Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK, Australia Investigating Facebook Amid Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal (go.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the cause-and-effect dept.

Both the United Kingdom and Australia said Thursday that they have opened formal investigations into Facebook amid allegations that their citizens' data was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica. ABC News reports: The Information Commissioner's Office in the U.K. is "looking at how data was collected from a third party app on Facebook and shared with Cambridge Analytica. We are also conducting a broader investigation into how social media platforms were used in political campaigning," according to Commissioner Elizabeth Denham. The office will investigate Facebook, along with 29 other organizations that have not been named.

Earlier Thursday, Australia said it had opened a formal investigation into the tech giant amid allegations that Australian users' data was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica. "Today I have opened a formal investigation into Facebook, following confirmation from Facebook that the information of over 300,000 Australian users may have been acquired and used without authorization," Angelene Falk, Australia's acting information commissioner and acting privacy commissioner, said. According to Falk, Australia will work with international regulatory agencies to investigate whether Facebook violated the country's privacy act. Under Australian law, the commissioner has the power to issue fines of up to $1.6 million to organizations that fail to comply with the act, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Australia and the U.K. joined the United States and Israel in investigating Facebook's breach of privacy.

40 comments

  1. Trump used their data... by greenwow · · Score: -1

    to place a TV ad during the primary. That means he gained an advantage from their information.

    1. Re:Trump used their data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they confirmed that they didn't continue to use the data because they didn't trust it and didn't know if they would continue to be able to get access to it. Because of primaries in the US are one different dates for different states, it probably only helped him in one or at most a few states.

      Anyone know the date that TV ad was run so we can tell what states it may have helped Trump in?

    2. Re:Trump used their data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to Wired:

      https://www.wired.com/story/what-did-cambridge-analytica-really-do-for-trumps-campaign/

      "They did not, however, provide the raw data—things like demographic information, contact information, and data about how voters feel about different issues—on which that analysis was done."

      So Trump's campaign didn't get access to the actual data. They did however spend $5 million on a TV ad during the primary based upon this information as they stated in an FEC filing. I don't know enough about advertising costs to know if that proves it was only a single ad or not like you claimed.

    3. Re:Trump used their data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also evidence that Trump used their data to raise money after he at that point had self-funded the vast majority of funds for his own campaign. I can't blame him because when I ran for the state legislator, I got tired of writing checks out of my own pocket.

    4. Re:Trump used their data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy wow! We really have to pretend to be especially concerned about this, now that someone who doesn't have a (D) next to their name is doing it! Oh me oh my!

    5. Re:Trump used their data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just amazing how much outrage the media is trying to create over a single ad placed during a primary.

    6. Re:Trump used their data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary outspent Trump by nearly 2:1 according to:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/14/somebody-just-put-a-price-tag-on-the-2016-election-its-a-doozy/

      It's just amazing to me how effective the data from CA was during the primary that Hillary still lost despite having so much more money.

    7. Re:Trump used their data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People can't see the forest for the trees. Distrust of the government was well established before Trump came along. He leveraged that distrust as well as stating that he was going to increase 'backing' (budgets) for various government agencies. If a candidate with greater perceived integrity than Trump had done the same thing then it would have been a landslide win.

    8. Re:Trump used their data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are only concerned about crimes when it's the other party, eh? No shit you're a Republican cocksucker lol, this is why you're treasonous faggots.

    9. Re:Trump used their data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sad how people think her mocking of Trump's loss of a billion dollars on his leaked tax return was bad while she wasted 1.2 billion on her failed campaign was in any way comparable. She was fighting to help us while Trump's loss was just a business loss.

    10. Re:Trump used their data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy wow! We really have to pretend to be especially concerned about this, now that someone who doesn't have a (D) next to their name is doing it! Oh me oh my!

      You actually dislike democrats more than hostile foreign powers. That makes you a treasonous piece of shit.

      Your party is neck deep in Russian funds and bullshit, and Bob Mueller is going to fucking end you. Enjoy that, faggot.

    11. Re:Trump used their data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      It's just amazing to me how effective the data from CA was during the primary that Hillary still lost despite having so much more money.

      Yeah, I mean, it clearly was some subset of data and not people actually preferring Trump over Hillary /s

    12. Re:Trump used their data... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      That makes you a treasonous piece of shit.

      You ACs love throwing that word around, but in reality it has quite a precise meaning. Holding an opinion never counts as treason.

      You may now continue with your unthinking flamewar.

    13. Re:Trump used their data... by jbo5112 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why this is a huge scandal now. The information about what Cambridge Analytica did has been out for over a year. They're not the first political group to data mine Facebook either. The Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns were both in direct contact with Facebook, and from what I've read the Trump campaign only used them during primaries. Beyond that point, the RNC was able to provide him with better data.

    14. Re:Trump used their data... by jbo5112 · · Score: 1

      It's just amazing to me how effective the data from CA was during the primary that Hillary still lost despite having so much more money.

      Hillary didn't lose the primary. Both Trump and Hillary won their primaries. That's why they were the Republican and Democrat candidates during the main election.

      If you want to find out more of why Trump won, read Scott Adam's book Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter.

  2. Trump will die in prison either way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Yep

    1. Re:Trump will die in prison either way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For using data to place a single TV ad during a primary? I doubt that.

    2. Re:Trump will die in prison either way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      If Trump was "literally Hitler", his enemies (ie. you and the the psychotic libtards and antifa goons, as well as your handlers and much of the DNC) would have been dead a year ago.

      Are you dead? Externally, I mean. Dead inside is your own psychotic problem.
      If so, then you are clearly delusional and should commit yourself to an asylum. A real one, not tumblr.
      If not, then you might want to smarten the fuck up, stop smoking crack and get out of the Media Matters troll farm.

    3. Re:Trump will die in prison either way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, not for that. Plenty to pick from.

  3. Gangbang Lookout by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    Looks like Facebook is to be the whipping boy, that terrorist memo was extremely damaging and really problematic when it comes to laws regarding aiding and abetting terrorism, especially when Facebook generates far more views and ad impression during major terrorism incidents. Looks like a joint multi-nation investigation, where privacy as a wedge into the door for a much deeper investigation.

    Reality is social media should be avatar based to take the sting out of it, much too damaging with real personality and ego up to being a punching bag. Sure you can data mine it when real, to manipulate people and society but it is really a bad idea because many can not handle that well. Avatars dealing with real world events is a lot safer, only people's avatars get attacked, rather than the people themselves being attacked.

    Back to the terrorism aspect, if it is found that Facebook was purposefully promoting terrorism to drive views, than they should face the real penalties for that, no just a slap on the wrist because they were not actually involved in terror just promoting terror for profit. Under law, the means do not justify the ends, you pay penalties for the means and that means custodial sentences.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Gangbang Lookout by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Looks like Facebook is to be the whipping boy

      *THIS*. It is interesting that they are going after Facebook rather than going after Cambridge Analytica. A company whose registered address is the home of a dodgy used car sales man. This man is listed on their website as the company director yet denies he is, Cambridge Analytica was registered as a business under the name of his trust, and when asked about it he rushed out to de-register the company. Better still all employees in the company in Australia are fake.

      It's amazing how much here is directed at Facebook compared to the company that actually did the lionshare of the shady shit.

      Yes I'm saying Facebook isn't shady, because being shady implies that people didn't know that Facebook collected huge amounts of data and shared it with every stupid Farmville piece of crap that they clicked on.

    2. Re:Gangbang Lookout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not only that that's an issue from the memo, but that he admitted Facebook was willfully violating data protection law in countries like the UK. That's a real problem for him because you can be held individually responsible in the UK for data breaches if you willfully engaged in them as he has admitted to with his questionable practices claim.

      There is a personal liability clause in most (all?) European data protection law implementations for employees who willfully breach it. It's rarely applied because on few occasions does anyone intentionally leak personal data, but in this case it'd now be impossible for him to argue that it was an accident as he's admitted it was willful.

      Whilst that may not be a problem if he never leaves the US, it's probably got a good chance of putting him in the firing line if he ever wants to go to Europe for criminal liability and an unlimited fine in at least some European countries including the UK. Whether this is something they could push extradition on I'm not sure, but I doubt given the US' one sided view on extradition that he'd ever get extradited for it.

    3. Re:Gangbang Lookout by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      How would avatars help when people want to post photos of themselves? And then tag those photos, and talk about seeing "Dave and Jessica at the party"?

      Even without your real name, it's not hard to link a profile to you. Especially for Facebook, which has bugs all over the web and a detailed graph of your relationships and acquaintances.

      Recently we have been seeing stories about sex workers and clients being recommended to each other on Facebook, despite never having used Facebook for communication. Most likely the app raided their phone contacts or noticed that they were both in the same vicinity at the same time.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Gangbang Lookout by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Facebook is shady, because people didn't know that it wasn't just their data that was being shared with Farmville, it was their friends' data. And their friends had not agreed to that. And Facebook knew it was happening, but didn't act quickly to stop it.

      Just failing to build safeguards against that sort of abuse in the first place is pretty shady. In the EU companies handling personal data have a legal obligation to protect it, and it appears that Facebook failed in its duty.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Saw it coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I really hate being right. As would a lot of tech dwellers out there who would have to agree. But how many of us have steered away from the ridiculousness of Facebook in the first place because we knew something like this would happen? I donâ(TM)t have a profile Iâ(TM)ve never had one and never will.

    I remember when I used to jump on IRC and family, friends, even the freaking police (feds and local) constantly said âoeDonâ(TM)t put anything about your life online because itâ(TM)s riddled full of dangersâ. Well geniuses thanks for the advice, saved my ass and my lack of participation continues to protect me from I consider so blatantly obvious that if you were one of the people who had their account scraped and then went back to FaceBook after it happened, that would make you not only a victim of consumerism but in my mind it just makes you stupid.

    As for the Australian Govt. who gives a shit what are they going to do to a vastly popular corporation like FaceBook. I would like to say what FaceBook did was negligently criminal but I like to consider that world is not that crap and that FaceBook isnâ(TM)t that important. And in my case yes, as for the userbase of Facebook, get out now itâ(TM)s a so much better view from where Iâ(TM)m sitting. Oh wait, you canâ(TM)t because you probably have bucket loads of personal shit on your account that you canâ(TM)t get rid of.

    1. Re:Saw it coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hope it happens with Google too. Deleted a GMail account I had from early beta. Not only was I able to recover it _years_ later, they still had my recovery address, and I was able to use an even older address from a domain that was briefly hosted. Again this was after 10 ish years of "deleting" it. Still had all my old contacts.

    2. Re:Saw it coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why multinational companies has to be regulated.
      Once GDPR is in place (25th of May) it will be illegal for Google to keep your data once you have requested that your account is to be deleted.
      The fines are based on global turnover to prevent the regular tax evasion schemes to work for getting away form the punishment.
      IE: The fines are steep enough to hurt regardless of the size of your company. You aren't going to write them off as cost of operation so you'd better comply.
      The law requires that if the data is transferred to a company outside of EU a contract has to be written so that the other company is bound by the same requirements.

      This probably doesn't protect you if you aren't based in EU.
      Facebook can probably keep doing business as usual considering that their terms and conditions already says that they are going to screw you over.
      The only big difference seems to be that you now have the right to know what information they have about you and can tell them to delete everything they have about you when you delete your account.
      As long as you keep your account they can keep the data they have about you.

    3. Re: Saw it coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get what your saying but I donâ(TM)t wish the collapse of any of these services and believe that social media can be run sustainably. The problem with FaceBook is its monolithic design and their possessiveness. The company also has a spoiled brat Harvard / Silicon Valley feel to it which I personally deplore lol.

      But when it comes to Google and their weaknesses I find more than anything itâ(TM)s just poor policy and they just need to listen to their customer base and cater too it. Iâ(TM)m actually liking Google much more these days because I see them not as the perfect company but rather a company that is willing to learn and they need to reinvent their âoedonâ(TM)t be evilâ mantra.

      As another post mentioned there are laws going in, whether or not companies really follow them iâ(TM)d say is a coin flip. But data rention laws should be a minefield for any communications web service, like FaceBook, but itâ(TM)s not even looked as such and it amazes me (just like Uber) how practices that breach other countries regulation are simply not designed in a more decentralized and fair system. The problem becomes only an issue when a countriesâ(TM) sovereignty is affected, I.E. a citizenâ(TM)s data breach. So I say letâ(TM)s start to hope for some change here. Iâ(TM)d say the first step, citizens data does not leave the country, unless itâ(TM)s used to communicate to a someone in a different country. And then base the business model around that approach and go from there. Maybe itâ(TM)s too particular and extreme but I see that as one idea.

      But really what causes this mess? In my experience itâ(TM)s just ignorance, non tech people, especially politicians, really struggle to grasp how the internet really works, even to this day. And technicians need to start calling the shots again like they did pre dotcom, and not crappy techs, good techs that have real experience. Then maybe the internet can be a far more positive influence in peopleâ(TM)s lives. Until then we are left with minefield that we have today.

  5. We desperately need right to be forgotten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Title says it all

  6. subject to a fine of $1.6mm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will FB even fight that? Why not just pay it and move on.

    1. Re:subject to a fine of $1.6mm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay it, move on, get another?

      A lawmaker seeing that someone just sees fines as a business expense, will raise them again and again till they become intolerable.

  7. Trumped up by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

    All the semi-official propaganda organs are really getting their knickers in a twist over this Cambridge Analytical scandal. But the funny thing is, this is 100% business as usual for Facebook.

    The problem is not a couple bad apples at Cambridge Analytica. The real problem is panoptic Big Brother surveillance and the culture that considers it lawful and ethically acceptable. The problem is Facebook itself.

    1. Re:Trumped up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing is that "Big Brother" is supposed to be someone that claims to look out for your best interest.
      The analogy only works if it is an overreaching government that claims to work for the best of the people.

      Cambridge Analytica and Facebook isn't even "Creepy Uncle" territory. They aren't in a position to work for you and they don't pretend to do it either.
      Their image is more like "Creepy dude with old van that says 'Free Candy'"
      You don't want to have anything to do with them and the correct choice is to call the police.

  8. Haha, Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Speaking as an Australian, Facebook has absolutely nothing to worry about from the Aussie government,
    They couldn't find their asshole with a flashlight.

  9. What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, when this also turns out to be a nothing burger, I'm sure the left will try implicating a random 7-11 or something.

  10. So.., what about the data from non-users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Investigating their sharing of data from registered users is one thing, but what about their collection of data from non-users? This insidious crap is what makes Facebook so damn evil.

    The moment someone who has some kind of FB software on their smartphone receives or places a call or SMS with someone, that information (definitely who and when, not sure about message contents for SMS) gets recorded and sent back to the mothership at the next opportunity. They store your number and name in their contact list? That gets packaged up and sent off too. I do not know if they have any kind of integration with other services, but I would not be surprised if they did this same harvesting elsewhere.

    A few weeks ago, someone I know fairly well online and hadn't spoken with for some time said that she missed talking to me and that maybe things would work better if I had her phone number instead. My response: I know that she uses WhatsApp, possibly other Facebook software on said phone, and I said no. I have, quite frankly, fallen in love with her and responding like that was very painful.

    That's the problem. The fact that Facebook spread their tentacles outside those who have directly signed up. I refuse to be a node on Facebook's connectivity graph and it seems more and more as if I'm going to suffer for it.

  11. It's OK To Be White by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The actual hostile foreign power involved in US politics is Israel, snowflake.

    You won't see or hear that fact on any of (((their media))), but it's too late. The Goyim Know.

  12. The ONLY reason this is an issue by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    Is because Trump may have used the information to target key demographic areas. Obama, Hillary did the same thing in past campaigns...but, I guess since they are "good little democrats"...THEY get a pass.

    1. Re:The ONLY reason this is an issue by DethLok · · Score: 1

      Umm, there are a few differences in HOW Facebook and user data was used by Obama, Hillary and Trump.

      http://www.politifact.com/trut...

      A relevant summary from that site:

      "The Obama campaign created a Facebook app for supporters to donate, learn of voting requirements, and find nearby houses to canvass. The app asked users’ permission to scan their photos, friends lists, and news feeds. Most users complied.

      The people signing up knew the data they were handing over would be used to support a political campaign. Their friends, however, did not.

      The people who downloaded the app used by Cambridge Analytica did not know their data would be used to aid any political campaigns. The app was billed as a personality quiz that would be used by Cambridge University researchers."

      and another relevant bit of info from the same article:

      "Obama operatives used Facebook data to get users to send their messaging for them, according to Eitan Hersh, a Tufts professor who wrote Hacking the Electorate, a book on Obama’s microtargeting strategies.

      Facebook friends lists, tags and photos allowed Obama operatives to identify a person’s close friends, which they then matched with offline public records. (Was this person likely to vote for Obama, but unlikely to get out to vote?) They then told the app users which of their friends they should send campaign messages to.

      Cambridge Analytica dialed up what Karpf called the creepiness factor. They combined the survey results with the Facebook data to create psychological profiles they then sold to campaigns. The idea was, if the firm could discover how these people thought, they could target ads toward them.

      They then sent targeted ads to the users on the database. The friends of the app users weren’t being targeted by their friends, but by the campaign itself. In other words, the consenting middle man was gone."

      So, the differences are significant, in that Obama was being open about it and getting people to contact their friends with messages, whereas Trump was being secretive (it was data from a personality quiz, not a political app) and using targeted advertising, not friends messages.

      Go on, read the article. It's one of many that explain why Obama isn't copping the same flak.

      So, no, it's not the ONLY reason, it's not even a reason.

  13. It's payback time, Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook asked for it when it declined to promote the anti-Russian narrative: https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-cut-russia-out-of-april-report-on-election-influence-1507253503 It even ridiculed it at times: http://fortune.com/2017/12/13/facebook-russia-brexit-ads/ Unfortunatelty for Facebook, too much is at stake here, both politically and in terms of audience size. The pressure will grow until they get in line.