Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Suspends Another Data Analytics Firm After CNBC Discovers It Was Using Tactics like Cambridge Analytica (cnbc.com)
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.
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.
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.
Is anybody?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Hi, my name is Mark Zuckberg, and I approve of this message.
Zuckberg/Zuckerberg in 2020.
... taking random quizzes on the internet isn't secure, is that what you are trying to tell me??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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) 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.
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".
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.
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?
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.
Well, obviously not everyone reads and obeys the TOS but just FYI, falsifying account data is one of the things explicitly forbidden by it.
"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.
Is it that difficult to understand?
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
If you ever used Facebook. Period.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
These are just the first two companies to get caught. This is what EVERYBODY was doing!
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.