Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Former Cambridge Analytica Employee Says Facebook Users Affected Could Be 'Much Greater Than 87 million' (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

Cambridge Analytica and its partners used data from previously unknown "Facebook-connected questionnaires" to obtain user data from the social media service, according to testimony from a former Cambridge Analytica employee. From a report: Brittany Kaiser provided evidence to the British Parliament today as part of a hearing on fake news. Kaiser, who worked on the business team at Cambridge Analytica's parent company until January of this year, wrote in a statement that she was "aware in a general sense of a wide range of surveys" used by Cambridge Analytica or its partners, and she said she believes the number of people whose Facebook data may have been compromised is likely higher than the widely reported 87 million.

6 of 45 comments (clear)

  1. Still can't figure out ... by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... how information you GAVE AWAY to unknown people is "compromised", just because it was used by someone you may not have wanted to know it?

    1. Re:Still can't figure out ... by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's in CA's interest to keep fanning this flame as they only profit if people -- and potential clients -- believe CA really helped change history.

  2. The question I'm more interested in by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many non-users did Cambridge get information on? It's been known for some time - and was admitted in congress recently - that facebook has profiles for non-users as well as actual users. For myself and ... well, I'm told repeatedly that I am the only remaining person alive between the age of 8 and 80 who doesn't have a profile there ... it would be really interesting to know if Cambridge got information on "us" as well.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:The question I'm more interested in by skids · · Score: 3

      You're not alone. I wonder if we're in better standing to sue the pants off someone.

      (Congratulations, bleating sheep of America. You not only gave a huge social engineering war-chest to the evil corporations you ranted about on FaceBook, but also probably to the Evil Government you ranted about on FaceBook, and most certainly to the Evil Enemies of America you ranted about on FaceBook. I hope you are proud of yourselves.)

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    2. Re:The question I'm more interested in by chispito · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How many non-users did Cambridge get information on? It's been known for some time - and was admitted in congress recently - that facebook has profiles for non-users as well as actual users. For myself and ... well, I'm told repeatedly that I am the only remaining person alive between the age of 8 and 80 who doesn't have a profile there ... it would be really interesting to know if Cambridge got information on "us" as well.

      Citation please. Zuckerberg admitted to running analytics on anonymous users--you know, keeping web server logs--NOT to creating "shadow profiles," a term that still makes zero sense. I've read the Gizmodo article and I really think it comes down to somebody who doesn't understand what a relational database is and how trivial it is for FB to suggest contacts based on the loads of info your friends and family have already provided. There is no need to pre-generate anything.

      Simplified example: Friend A and Friend B frequently tagged you in pictures. They also tagged Stranger C. Do you know Stranger C?

      My suspicion is that they will simply stop suggesting contacts, as they should. Unfortunately, this doesn't prevent your friends and families from tagging you all over the place and providing all sorts of details about your life.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  3. Re:Honest question by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what Christopher Wylie (The whistleblower in the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica scandal) has to say about it:

    "So whenever you go, and you like something, you are giving me a clue as to who you are as a person. And so all of this can be captured very easily and run through an algorithm that learns who you are. When you go to work - right? - your co-workers only see one side of you. Your friends only see one side of you. But a computer sees all kinds of sides of you. And so we can get better than human level accuracy at predicting your behavior."