Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Data Collected By Quiz App Included Private Messages (nytimes.com)
In addition to the public profile data of up to 87 million Facebook users, political data firm Cambridge Analytica also reportedly harvested people's private messages, too (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). The New York Times reports: On Monday, Facebook began informing people whose data may have been compromised by Cambridge Analytica through an app developed by the researcher Aleksandr Kogan. In its notifications, Facebook said that while the information harvested was largely limited to what was on people's public profiles, "a small number of people" also shared information from their Facebook timeline, posts and messages. Facebook did not specify how many people's messages were gathered and said it was taking as broad a view as possible when notifying people that their data may have been taken.
and left the drawer open for all to see
is reporting on what happened to all the data collected on people who either never joined Facebook, or left it years ago. FB has made it its mission to collect all data possible on EVERYONE, but it seems only people who have been knowingly drinking that Kool-Aid are being notified and offered sympathy. What about all the private data scraped from people who never belonged to the club, and who therefore never signed on to have their lives on display to the highest bidders?
Seriously, it's starting to look as though the only real solution is to shut down FB, and destroy all copies of the data in their hands. There's still that huge trove of data that's already been let loose in the wild, but going nuclear on Zuckerberg's ass, (and all those investors too), would make the rest of these jerkoffs think twice about playing fast and loose with people's privacy. Sometimes pillaging and burning down a castle or two is the only thing that brings the kings and lords back into line.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
The infamous chat:
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
That pretty much sums up all one need know about Facebook and other related services, such as Instagram.
Having 5 stories a day mentioning your company in every major newspaper in the world for weeks on end... can't buy publicity like this.
captcha: unveil
I wonder if they'll use all this publicity to unveil a new product...
Two things will be gone by the end of this year: 1) facebook, 2) Humpty trumpty
A message that has valuable private data sets.
The users actually thought private messages had something to do with privacy?
Its social media, everything is for sale.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
is not taken.
Remember that.
Whoops, my bad. I'll look into taking steps to not let it happen again, starting......now. Again, sorry about that little detail!
- Mark
(p.s. if you agree with my politics then I have other services I'd like to offer you; everyone else need not apply)
I was just considering that the other day: party A and party B discussing party C on social media--party C NEVER having been on any form of social media.
It extends beyond simply "discussing." Take for instance name-tagging of friends in photos shared on FB (or on Apple Photos etc), which amounts to submitting a (usually) non-consenting third party's face into a facial recognition database.
The new surveillance state is distinguished from those hitherto existing, by the enthusiastic participation of hoi polloi in their own* surveillance [*as individuals and as a people]. Not only do we willingly carry tracking devices on our persons, we employ them to photograph, film, otherwise record and then publish on "social" media, snapshots and impressions of unwilling bystanders all neatly geo-located and time stamped. We amuse ourselves with shared videos of "public" altercations, without fearing for our own privacy --indeed, ensnared by too simple a division of public/private we are locked out from conceiveing of varying levels of privacy in the world outside our room, without even enjoying it in there.
In an age where everyone always carries a tracking and recording device, everyone is granted the opportunity, at any time, to be an informant.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
I can put a popup on my website that says, "By clicking 'I accept', I agree to sell you my teenaged daughter for $100."
You can click "I accept", and...
Guess what? It's still illegal for me to sell you my daughter.
Better luck next time, Mark.
Nice strawman!
In English Common Law countries, the legal test for whether a contract is valid is whether a 'meeting of minds' has occurred. A signature is typically not legal as a result of any statute law, but is considered legally binding because of a body of case law that argues that it is a strong indication that a meeting of minds has occurred, though with some caveats (a witnessed signature with each page initialled is, for example, considered to be stronger evidence and for some contracts the lack of such a thing would be considered surprising). There is very little case law regarding click-through agreements and so any court would likely weigh the case on its merits individually. Facebook would have to prove in court that a typical reader who clicked on the agree button understood the terms, or at least was able to understand the terms. I suspect that they'd have a hard job doing this.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News