Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Suspends Another Data Analytics Firm After CNBC Discovers It Was Using Tactics like Cambridge Analytica (cnbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the gift-that-keeps-giving dept.

Facebook suspended a company from its site over the weekend while it investigates claims it harvested user information under the guise of academic research, in a case with echoes of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. From a report: Facebook is suspending a data analytics firm called CubeYou from the platform after CNBC notified the company that CubeYou was collecting information about users through quizzes. CubeYou misleadingly labeled its quizzes "for non-profit academic research," then shared user information with marketers. The scenario is eerily similar to how Cambridge Analytica received unauthorized access to data from as many as 87 million Facebook user accounts to target political marketing. CubeYou, whose CEO denies any deception, sold data that had been collected by researchers working with the Psychometrics Lab at Cambridge University, similar to how Cambridge Analytica used information it obtained from other professors at the school for political marketing.

83 comments

  1. The issue here isn't... by ebrandsberg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That there was another one. The issue is that a news organization needed to point it out, instead of Facebook discovering this through the analysis of their access patterns from these firms. After they realized that one was doing this, they should have been analyzing to find others immediately.

    1. Re:The issue here isn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gdpr everywhere
      when it comes to privacy europe leads the way
      shame about everything except privacy

    2. Re:The issue here isn't... by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Informative

      Journalists are trained to dig and find this information. Being that they have the First Amendment behind them, it gives them additional freedom to dig further then what Facebook may be able to legally do. Say you had a Facebook App that collected data on a user, lets say is was just an honest thing. Now Facebook demands that they audit your application and your business. You as the Small Business owner would be annoyed, and may hire a lawer(s) to push back.

      The Journalist who may be hunting breadcrumbs would be able to do such work, because they havn't signed any contracts with either company and can dig in your trash, or back track from your other customers.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:The issue here isn't... by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After they realized that one was doing this, they should have been analyzing to find others immediately.

      It's Facebook showing their sincerity to their user base by punishing the assholes that embarrassed them and threatened their only viable revenue stream.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    4. Re:The issue here isn't... by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That there was another one. The issue is that a news organization needed to point it out, instead of Facebook discovering this through the analysis of their access patterns from these firms. After they realized that one was doing this, they should have been analyzing to find others immediately.

      How do you know they weren't already aware and just keeping it under wraps until CNBC forced their hand? It's pretty clear that FB, facing withering criticism, regulation, and potential legislative action, isn't motivated to be open about what it knows or does.

    5. Re:The issue here isn't... by JackieBrown · · Score: 2, Informative

      Being that they have the First Amendment behind them, it gives them additional freedom to dig further then what Facebook may be able to legally do.

      The first amendment does not give journalists access to private companies' data.

    6. Re: The issue here isn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what about all that moneys, those sad merchants won't be able to sell weird stuff without knowing we rarely talk with our relatives and in order to buy something we must first to be one of its friends.

    7. Re:The issue here isn't... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      No, but they can go digging around in much more detail, Can keep their sources private, and make their findings public.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:The issue here isn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      FB is run by monkeys - 3 of them.

    9. Re:The issue here isn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the app builders are run by 2.

    10. Re:The issue here isn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Why didn't they ban the DNC during the Obama campaign team data scrapping? Maxine Waters was even bragging how they collected everything on anyone. The Obama Campaign Manager said Facebook allowed their team to data scrape more than what FB allowed due to them being on the same side.

      Why was the Obama campaign not banned? Whyyyyyyy?

    11. Re:The issue here isn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The First Amendment doesn't give journalists any additional rights over any other American. At all. Ever.

      If you have a journalist out there claiming they do then they're dead wrong and their either a poor journalist or they have shady (likely illegal) reasons to represent themselves in such a fashion.

    12. Re:The issue here isn't... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Because they paid facebook in influence. Duh.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re: The issue here isn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about it? its only money.

    14. Re:The issue here isn't... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      WTF are you talking about. Facebook can investigate what companies are doing with their data source. When the Obama administration did the same thing back in 2012, Facebook noticed and talked to them about it.

      Take your head out of your ass.

    15. Re:The issue here isn't... by ebrandsberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, it is irrelevant. They have the data on who accessed what, and should be able to data-mine out the bad actors faster and easier than any news organization can, since they have access to the data. If they want to show that they can be trusted, THEY should be the ones discovering these players, cutting them off, and making it public. The fact that anybody at this point in time can discover something like this means they are either a) not looking for bad actors or b) they know who they are, and want to keep the $$ flowing in despite this, until someone forces them to make it public. Either way it means they aren't doing what they should be doing and should be smacked with the full power of congress.

    16. Re:The issue here isn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do you know they weren't already aware and just keeping it under wraps until CNBC forced their hand? It's pretty clear that FB, facing withering criticism, regulation, and potential legislative action, isn't motivated to be open about what it knows or does.

      That they are not feeling motivated to enforce their own rules around data access, such as they are, is not an excuse, it is a confession.

    17. Re:The issue here isn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure FB knows exactly who has what information and how and when they got it. In the eyes of FB "bad actors" is a state of mind not a specific use of the system. This issue only exists because we are watching the elites eat themselves because they can not come to terms with election results. They truly believed that with social media they had consolidated power and can control how people think. Social media only reflects how people think it does not control how people think, or vote. They are so convinced that they have the power they can only relate the election loss to a misuse of their own power.

  2. Unauthorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cambridge Analytica received unauthorized access to data from as many as 87 million Facebook user accounts

    I thought the problem was that it was authorised, that's why nobody did anything about it?

    1. Re:Unauthorized? by bsDaemon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems the problem is the following:

      * Facebook's business model is aggregating user data in order to allow marketers to "micro-target" ads at people with stuff they are most likely to click on

      * Facebook is upset when other people use their APIs to get access to data of a subset of users, and then do their own analytics, presumably to allow them to buy ads at a cheaper rate.

      * People are upset because a company associated, with some degrees of separation, with Trump, used the technique to find people to "target," and this is some how a "data breach" and "interference in democracy," but when Facebook gave the same type of data to the Obama or Clinton campaigns, it was "the campaign tactics of the future" and "an excellent use of technology and analytics".

      So, from what I gather, the controversy is almost entirely to do with people discovering that Facebook isn't on their "side", that they're a company that exists to make money off of data about people, and that, worst of all, not just Democrats no how to do something with data. Even worse, one of the people involved as a Russian name, and that means that Putin did it with "z0mg h4x0rz" or something.

      Critically, let us think -- anyone that was targeted with ads had it done because analysis of their data suggested that they were receptive, probably due to already agreeing. Therefor, what the hell difference did it make? Probably none.

    2. Re: Unauthorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Critically thinking, the Obama access was known to users at the time, where as the CA stuff wasn't.

      You're just being a partisan apologist. Congratulations on your obvious bias.

    3. Re: Unauthorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You give the users way too much credit. People just click on anything that matches their own bias. i.e. Obama supporters happy to click away, share, answer surveys, etc that match their bias. Other groups do the same. In the end it has zero affect on anything because people to not form their ideology on FB. The last election was the perfect example of this. Good friends and family that always got along fine even with their political differences now hate each other because they will not abandon or even tone down their bias. Social media makes people dig in because there is confirmation available for any viewpoint. Anything not matching your viewpoint is fake or biased.

      All of this is just more sour grapes by people that cannot accept they were wrong.

    4. Re: Unauthorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      The debate is about unauthorized access, not if users are stupid or biased.

    5. Re:Unauthorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      People are upset because a company associated, with some degrees of separation, with Trump, used the technique to find people to "target," and this is some how a "data breach" and "interference in democracy," but when Facebook gave the same type of data to the Obama or Clinton campaigns, it was "the campaign tactics of the future" and "an excellent use of technology and analytics".

      Probably because the Obama campaign didn't use said tools to spread propaganda and blatant lies. And it wasn't a superPAC hiding the financial backing, meaning that if they got caught in a lie, it'd lead right back to them. It's a great argument for overturning Citizens United.

      Great power, great responsibility, blah blah blah.

      So, from what I gather, the controversy is almost entirely to do with people discovering that Facebook isn't on their "side",

      Yeah pretty much. I see a lot of parallels with the cable-leaks, it revealed the exact sort of relationship that activities were complaining about and really brought the issue into the mind of the public. For like... a month or two. Don't worry, they'll forget once the next crisis comes up.

    6. Re:Unauthorized? by JackieBrown · · Score: 0, Troll

      Probably because the Obama campaign didn't use said tools to spread propaganda and blatant lies. And it wasn't a superPAC hiding the financial backing, meaning that if they got caught in a lie, it'd lead right back to them. It's a great argument for overturning Citizens United.

      He did but they were lies you believe so they don't seem like lies and he most definitely did use SuperPACs

    7. Re:Unauthorized? by dfghjk · · Score: 1, Troll

      1) Facebook's business model is aggregating user data and monetize it. They aren't in the business of enabling others to profit.

      2) If Facebook didn't want others to access user data, they wouldn't make it available. They only care when others use the data in a way that interferes with Facebook profit.

      3) "People are upset because a company associated, with some degrees of separation, with Trump..." is a gross mischaracterization. People are upset with Facebook's business model and view recent events as evidence of the damage it can do. In previous campaigns, the results were not indicative of "the damage it can do" so people didn't take notice. Your the one with political spin here.

      4) "...and that, worst of all, not just Democrats no [sic] how to do something with data. Even worse, one of the people involved as a Russian name, and that means that Putin did it with "z0mg h4x0rz" or something." More of your political spin. Keep your trumpism to yourself.

      "Critically, let us think". Indeed, save us your political spin. Let's think critically, starting with you.

    8. Re:Unauthorized? by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Critically, let us think -- anyone that was targeted with ads had it done because analysis of their data suggested that they were receptive, probably due to already agreeing.

      Are you the guy in charge of ads at Amazon, who keeps sends me ads about camping tents because I bought one a year ago? I honestly don't need two tents. One is enough. An ad for something I've already bought or already plan to do is useless. The only useful end-result of an ad is if it makes a difference by nudging me over a tipping point, e.g. from "vaguely sort of think that I should buy a tent" to "yes I should buy that tent", or "vaguely sort of agree with X" to "yes I should vote for X".

    9. Re:Unauthorized? by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      It's "unauthorized" but also protected only by the honor system. There's no technical mechanism in place to restrict how the data is stored, where, or for how long. Once they've copied it from the Facebook API and it's on their servers, it's basically protected only by the developer account terms of service and there's no manual or automated way they can even tell, remotely, if there is a breach of this compliance.

    10. Re: Unauthorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unauthorized access? Facebook sold the data to whomever has the $$ to buy it. Perhaps it wasn't so obvious that Facebook and others sell this data, but anyone dumb enough to give personal data to a social networking site, what did you think they were going to do with it? Does "ad supported" ring any bells?

    11. Re:Unauthorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is upset when other people use their APIs to get access to data of a subset of users, and then do their own analytics

      Too lazy to source but I believe Facebook is upset in this instance because they allowed access to user data to someone ostensibly doing academic research who subsequently passed the data to CA.

    12. Re:Unauthorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a bit more nefarious than that.
      You know how people started complaining that their message feed started to contain less posts from their friends and relatives and more random "this is relevant to you" posts?

      Similar to Googles search bubbles Facebook can create social bubbles where they can control on individual to individual basis what messages you should be exposed to.

      By monitoring what messages you read and what messages you share they can tailor your feed so that you get the impression that there is a consensus or disagreement in whatever subject they like.
      When they want a specific message to be spread they already have the data to push it to the ones most likely to shared.
      They don't need a botnet, they have plenty of meatbots to push it for them.

      By filtering out certain messages and promoting others they can also shape the worldview individuals are exposed to and shape their opinions that way. The fewer social networks they use the easier it gets.

    13. Re: Unauthorized? by houghi · · Score: 1

      "Probably none" means that you probably think tha marketing works as follows: you see an ad and now you want to buy a Pepsi. Hiwever that is not hiw marketing works. In politics it can be used to make sulent preople vical. That will make OTHERS change their mind. Viting happens emotionally not rational.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:Unauthorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Critically, let us think -- anyone that was targeted with ads had it done because analysis of their data suggested that they were receptive, probably due to already agreeing. Therefor, what the hell difference did it make? Probably none.

      Well I think the data probably suggested the opposite, and probably made a difference, because what the fuck do I know.

      Anyway, it’s obvious to anyone with a pulse that amplification tricks work in forums big or small and total non-issues become things everyone talks about (or thinks everyone else is talking about). Please forward, like, mod or thumbs up if you agree. #SJW #gamergate #someothershitpeoplearentactuallytalkingaboutirl

    15. Re: Unauthorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bruh what's going on with your keybird

    16. Re:Unauthorized? by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      Agree with this, but using present tense in your third paragraph would be more accurate...Citation needed? go to any news site and read the headlines.

    17. Re: Unauthorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice to see you actually aren't familiar at all with the topic but are still confident enough to ramble online about it.

      Well played, boris, well played.

    18. Re:Unauthorized? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very fact that parent-post has currently been modded down to "-1 Troll" speaks volumes in corroborating the post's accuracy, and yet those who down-modded it fail to realize how they've just shot their 'side' in the foot, the same as happened in 2016 with Trump's victory, and so far looks bound to repeat ad nauseam through future elections if things stay relatively the same with the Left's behaviors and messaging.

      Go ahead, keep telling people that they, their family members, friends, neighbors, and employers are all evil and hateful Nazi fascists because they disagree with the radical Left and the DNC, which are nearly equivalent these days as the old-guard, more-conservative Democrats are shoved out.

    19. Re:Unauthorized? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      it was "unauthorised" as in Facebook gave them all the data they wanted and told them they were only allowed to do certain things with it.

      Instead they did what ever they wanted to do it it.

      You can bet every other company getting data from Facebook is doing the same thing. They'll be archiving it all for later use too.

    20. Re:Unauthorized? by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      it was "unauthorised" as in Facebook gave them all the data they wanted and told them they were only allowed to do certain things with it.

      Instead they did what ever they wanted to do it it.

      You can bet every other company getting data from Facebook is doing the same thing. They'll be archiving it all for later use too.

      Not just that, but this is so standard that Facebook really should have been aware. Odds are that Facebook does the same to people--and, really, given that they don't wait until you've an account with them to start gathering data from you and certainly aren't transparent about it, it's somewhat hypocritical of them to complain.

    21. Re: Unauthorized? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      If the algorithms detect less than 4 stars, maybe it's worth suggesting a better tent if the tent you bought turned out to be shit. They probably have a patent on that.

  3. Yawn .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, let's stop pretending that Facebook doesn't do this shit, and they should have been able to know this was happening.

    Users are idiots for filling out all of these damned questionnaires on Facebook, because they just hand over more and more information about themselves.

    Facebook exists to scrape your data, and anybody with these fucking apps that ties into Facebook is there to collect your data and monetize it.

    Why the fuck is everyone suddenly surprised by this shit?

    1. Re:Yawn .... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Users are idiots for truthfully filling out all of these damned questionnaires on Facebook.

      Otherwise, it would be a lot of fun.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re: Yawn .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not filling out a survey.

      These things are applications which get access to all of your data. What do you think they were going to do with it?

      I've never granted one access and for identity services that require Facebook I have a blank account.

    3. Re:Yawn .... by froggyjojodaddy · · Score: 1

      I am not 100% sure of course, but I think the outrage from users is that their personal data was used for nefarious purposes. Or at least purposes the user didn't anticipate.

      Think of it this way. I'm quite open with my EV usage and patterns when it comes to my Hydro (Electricity) company asking me questions because I want them to use the data to anticipate electricity demand so we don't have brown-outs or they can advocate installing new infrastructure to support more chargers. I'm quite happy to give them accurate responses on their surveys for that purpose.

      However, if they then use that data to, say, somehow create a electricity plan that penalizes poor people for NOT having EV's, then I'd have a real problem with that. I would characterize that as misuse of my data.

      I don't use Facebook but I imagine that's where most of the rage comes from. People didn't think their "what kind of vegetable are you" surveys or data would be used to further an agenda that they, in all likelihood, oppose at the moral/religious/political/whatever level.

    4. Re: Yawn .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never granted one access and for identity services that require Facebook I have a blank account.

      Why would you ever use a service that requires a Facebook account? What could they possibly offer to you?

    5. Re:Yawn .... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      In a couple weeks watch them be twice as surprised to find out Twitter's API enables the same exact type of data harvesting, and other social networks have scrambled to catch up.

    6. Re:Yawn .... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously not everyone reads and obeys the TOS but just FYI, falsifying account data is one of the things explicitly forbidden by it.

    7. Re: Yawn .... by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Questionnaire isn't the same as account data. The questionnaire might ask who you plan to vote for and you could say Jill Stein or Boaty McBoatface, just to fuck with the stats. In an Amazon show, a guy created a program called "Bathwater" that intentionally added false data to a user's activities so that all the data would be untrustworthy for tracking and spying.

    8. Re:Yawn .... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Here's a phone, call someone who gives a fuck.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >CubeYou misleadingly labeled its quizzes "for non-profit academic research,"

    You listening slash? Enough of the data mining polls. They're supposed to be amusing and enjoyable. Not "how many hours do you use a playstation" and "What's your favourite browser"

  5. Shocked, shocked! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Is anybody?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Shocked, shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one with a brain and the slightest knowledge of why Facebook exists. Of course there are millions of brainless idiots which is partially why Facebook exists. This is what they do for a living, did people think FB was a public service or something?

  6. Re:Hi, I am Mark Zuckerberg. I invite you to like by Mark+Zuckberg · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hi, my name is Mark Zuckberg, and I approve of this message.

    Zuckberg/Zuckerberg in 2020.

  7. So ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

    ... taking random quizzes on the internet isn't secure, is that what you are trying to tell me??

    1. Re:So ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... taking random quizzes on the internet isn't secure, is that what you are trying to tell me??

      It's CowboyNeal's fault!

  8. So, Cambridge University? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cambridge University might have some explaining to do with the authorities.

  9. It's a feature, not a bug by complexanimal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem here is that this isn't a problem. You can't fix this because this is how the product and business model were designed. The goal in mind is to suck as much information out of the population as possible and to slice our social groups into manageable and manipulatable chunks so as to maximize ad revenues. "I'm shocked, shocked to find that abuses of privacy on a global scale is going on here!" This model is most definitely not in the best interest of fostering healthy societies and social constructs, despite how much the Zuck et al claim to be about 'connecting the world.' Expect much more news like this from Facebook in the near future unless they are forced to change.

    1. Re:It's a feature, not a bug by CWCheese · · Score: 1

      mod +1M

      --
      Have a Day!
  10. Why the outrage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those of us who never got a facebook or any other social media account knew this would happen. LinkedIN does the same thing too.

    And keep in mind every website that requires a login pimps your data.

    1. Re:Why the outrage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember going to sign up for Facebook in the early days when you needed .edu email, and it said something like "once you sign up you can never delete your account", and I was like "nope". It was clear from the start these weren't ethical people.

  11. Facebook Knew by Striikerr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is impossible to believe the Facebook did not know what was happening. They have every bit of data around their users including the variety of tracking methods which they employ so they can analyze what they get and identify what places these various users visit, where they are most likely located, etc. They could easily have stopped the Russian trolls, CA, and many others who were abusing the data which Facebook offers and the platform for communicating with others.
    It's staggering to see companies so willing to sell out their country to make money. I remember a time when showing patriotism beat out personal gain. Now, we have companies like Facebook and the politicians (Republicans) in congress who put their personal agenda and gain above all else (including their own country) and it's truly depressing.

    1. Re:Facebook Knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is just the end-run of capitalism. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is about the money. People's health? Profit comes first. Safety and security? Well, only if it doesn't have a negative impact on the bottom line. We commoners, those that used to be referred to as constituents or even, occasionally as people, are now almost always considered consumers first and foremost. We're dollar signs in some CPA's future forecast. The idea that anything, patriotism, feeding and sheltering the population, basic common decency, should outrank the importance of money is the antithesis of what our society has become. And we're just getting started down this path.

      Hang on. It's gonna get bumpier from here.

  12. It Was Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were researching how much they could charge for the data and who would buy it. I'm sure tons of other companies are doing the same. The only thing which keeps these companies honest are their word. Whoever trusts the word of a salesman is an idiot.

  13. Wi-Fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't this same business model as a number of free Wi-Fi company's that use Facebook as a means of auth e.g. PurpleWi-Fi. Your privacy for free Wi-Fi.

  14. Irony is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pointed this out when Obama won: 'You DO realize this just means the Republicans will take it one step further, and unless the Dems step up their eGame, they will lose to the exact same tactics next election, just not to a mainline Republican?'

    As it turned out, that is exactly what happened, only the parties involved were far more multinational than otherwise might have been expected.

    Made in America truly doesn't mean much anymore.

    1. Re:Irony is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pointed this out when Obama won: 'You DO realize this just means the Republicans will take it one step further, and unless the Dems step up their eGame, they will lose to the exact same tactics next election, just not to a mainline Republican?'

      No, you didn't.

  15. Any data you put on the web will be abused. by gettin2old · · Score: 1

    Any information you share on the internet will be used incorrectly. or at least in a way most people would disagree with.

    Anyone who collects the data is a target for thieves wanting it. or they sell it. or they share it. then the people they share or sell it to become the next level of target or seller. Even the good old USofA can't secure our data. Think IRS and OPM.

    Personal information will simply become another untrusted form of identification and information. The act of collecting it is the real problem. Because you KNOW it will be stolen or misused. I don't care about their intention or commitment to security. If you collect it someone will figure out how to get it.

    "I'm not be. I haven't been me in a very long time. I'm just someone that stole my identity on line and am pretending to be me."

  16. I don't know by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Well, if doing a sociological experiment on people, to see if you can get them to elect an orange moron as president is not 'academic research', then what is it?

    1. Re:I don't know by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      So that's why they nominated Hillary.

      Can't argue with success. Good work DNC.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  17. You idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are so ridiculously stupid.

  18. You are an idiot if you use facebook still by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 0

    It's becoming a great way to lose your privacy, your identity, your credit, your house, and your savings.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re: You are an idiot if you use facebook still by aglider · · Score: 1

      If you ever used Facebook. Period.

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  19. Re:Hi, I am Mark Zuckerberg. I invite you to like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was Clutch Nixon, not the Nazis.

  20. Suspend them all by aglider · · Score: 1

    Is it that difficult to understand?

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  21. Dumb Fucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg

    Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
    Zuck: Just ask
    Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
    [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
    Zuck: People just submitted it.
    Zuck: I don't know why.
    Zuck: They "trust me"
    Zuck: Dumb fucks

  22. You are an idiot if you use facebook still by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Using Facebook is a great way to lose your privacy, your identity, your credit, your house, and your savings.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  23. Just the tip of the iceberg by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    These are just the first two companies to get caught. This is what EVERYBODY was doing!

  24. what's the story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assumed from the moment I singed up for facebook that all this was exactly what was happening. Why is anyone shocked to learn this?

  25. Suspend all researchers from Cambridge Uni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok.. Two groups of researchers at Cambridge selling their data to Analytics/marketing. So, WTF is up with Cambridge?