THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO USES THAT YOU LISTED IN THAT ONE QUOTE is a difference that makes no difference.
You don't think that it's significant that in one instance the user knew they were handing over their information to a political campaign and in the other the user thought they were taking an innocent personality quiz? It doesn't excuse either one, but I think it's significant.
From Facebook's blog post, "Given the scale and sophistication of the activity we've seen, we believe most people on Facebook could have had their public profile scraped in this way. "
Every Facebook user has a "public profile". And when they say "most people on Facebook", they're not just talking about the Cambridge Analytica leak. They mean most users.
Information you share that is always public: Some of the information you give us when you fill out your profile is public, such as your age range, language and country. We also use a part of your profile, called your Public Profile, to help connect you with friends and family.
Cambridge Analytica accessed more than just the public profile. From that same Post article:
The third-party firm (Global Science Research) used a clicky personality quiz to get people to interact with the app, which then used a loophole to pull all the behind-the-scenes data of that user, and also the same data relating to all their friends -- typically 200-300 other people per user.
Facebook users who clicked on some stupid survey and gave Facebook permission to give the shady author of the survey permission to use their data have no reason to object...
What about the Facebook user whose friend decided to take the survey. Most of the people targeted did not click the link or give consent.
Both campaigns accessed users' friends information without consent. But there were several differences between what Obama's campaign did and what Cambridge Analytica did. A couple:
But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes.
The Obama campaign used the data to have their supporters contact their most persuadable friends. Cambridge Analytica targeted users and their friends directly with digital ads.
That doesn't remotely excuse what O's campaign did, but it's not entirely the same.
At my last job, we had "core hours" from 9-3 that everyone was supposed to be in, but outside those hours was up to us. I got used to a 6:30-3:00 schedule that I still maintain even though I no longer have formal schedule requirements. As long as you're in for enough of the day to overlap sufficiently with the people you need to interact with, I see no reason to dictate mornings or afternoons.
Are you implying that you have evidence of them making questionable decisions fact-checking? I'm legitimately interested in seeing it. I'm a user and don't want to give them any more trust than they deserve. I know how far I can trust them with my data; I'd like to know if I'm being lied to. I do see a slanted selection of news, but that's because of the news sources I selected.
I won't delete mine. I can keep some relationships much more active with Facebook than travel would permit otherwise. It's not the only vector, but it's a good one. I have a high school buddy I've seen a dozen times in the last 20 years, but we constantly argue politics on FB. I value that.
I like that better. There are conservative and liberal opinions, and even conservative/liberal news stories, but facts is facts. I'd like to see evidence of Facebook playing favorites with the facts before I'm going to start hurling accusations. If somebody has that kind of evidence, I'm all ears; I genuinely haven't seen any questionable fact corrections from FB.
Do you know that? I don't know details on this testing, but it sounds like 40% is exactly normal, as that's what we're seeing. If you're predicting the outcome of coin flips, a 40% error margin is pretty good. If you're determining whether a person is "at risk" for Alzheimer's, I can see the definition of "at risk" swaying the results dramatically.
I downloaded mine too. ("Settings"->"Download a copy of your Facebook data") I had FB installed on more than one phone. All my contacts information and a list of every app that had been installed on those phones was there, along with some 2016 metadata.
...info that they are prepared to tell me that they kept on me.
There's the issue. Nowhere in the.zip file Facebook provided was there anything about location history or web activity beyond which FB ads I'd clicked. They're not telling us everything.
The trick is to pull the battery out every time you get home and then smash the phone with a hammer. It's a little pricey, but it's the only way to be sure.
Yes, smartphones have mics (don't all phones?), but if word got out that the mic is on when it shouldn't be there will be major complaints. Some people are already suspicious and complaining, but I don't know of any PROOF of smartphones eavesdropping except when compromised.
Slashdot Mirror
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO USES THAT YOU LISTED IN THAT ONE QUOTE is a difference that makes no difference.
You don't think that it's significant that in one instance the user knew they were handing over their information to a political campaign and in the other the user thought they were taking an innocent personality quiz? It doesn't excuse either one, but I think it's significant.
From Facebook's blog post, "Given the scale and sophistication of the activity we've seen, we believe most people on Facebook could have had their public profile scraped in this way. "
Every Facebook user has a "public profile". And when they say "most people on Facebook", they're not just talking about the Cambridge Analytica leak. They mean most users.
Information you share that is always public: Some of the information you give us when you fill out your profile is public, such as your age range, language and country. We also use a part of your profile, called your Public Profile, to help connect you with friends and family.
Cambridge Analytica accessed more than just the public profile. From that same Post article:
The third-party firm (Global Science Research) used a clicky personality quiz to get people to interact with the app, which then used a loophole to pull all the behind-the-scenes data of that user, and also the same data relating to all their friends -- typically 200-300 other people per user.
If you don't want someone seeing your public profile data, don't take their "personality quiz"...
Most of the people exposed did not take the "personality quiz" nor did they consent to their friends sharing their information.
The only difference is a difference that isn't a difference.
That wasn't the only difference. It wasn't even the only difference I quoted.
If you don't want anyone to know your public profile data, don't post it to a place where they call it a "public profile".
Most of the harvested accounts were not "public profiles".
Facebook users who clicked on some stupid survey and gave Facebook permission to give the shady author of the survey permission to use their data have no reason to object...
What about the Facebook user whose friend decided to take the survey. Most of the people targeted did not click the link or give consent.
...Obama campaign for doing this same thing.
Both campaigns accessed users' friends information without consent. But there were several differences between what Obama's campaign did and what Cambridge Analytica did. A couple:
But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes.
The Obama campaign used the data to have their supporters contact their most persuadable friends. Cambridge Analytica targeted users and their friends directly with digital ads.
That doesn't remotely excuse what O's campaign did, but it's not entirely the same.
What data did you put on Facebook that you thought wouldn't be shared?
I'm not worried about the data I put on Facebook. I'm worried about everything else they've dug up on me.
...hide the real and often scary number for a later 'confession'. This way people won't be upset...
I'm about equally upset by 87M as I was by 50M. Both numbers translate to "way too fucking many".
AI might come to that conclusion. Image recognition and guidance algorithms won't. We're not dealing with AI. We never are.
DoD spends 2 _Billion_ per day. So 250 _Million_ is, like, 2 hours of their budget.
I'm not going to check the numbers; I'm just going to nitpick the math. 250M is 1/8 of 2B. 1/8 of a day is 3 hours, not 2.
And already losing it.
My president sent me a message that said "trade wars are good, and easy to win". You're not calling him a liar, are you?
This is /. . What do you have against old, uncool people?
At my last job, we had "core hours" from 9-3 that everyone was supposed to be in, but outside those hours was up to us. I got used to a 6:30-3:00 schedule that I still maintain even though I no longer have formal schedule requirements. As long as you're in for enough of the day to overlap sufficiently with the people you need to interact with, I see no reason to dictate mornings or afternoons.
Are you implying that you have evidence of them making questionable decisions fact-checking? I'm legitimately interested in seeing it. I'm a user and don't want to give them any more trust than they deserve. I know how far I can trust them with my data; I'd like to know if I'm being lied to. I do see a slanted selection of news, but that's because of the news sources I selected.
The sheep is the one who continues to eat the grass.
I'm a FB user, but that's +1 Funny. I prefer smoking the grass, but to each their own.
Are FB users sheep because they're doing something popular? Or because their choice differs from yours?
I won't delete mine. I can keep some relationships much more active with Facebook than travel would permit otherwise. It's not the only vector, but it's a good one. I have a high school buddy I've seen a dozen times in the last 20 years, but we constantly argue politics on FB. I value that.
I could give my life story on there and they still wouldn't know dick about me.
Projecting the image that you know everything about everyone may spook the product, but it's great marketing.
I like that better. There are conservative and liberal opinions, and even conservative/liberal news stories, but facts is facts. I'd like to see evidence of Facebook playing favorites with the facts before I'm going to start hurling accusations. If somebody has that kind of evidence, I'm all ears; I genuinely haven't seen any questionable fact corrections from FB.
Betcha I could edit 100% of the pixels and you couldn't tell the difference by eye. That's a silly metric.
> costs the Chinese company .17 cents.
how is that possible?
He was rounding off. It's actually 6 shipments for a penny.
Do they accept anonymous chunks of gold?
I once bought something even though I wasn't the end user. I once bought something with a prepaid card I paid cash for. I once received a gift.
But for science we need a theory that predicts the results, and belief has no place in that.
I believe everything I know. I don't know everything I believe. Look up "believe".
I would want to raise my young stars in a galaxy full of black holes and brown dwarfs.
I'm raising my kids on Red Dwarf. Much better.
40% is not a normal margin for error.
Do you know that? I don't know details on this testing, but it sounds like 40% is exactly normal, as that's what we're seeing. If you're predicting the outcome of coin flips, a 40% error margin is pretty good. If you're determining whether a person is "at risk" for Alzheimer's, I can see the definition of "at risk" swaying the results dramatically.
I downloaded mine too. ("Settings"->"Download a copy of your Facebook data") I had FB installed on more than one phone. All my contacts information and a list of every app that had been installed on those phones was there, along with some 2016 metadata.
...info that they are prepared to tell me that they kept on me.
There's the issue. Nowhere in the .zip file Facebook provided was there anything about location history or web activity beyond which FB ads I'd clicked. They're not telling us everything.
The trick is to pull the battery out every time you get home and then smash the phone with a hammer. It's a little pricey, but it's the only way to be sure.
Yes, smartphones have mics (don't all phones?), but if word got out that the mic is on when it shouldn't be there will be major complaints. Some people are already suspicious and complaining, but I don't know of any PROOF of smartphones eavesdropping except when compromised.
I assume they decided they could make America safer by using exploits than by patching bugs.