection completely.

      Sigh. I could use personal insult like you did towards me, but I'll refrain.

      No such law would ever pass. Too many people find too much value in having some data collected, like the Amazon example I presented. Too many people will reject outright your claim that there is no good data collection.

      The best you can do it laws regarding release of such data once it is collected. But if you cannot rely on laws banning such releases, then you cannot rely on a law banning collection at all.

      Therefore, this is a pipe dream that will never happen, and the extremist position of "no data collection is the only good data collection" is just that -- extremist zealotry.

    18. Re:Always start low by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 1

      Suppose you are not a Facebook user because you would like to remain private. And what if your friend installed the Facebook App on his or her mobile and uploads the entire address book with your information in it? Facebook now has a shadow profile on you, based on information from potentially many friends, and there is no way to opt out.

      And then there are the photos and Facebook's facial recognition software. Whenever someone uploads a photo with your face Facebook can probably identify you, if any of your friends previously identified you. Note that photos from phones contains date and geographic information. This is used on people who have agreed to let Facebook use their face data. But there is a class-action lawsuit claiming that Facebook uses the facial recognition also on shadow profiles.

    19. Re:Always start low by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Here, let me refresh the context of my statement since you seem unable to find it yourself. You wrote:

      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.

      Now, let's continue...

      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

      There is not one word in your statement about users knowing who or what they were turning over. The difference you pointed out is only that Obama used volunteers to contact other people and Cambridge Analytical did it themselves. That is a difference that makes no difference. In fact, the balance falls in favor of Cambridge because they used targeted advertisements (which most people have learned how to ignore) instead of more personalized messages from alleged "friends".

      THAT statement, which I quoted when I initially replied, is the context in which I made my statement about "the only difference" and it making no difference. I've told you that once already, but you seem insistent in trying to apply a statement I made in one context to everything else. Please stop.

      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.

      That's right. "Most people on Facebook" includes the people whose data was leaked. The comment was about "public profile data", and that was the context in which I wrote about "public profile data". See how that works?

      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

      And I commented about people who take "personality quizes" elsewhere. If you don't want someone getting information about you, don't take their "personality quiz" because it will reveal data about you. Any reasonable person would understand that.

    20. Re:Always start low by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      I was replying to someone who specifically mentioned Facebook, and also mentioned Facebook specifically, in a thread discussing Facebook so I think the context should be a pretty big clue as to who "they" meant. Even so, sure you can easily apply that to any of the companies that you can identify who track you and store your data, which probably covers most of the largest data hoarders out of the thousands, so it is a start at least and covers the worst offenders. A SAR can also include a request for information on any third parties your data has been shared with, and that's going to include information a LOT of those thousands of other companies that are more below the radar - and remember the only cost to an individual to create and issue a SAR is some time, so expect a lot of EU privacy activists to be firing off a lot of SARs until they get bored with it.

      For those companies that are not on the ball with this, it's potentially death by a thousand admin-cost cuts dealing with the SARs, death by EU fines for demonstrable non-compliance for failing to comply with SARs, or hoping to $deity they can either continue to fly below the radar indefinitely, or at least avoid paying any penalties by virtue of having no EU presence. Quite how the EU courts expect to deal with that last scenario, or more shady operators that have faked company info for that matter, I have no idea (although "unsucessfully" does seem like the most probable answer) but it's going to be interesting finding out, and probably quite expensive for the unlucky ones since it's pretty obvious that this is also a good way for the EU to plug some budget deficits if it can get some major prosecutions under its belt.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    21. Re:Always start low by gnick · · Score: 1

      There is not one word in your statement about users knowing who or what they were turning over.

      Here, let me refresh the context of my statement since you seem unable to find it yourself. I wrote:

      ...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.

      I quoted 2 differences cited in PolitiFact's article. You seem to be consistently missing this one.

      THAT statement, which I quoted when I initially replied, is the context in which I made my statement about "the only difference" and it making no difference.

      Right. While ignoring the other difference I quoted, and the others in TFA, and announcing inaccurately that the difference you were addressing was the only one.

      That's right. "Most people on Facebook" includes the people whose data was leaked. The comment was about "public profile data", and that was the context in which I wrote about "public profile data".

      You made it pretty clear you were talking about the Cambridge Analytica leak. There's no shame in the fact that you were confused, only in the fact that you're trying to revise your statement now that it's been pointed out.

      If you don't want someone getting information about you, don't take their "personality quiz" because it will reveal data about you.

      The vast majority of the people compromised by Cambridge Analytica did not take the survey. Haven't we been here before?

      I'm sorry you're still confused, but I'm starting to think that's a permanent condition.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    22. Re:Always start low by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      ...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".

      And apparently selling data to people who use hookers and lies to influence people is now called scraping.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    23. Re:Always start low by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I quoted 2 differences cited in PolitiFact's article. You seem to be consistently missing this one.

      I quoted and replied to that first statement. I'm sorry you didn't read those paragraphs. It was where I referred to people taking the "personality quiz"; it should have been obvious from the context what I was replying to.

      Right. While ignoring the other difference I quoted, and announcing inaccurately that the difference you were addressing was the only one.

      I quoted and replied to both of your quotes in my comments. How is that ignoring either one?

      The second quote was what my comment about "the only difference" referred to. Had it applied to the first quote, it would have appeared in that part of my reply. Since it appeared following the second quote, it should be clear it applied to that quote. Jesis, is that such a hard concept?

      You made it pretty clear you were talking about the Cambridge Analytica leak.

      The discussion as a whole is about that leak. You made comments about a specific subgroup that was involved in that leak, and then how data was used. I quoted the first and then replied to it by referring specifically to the group that participated in the "personality quiz", but you seem to want to apply those comments to everyone involved. I thought it should be pretty clear that a comment that refers to people to took part in a "personality quiz" applies only to that group of people.

      Similarly, I quoted and then replied to that quote from you discussing the difference in how the data was used, making a specific statement about that difference. You again want to take that statement out of context and apply it to other parts of the discussion.

      Splitting the quotes like I did should have been a sign that the comments following each applied to each individually. Had I been replying to both in the same way they would not have been split. Ignoring the context of my replies and denying the clarification FROM THE AUTHOR is not particularly productive (or honest), and we're not getting anywhere other than you turning to ad hominem.

      Since you will not accept clarification when you misinterpret what I wrote, and instead continue to try to take my comments out of context, you may continue alone. It is too tiresome trying to correct you.

    24. Re:Always start low by gnick · · Score: 1

      It is too tiresome trying to correct you.

      It is painfully obvious why you're having such a difficult time trying to correct me.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    25. 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."

    26. Re:Always start low by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      It is too tiresome trying to correct you.

      It is painfully obvious why you're having such a difficult time trying to correct me.

      Is it because you are being deliberately obtuse? Or because you are just that stupid?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    27. Re:Always start low by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You have confused the term record of financial transactions with data collection. A required record of financial transactions to keep the tax people happy and to allow those transaction and keep you happy is sufficient. Once used and no longer necessary deleted. This versus data collection, with no limitations. One acceptable and the other, pretty much looking like it should be banned.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    28. Re:Always start low by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This is the same exact story with a fact tweak. Nothing of substance has changed.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    29. Re:Always start low by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      If Facebook has to get into the business of policing people who buy its services (data) that is a clear sign that something is wrong. If it ain't fire-and-forget, forget it. Who builds systems like that?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    30. Re:Always start low by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      No one understands analytics and what we call "AI." No one! Not CEOs, not CIOs, not the media, and certainly not the general public "Jill Facebook." People are slowly starting to realize what kind of information and power can be derived from large data sets--especially personal data like FB collects. It is a data scientitsts wet dream. In that dream they do not pine over the source of that data--they just want their hands on it. It is the new gold, and they have data fever.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    31. Re:Always start low by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Exactly, it is only a matter of time before genetic and medical data are correlated with facebook data into predictive sets (in the hands of insurance companies, brokerages, and banks). It can be completely anonymized and still be a menace to society. There is no precedence for this amount of power--any that are close have never ended well.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    32. Re:Always start low by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Companies like Amazon have been coolecting and using consumer data for decades and consumers have mostly appreciated the results. I like to have products suggested to me...that is the retailer's job: to introduce me to products that may be cheaper or higher quality or that may solve my problem.

      Let;s not compare that to raping people's contact lists and using it in a sneaky way to build our network or fain relationships or make predictions about political affiliations.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  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 NichardRixon · · Score: 1

      I don't think people are surprised that Facebook has the data, but many still aren't really aware what can be done with it. It's this dawning realization that causes most of the concern.

    3. 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 ...

    4. Re:Isn't This What Facebook Was Engineered To Do ? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I don't understand this "plausible deniability" angle. What do you mean? Who is denying what?

      You don't? The party who's candidate was the sure thing failed to get elected. Their voters don't take kindly to failure and are in the mood to punish those responsible for the loss. In an effort to keep the Bernie Sanders left wing wacko's from taking over, they have to deny they are responsible. Oh no, it's not my fault.... The other side cheated... Was helped by others who are not legally allowed to help... That way their voters are kept angry at somebody or something other than the party, it's platform and candidates.

      They need a scapegoat to burn outside the camp so their voters don't vote THEM out of office for the failure.

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

      How did this conversation devolve into an emotional political debate?

      I posted, "I don't think people are surprised that Facebook has the data, but many still aren't really aware what can be done with it. It's this dawning realization that causes most of the concern."

      This had nothing to do with politics, at least not directly, rather (implicitly) on the fact that data like that recovered from Facebook could be used in combination with AI to reliably infer ways in which people can be influenced. The technology can be applied to advertising and politics, certainly, but just as much so to medicine, psychology and many other areas of research. (Like most science, it can be used for good or evil.) Scientific references to this are widespread, can easily be found using Google, and most have nothing to do with the possibility that the last US presidential election was manipulated in this way.

      Many people are just becoming aware of the powerful uses to which the technology can be applied, and some are starting to fear it.

    6. Re:Isn't This What Facebook Was Engineered To Do ? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      How did this conversation devolve into an emotional political debate?

      I posted, "I don't think people are surprised that Facebook has the data, but many still aren't really aware what can be done with it. It's this dawning realization that causes most of the concern."

      Sorry.. I assumed everybody understood that none of this would matter if the media wasn't reporting on it because you'd not know. I'm also assuming that the REASON the media came out swinging on Facebook's "failure to prevent" this is because of the connection to the Trump campaign though Cambridge Analytica.

      In short, if Hillary had won, nobody would know or care about this. Clearly this is political.

      Am I wrong about that?

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

      "In short, if Hillary had won, nobody would know or care about this. Clearly this is political.

      "Am I wrong about that? "

      I hope so. I wouldn't put it past either political party to misuse the Facebook data, similar, or just about any other dirty trick. It seems to me that the main reason this has become a disagreement between right and left wingers is because both parties would rather divert attention from the erosion of Constitutional rights that is happening so rapidly in this country. Personally, I'm more concerned that Facebook or Google may know more about me than I know about myself then I am over which political party got caught in a dirty trick.

      That isn't to say that I don't prefer one over another because of the "lesser of two evils" philosophy, but would rather not bring that into the discussion.

      Thanks for the reasoned reply.

    8. Re:Isn't This What Facebook Was Engineered To Do ? by will_die · · Score: 1

      You are correct.
      As proof you only need to look that facebook went to the Obama campaign and gave them access to similar data for free. That is against the law yet you don't hear much of it.

    9. Re:Isn't This What Facebook Was Engineered To Do ? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      "In short, if Hillary had won, nobody would know or care about this. Clearly this is political.

      "Am I wrong about that? "

      I hope so.

      You should consider your hope summarily dashed. The Obama campaign BRAGGED about doing the exact same thing, and the media PRAISED them for it. You can't get much more political than that.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    10. Re:Isn't This What Facebook Was Engineered To Do ? by NichardRixon · · Score: 1

      Of course you're technically right, there's no getting around the fact that the whole discussion is by definition political. But what I mean is that it doesn't need to go the route of us vs them / red vs blue. In my opinion it's not a partisan issue, it effects all of us, and no ones hands are clean. My hope was that we can all see that.

  3. Whats the point now? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    They have already done demographic analyses, found the opinion leaders, found the arguments that would be persuasive to them, verified them using focus group testing. Now all that 87 million people think it is no big deal if they are trolled and emotionally manipulated for their vote.

    Expect people coming out of wood work blaming Hillary for being dumb out of touch politician and a master criminal at the same time.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Whats the point now? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Expect people coming out of wood work blaming Hillary for being dumb out of touch politician and a master criminal at the same time.

      Um, yeah, that'd be pretty silly to make two such contradictory accusations about somebody prominent ...

      No, I can't; it's just too easy.

  4. I'm wondering if this'll be Trump's Acorn by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    If anyone remembers the organization Acorn was instrumental in getting Obama elected, albeit for different reasons (voter registration drives tend to favor the Dems, and that was Acorn's thing). Acorn was dismantled by the Republican party not long after the campaign.

    Given the scope of the data and how it was likely being used losing CamAnal (fark meme) might hurt Trump in the next campaign a lot. Now, I'm not saying the Dems are doing this on purpose (that would be giving them way, way too much credit for being smart, these are they guys that lost to Trump after all) but this seems like the kind of resource that if you can't replace it you're gonna lose. Well, unless the Dems run another dead pan Hilary Clinton style right of center milktoast.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I'm wondering if this'll be Trump's Acorn by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Well, unless the Dems run another dead pan Hilary Clinton style right of center milktoast.

      The scary thing is, I fully expect them to do exactly that!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  5. The Truth About "Free" Services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you are not paying for it, you are what is being sold.

  6. That's a lot of people by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Heh, everyone's all worried about Cambridge Analytica. Ever wonder how many of those peoples' data, Facebook has?

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  7. There are more than that by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    And, yes, you're included due to some people having lots of friends.

    Ask the correct questions.

    Are we talking people in the US? Are we talking people in the UK? Are we talking people in North America? Are we talking people in the EU?

    American citizens live everywhere.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  8. Because Facebook markets itself by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    as an advertising platform. Not a data analytics company and reseller. When I get a call to do a political survey I know what I'm getting into. Facebook actively obfuscates this line of business by focusing on their ad selling in any and all literature that's not an SEC filing

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. Re: But thirteen Twitter trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    + buying the DNC with money donated to the Clinton Foundation by foreign governments

  10. Erm by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    we believe most people on Facebook could have had their public profile scraped in this way

    Uh ... can't a public profile be scraped pretty much any way?

  11. 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.

  12. Re:The most aggravating thing about this by f00zbll · · Score: 1
    Have you read the articles that clarify what Obama's team did. They did extensive phone calling and combined that with people that liked Obama's page. AFAIK, Obama's team didn't do what CA did, which is mine data from a person's entire social network. They just took the data of the person that gave them permission.

    whether you like Obama or not, there is an important difference between what Obama's team did and what CA did. Both are creepy, while one is illegal. Propaganda is propaganda and any attempt by anyone to say "it's ok" is just denial. Just think about this for a second. In the last 3 presidential elections over 3 billion dollars was spent on freakin stupid ads. If that money was put towards veterans health care, education, or research, wouldn't the US be measurably better? Instead, that money went to some fat cat that owns a network station, because some rich billionaire needs more money to buy another supercar?

    We get the government we deserve, when we fall for the stupid BS from both parties.

  13. My understanding is that by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    CamAnal (fark meme) lied about how the data was going to be used. There's also some questions about whether Facebook was aware of what CamAnal was doing or not. A common trick companies use to do something really nasty is to let another company do it and then when they get caught say "oops, that was against our Ts&Cs. We're ever so sorry". This is why you need laws that punish individuals. Otherwise they hide behind the corporate veil with impunity.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  14. Re:The most aggravating thing about this by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    2. Please hold your elected officials accountable for not prosecuting Obama et al. next time. It was (and is) a republican controlled fed.

    For eight years following Obama's election, a Democrat was the head of the executive branch of the US government, within which is the Department of Justice.

  15. Let's all play the blame game! by zarmanto · · Score: 1

    Facebook now says that [Cambridge Analytica] collected data about [87 million] users without their permission...

    And Facebook is attempting to rewrite the script after the fact, by using very careful phrasing to imply that Cambridge Analytica is the real villain here... not Facebook.

    <sarcasm>Because clearly Facebook is just as much a victim in this debacle as are all of their users... it's not as though they left this huge gaping hole in the security of their system, and the folks over at Cambridge just basically waltzed right in using only the most basic of social engineering tactics... no, nothing like that at all!</sarcasm>

    (Or, ya know... maybe it's exactly like that.)

  16. Re:The most aggravating thing about this by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    For eight years following Obama's election, a Democrat was the head of the executive branch of the US government, within which is the Department of Justice.

    And during that same period, a certain democratic senator was raked over the coals for Benghazi (and many other things). It's weird isn't it? They were able to persecute H but you heard nothing about Obama's apparent harvesting and use of private citizen's data against their will?

    Oh, and remember Mr. Clinton's transgressions with a Ms. Lewinsky? Somehow we had public hearings on that in spite of he himself being the head of the executive branch! How did that happen?

    Sheesh.

  17. You Misspelled "Voter Registration Fraud" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Acorn committed numerous documented instances of campaign fraud. That's why Acorn was "dismantled," not because they favored Democrats?

    How's that lying working out for you, liar?

  18. Why not all of them? by aglider · · Score: 1

    Sure, why?

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  19. I predict by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I predict that he of the long face, droopy gob & hoodie will try to spin this as "Hey, nearly 99% of the world's population didn't have their data accessed!", followed up by that gormless grin that somebody told him is endearing.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. Re:The most aggravating thing about this by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    Sanctimonious hyperbole only goes so far when tinged with hypocrisy.

    Nah, it's really quite simple. Hold everyone accountable fairly and evenly. If the admin of Obama's era failed to hold him accountable, they either didn't have a reason or otherwise chose not to for some reason I don't know. That doesn't change our current situation.

    Why should anyone be held accountable besides Facebook?

    I agree for the most part. I don't think there's any crime. Even by Facebook. This is more about opening peoples' eyes. People want to know how they were manipulated and to what ends.

  21. But wait, there's more! by quonset · · Score: 1

    Facebook is now admitting that data of most of its 2 billion users has been collected and used by third parties.

    Needless to say, Zuckerberg and Facebook proper sincerely apologize for this usage and take people's privacy very seriously.

  22. Re:87 Million? So Friggin What! by chadenright · · Score: 1

    If you see your neighbor stealing a purse out of someone else's car, that doesn't mean you can steal their wallet out of your neighbor's car.

  23. Re:The most aggravating thing about this by f00zbll · · Score: 1
    Why stop at Obama?

    Back when I worked in the financial sector building trading systems, I got to see "how the sausage is made." The deregulation started by Ronald Reagan lead to the financial melt down. That resulted in more than 80% of the people over 30 loosing 30-50% of their retirement fund/ 401K/ Pension. You know who did that to the middle class?

    Both parties went along and unethical "economists" in the Ivy League schools were bought out. They paid for research claiming "regulation hampers innovation and that it was not necessary." Mr Greenspan went along with that horse poo and so did every mindless turd in congress. What did they care, they were being paid off and bought out. How many people from Bears Stern, JPMC and Wells Fargo went to jail? How many people being savings and loan failures went to jail? Of the dozens of people committing white collar crime, very few people went to jail. Those that did were offered up as sacrifices, while the real power players kept screwing the middle class. So yeah, there are corrupt people in congress, but it's short sighted and foolish to think it was Obama's fault.

    It's the same as far left blaming donald for Tiki torch white supremacists. Those people were there before donald was elected and they will still be there after he is gone. I'm guessing you're just a lame Russian spambot or someone totally in denial. US voters like to think they're better than the rest of the world, but we're not. At the end of the day, our own hubris and ego makes us more vulnerable to propaganda and tampering. Half the country is so busy being manipulated they don't even realize the game of "divide and conquer" has been going on for decades.