Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Knew of Cambridge Analytica Data Misuse Earlier Than Reported (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Facebook employees were aware of concerns about "improper data-gathering practices" by Cambridge Analytica months before the Guardian first reported, in December 2015, that the political consultancy had obtained data on millions from an academic. The concerns appeared in a court filing by the attorney general for Washington DC and were subsequently confirmed by Facebook. The new information "could suggest that Facebook has consistently mislead [sic]" British lawmakers "about what it knew and when about Cambridge Analytica," tweeted Damian Collins, the chair of the House of Commons digital culture media and sport select committee (DCMS) in response to the court filing.
In a statement, a company spokesperson said: "Facebook absolutely did not mislead anyone about this timeline." After publication of this article, the spokesperson acknowledged that Facebook employees heard rumors of data scraping by Cambridge Analytica in September 2015. The spokesperson said that this was a "different incident" from Cambridge Analytica's acquisition of a trove of data about as many as 87 million users that has been widely reported on for the past year. "In September 2015 employees heard speculation that Cambridge Analytica was scraping data, something that is unfortunately common for any internet service," the spokesperson said. "In December 2015, we first learned through media reports that Kogan sold data to Cambridge Analytica, and we took action. Those were two different things." The filing raised questions about when Facebook first learned about the misuse of personal data by Cambridge Analytica, the now defunct political consultancy.
In a statement, a company spokesperson said: "Facebook absolutely did not mislead anyone about this timeline." After publication of this article, the spokesperson acknowledged that Facebook employees heard rumors of data scraping by Cambridge Analytica in September 2015. The spokesperson said that this was a "different incident" from Cambridge Analytica's acquisition of a trove of data about as many as 87 million users that has been widely reported on for the past year. "In September 2015 employees heard speculation that Cambridge Analytica was scraping data, something that is unfortunately common for any internet service," the spokesperson said. "In December 2015, we first learned through media reports that Kogan sold data to Cambridge Analytica, and we took action. Those were two different things." The filing raised questions about when Facebook first learned about the misuse of personal data by Cambridge Analytica, the now defunct political consultancy.
What other privacy destroying abuse of their data do they know already know about that will only surface in the weeks or months to come ... or never?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I've found as a general guideline, that when a person or group denies something using the word "absolutely", they did what they are accused of.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I really don't like just posting "Well, duh..." but nothing else really seems to fit here.
This is somewhat easy to misconstrue. Most people will take that as the data was used in the general election, when according to the mainstream media:
"In late September 2016, Cambridge and other data vendors were submitting bids to the Trump campaign. Then-candidate Trump's campaign used Cambridge Analytica during the primaries and in the summer because it was never certain the Republican National Committee would be a willing, cooperative partner. Cambridge Analytica instead was a hedge against the RNC, in case it wouldn't share its data.
The crucial decision was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump's digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor. The Trump campaign had tested the RNC data, and it proved to be vastly more accurate than Cambridge Analytica's, and when it was clear the RNC would be a willing partner, Mr. Trump's campaign was able to rely solely on the RNC. "
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-phased-out-use-of-cambridge-analytica-data-before-election/
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It just shed its skin. It's now called Emerdata. Same people, same building.
When democrats abuse information for elections..."it's justified for the cause" but when republicans do it... "it's because they are evil".
Read this guys article.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
Yes, BOTH side really are the same, big business federalists that have no reason to care about you beyond your vote. They only care about their constituents and that is where they appear different is because their constituents have differences.
The Cambridge Data lesson is in a nutshell... a beacon of the Hypocrisy of the Left... no so much on the right because it benefited them this time. BOTH Parties have been doing things like this in all sorts of ways for decades. Before Cambridge, Before the internet. They have been using census data, voter records, polls, and anything they can get their hands on to redraw districts, target campaign speech locations, issue spotting, and just about anything a campaign manager can think of to get the upper hand.
This is nothing shocking or surprising but instead, a NATURAL result of people giving up their privacy to a feckless company that generates revenue off of their personal data! The people upset about this are really just pissed off they didn't do a better job at it.
It's still going to be done, they will just now do it a different way and because of the mfg outrage machine they will just have to find other less obvious ways to do it.
....because it wasn't MISUSE. It was Facebook's bloody BUSINESS MODEL.
Further, CA (and Facebook) is only in hot water today because they dared to use this information in a way that benefited Donald Trump. In the 2012 election we were bombarded with news stories about how 'sophisticated' and 'cutting edge' the Obama campaign was about leveraging internet big data for voter-engagement and campaigning.
-Styopa
Seriously, of course the knew about it. Hell they probably gave them implicit permission to do it. Are there no adults in the room at Facebook?
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress
While bringing the rambunctious Mr. T into this it seems a bit off topic, mentioning Elizabeth Warren here is completely on topic.
She has suggested that some of our major internet behemoths should be broken into their component parts and the parts that are the underlying infrastructure become regulated utilities or similar constructs.
This is an interesting idea with arguments pro and con. One of these arguments is if you force the profit making parts of this (like the data selling) to be severed from the "tubes and wires" then perhaps there isn't as much incentive to keep innovating on the latter. The converse is what we see now which is this unassilable giant got there by disregard for norms and perhaps laws and made us all the poorer. They certainly need oversight of some type as this keeps getting more absurd each thing we find out.
The idea breaking up face book would be harmful is probably a rubbish argument that only would matter at first: the argument that the separation would also bring more medium size players into the game enhancing innovation is much stronger. But FOr that to happen one would have to make sure another giant like Amazon or google didn't just rush in an gobble up the void instead. So her argument, to work has to be extended beyonf face book.
The counter argument is that overtime we have seem the hegemonies of IBM, Microsoft, and perhaps soon Intel, wane naturally as disruptive tech outmoded their monopoly grip. So perhaps this is unnecessary.
Her argument has merit and shoul dnot be ridiculed but discussed rationally. It may not be needed but my gut feeling is that google has gone evil on us and competing with facebook led them there. I also like APlle as my benevolent aspriational computer maker, but I don't think I will like what apple becomes when they turn into my Banker. And Amazon.... every day I hear of amazon using it's monopoly to extend into a new line of bussiness I think about Milo Minderbinder from catch 22. Soon we will own a share of amazon if we don't stop the blob from growing.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
They are getting crucified for acting like a for profit business.
Why is *anybody* surprised or outraged over this? They where simply acting like any for profit business would.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
What's at stake here is that Cambridge was web-scraping. Every enterprise company web-scrapes until their big enough to hire someone to do it for them.
There's no way FB could have known WHY Cambridge was web-scraping. If the truth matters in justice, then this story isn't about anything other than here's how websites work.
Lol! http://www.sammypost.com/three...
How's that for re-naming?
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user