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. "

9 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 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
  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
  3. 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.