As the world’s largest social network, Facebook has data of more than 2 billion people. But it showed that it had failed to safeguard some of that information when Cambridge Analytica took some of the data without people’s permission in 2016 and built voter profiles from it for the Trump presidential campaign, which The New York Times and The Observer in London reported on last year. Facebook said that as many as 87 million users’ information could have been retrieved.
“Facebook put up a neon sign that said ‘Free Private Data,’ and let app developers have their fill of Americans’ personal info,” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Friday. “The FTC needs to hold Mark Zuckerberg personally responsible.”
The social network has since faced lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny and the ire of lawmakers around the world over whether it can safeguard its users’ data trove. The Justice Department and the FBI are investigating Cambridge Analytica. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, has appeared in Congress to testify on the matter. Zuckerberg, who visited Washington this week and met with President Donald Trump, also apologized for the improper handling of user data and vowed changes. That included auditing all of Facebook’s third-party apps to make sure they were not abusing people’s information.
Data ripped included users’ identities, their friend networks, and the various likes/interests from millions of Facebook users. Officials of both companies have asserted that nothing illegal has taken place, given that all users (inadvertently) gave consent by agreeing to the user conditions in the app. With social logins growing in popularity over the years as one of the most convenient means of accessing an application or platform, more users are opting to leverage this technology, which means the risk of unauthorized Facebook data mining is only going to increase.
What exactly happened with the Facebook data mining scandal?
Before we go any further, it’s important to point out that this is not at all a fringe event — this happens all the time and Cambridge Analytica is not the only company to exploit this. In fact, a few years ago, Sandy Parakilas, a platform operations manager at Facebook who had the difficult job of monitoring and policing data breaches by third-party software developers, warned the company about such risks. In an interview with the Guardian, he warned senior executives at the company that its very relaxed and “turn a blind eye” approach to data protection placed all the platform’s users at risk of a major data breach.
However, since the main focus these days is on the breach/scandal as it pertains to Cambridge Analytica, let’s focus on that.
In short, what happened was that the political research firm was able to gain access to data belonging to over 50 million Facebook users through a third-party personality quiz application — the users had absolutely no knowledge of this and had not explicitly given consent for this to take place. Given Facebook’s policies at the time to hinder these types of activities, the quiz app was able to pass this information along to the firm, which then used the information to create detailed user profiles of Facebook users. They used this profiles to essentially develop micro-targeted political ads that were intended to sway users in favor of one candidate during the 2016 US Presidential elections.
While it’s a given that the ad-campaign likely had minimal impact on actually swaying voters, it is the principle and breach of data/confidence behind this event that has many people shocked.
Who exactly was impacted?
What’s unique about this particular breach of data was that the Facebook data mining scandal did not just impact the users who took the quiz, but all their friends and other shared interests as well. Consider this for a moment — only 270,000 people downloaded the quiz app, however, over 50 million users had their information accessed.
This level of data compromisation means that any company, not just a political research firm, could gain such personal pieces of information, which could then be leveraged for various purposes — including targeted advertising.
The justification of people who side with Facebook, especially Facebook executives, on this particular issue is that (technically) “everyone involved gave their consent”, given that the minute a user accepted the infamous Terms and Conditions checkbox, they opened themselves up to having their data accessed. The only problem with this argument is that consent usually implies that users were aware that their data was being harvested — in this case, a huge majority did not
The best way to protect yourself is to delete your Facebook account completely. However, if you are a hardcore Facebook addict and just can’t do it, here’s how you can check which apps have access to your’s and your FB friends’ information.
Access Facebook through your desktop/laptop or via your mobile app, hit the drop-down menu on the top-right side and select “Settings”.
Next, select “Apps”, which should be on the left side of the page on desktop. On the mobile version, all you need to is scroll down the settings page.
Once you access this page, you will be able to see all the apps that have access to your personal data, like your gender, networks you belong to, your username, user ID, full name, your profile picture. You can also see which ones have access to your full friends list and any other public information on your profile. Surprisingly, most people have absolutely no clue how this works — despite having above-average tech savviness.
In the moment, selecting whether or not to use your social information to log in may seem like the convenient option, however, it’s always advised that you should carefully read and consider the terms of the app.
I say, just get out while you can!
Source: IAME – The Facebook Data Mining Scandal — What Happened
‘Call their bluff’: Shut down social media platforms, ex-Facebook adviser urges
A former Facebook adviser is urging governments around the world to shut down social media platforms until they can be reformed.
“If your goals are to protect democracy and personal liberty, you have to be bold. You have to force a radical transformation of the business model of internet platforms,” venture capitalist Roger McNamee told the House of Commons privacy and ethics committee Tuesday morning.
“At the end of the day, though, the most effective path to reform would be to shut down the platforms at least temporarily. …. Any country can go first. The platforms have left you no choice. The time has come to call their bluff.”
McNamee’s comments came as an international committee of MPs in Ottawa renewed their summons for Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg and company COO Sheryl Sandberg to appear and give evidence before them. Both ignored the first summons, choosing to send company representatives in their place.
n his testimony, McNamee pointed to Sri Lanka, where authorities turned off the taps on most social media after last month’s Easter Sunday attacks on churches and hotels killed hundreds of people.
The Sri Lankan government’s official news portal said the actions, which included blocking Facebook and its WhatsApp and Instagram services, were needed to stop false news reports online.
McNamee, who wrote Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe, said “at a minimum” countries should end the platforms’ ability to perform web tracking and to scan emails and documents, and crack down on the platforms’ surveillance of users.
Centre for International Governance Innovation head Jim Balsillie, who became famous as one of the founders of Blackberry maker Research in Motion, also had dire words for the committee.
“Technology is disrupting governance and, if left unchecked, could render liberal democracy obsolete,” he said.
“Data is not the new oil. It’s the new plutonium: amazingly powerful, dangerous when it spreads, difficult to clean up and with serious consequences when improperly used.”
Facebook C.E.O. Mark Zuckerberg has a lot of control over the company he runs—and the tech giant’s investors aren’t happy about it. As Facebook continues to slog through a series of crises from the Cambridge Analytica scandal to looming antitrust investigations, shareholders signaled their displeasure with the C.E.O.’s outsized influence through a series of votes at a recent shareholder meeting.
Public pension fund leaders from New York, Illinois, and three other states renewed their call for Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg to abdicate his role as chairman, citing escalating support among outside investors in the company.
“Facebook’s insular boardroom must be cracked open because the company has no accountability to its users, its investors, or our democracy,” New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer, whose fund controls over $750 million of Facebook stock, said in a statement on Tuesday. “Naming an independent board chair is a necessary first step that is supported by shareowners who own the majority of Facebook shares, but whose voting power is not commensurate with their ownership.”
Illinois State Treasurer Michael Frerichs added “it’s time for the company to separate the Board Chair and CEO roles. Right now, Mr. Zuckerberg is both Board Chair and CEO, serving as his own boss, and clearly it’s not working.”
Facebook declined comment on the statements, as well as similar remarks from treasurers from Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania.
The Facebook investors’ growing frustration with Zuckerberg doesn’t exactly come as a surprise, as the Cambridge Analytica scandal has spurred a tidal wave of scrutiny against Facebook—and likely a hefty fine from the Federal Trade Commission. Facebook shares tumbled even further in the days after the shareholder meeting, as it was revealed that both the F.T.C. and House Judiciary Committee will be ramping up their antitrust oversight over Facebook and other tech companies. And things aren’t too rosy internally at Facebook either: Business Insider reported Tuesday that Facebook is conducting an investigation into the security firm it contracts from in Silicon Valley, which is related to allegations of financial irregularities and security workers creating a hostile work environment.
Sources: Vanity Fair Hive – Story by Alison Durkee June 4 2019; Market Watch – Story by Jon Swartz June 5 2019
The last publications that had as much fake news as Facebook were probably some rags like the National Enquirer or Weekly World News.
Today’s crop of fools have largely replaced these old printed versions of garbage with their new favourite source of swill – Facebook. All the fake news, bullshit, and distortions of the truth that you can fill your addled brain with!
“Beyond the anecdotal evidence, numerous articles found that pages and accounts dedicated to spreading hyper partisan fake news were becoming more active on Facebook. Sometimes fake news articles were spread even further by Facebook itself. Its algorithms would insert fake news stories into Trending Topics. It wasn’t just in the U.S. that fake news was making headlines. In the period leading up to the U.K.’s Brexit referendum or the Philippines’ election of hardliner Rodrigo Duterte or, most recently, Brazil’s election of Jair Bolsonaro, users turned to Facebook or its other apps — Instagram and WhatsApp — to share hyper partisan or fake political news. In a horrifying turn of events, fake news was even spread on Facebook as the pretext for ethnic cleansing, as was the case in Myanmar.” (Anna Hensel – Venture Beat)
Sites such as Facebook are largely responsible for creating the partisan environment that allows false information to spread online like a contagious virus. British filmmaker Adam Curtis aptly describes the process in his 2016 documentary, “Hypernormalisation,” telling how the algorithms and filters on social media have gravely limited the content people see.
“In the process, individuals began to move, without noticing, into bubbles that isolated them from enormous amounts of other information,” Curtis says. “They only heard and saw what they liked. And their news feeds increasingly excluded anything that might challenge peoples’ preexisting beliefs.” (Center for Digital Ethics and Policy)
Facebook dominates our culture in ways that are impossible to fully articulate. To claim with certainty that it didn’t influence the 2016 presidential election, or many other major events, is specious. The platform undoubtedly influences the world by virtue of its market and cultural dominance. If such domination is indeed Facebook’s goal, the company has an ethical obligation to ensure that its users are not totally misinformed. (David Stockdale – in an article for Center for Digital Ethics and Policy)
Zuckerberg and his merry band of bloodsucking vampires are at it again.
Facebook’s Zuckerberg, Sandberg could be found in contempt.
Starting today, the House of Commons’s privacy and ethics committee in Canada will be joined by elected officials from around the world to discuss data collection, privacy online and democracy.
The committee had extended invites to the some of the most well-known tech players, including Facebook, Twitter and Google. Senators and government officials from around the world are to join Canada’s privacy and ethics committee as they hear from witnesses.
When no one responded to the invitations, the committee voted to subpoena Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg to appear as witnesses.
“You have a company that acts with complete disregard for the democratic systems that we’ve put in place… To me that’s just unbelievable that a company could be that dismissive and I think they have to be held accountable.”
If Canada thinks that Zuckerberg, in all of his supreme smugness and arrogance, is going to pay attention to a Canadian subpoena, it has another think coming. What a joke. Last year lawmakers from nine countries were disappointed when Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg didn’t appear in front of an international hearing on Britain’s parliament on disinformation.
The Fakebook machine will continue to defy ethics and the law by providing a platform for artificial news, subliminal advertising, stealing of personal data, political manipulation, haters, gossipers, wannabes, posers, and all the rest of the fools out there who want to embrace that trash.
There is no dispute that the Facebook video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) viewed by millions is a fake, deliberately altered to make her appear drunk. YouTube acted fast and removed duplicates. Other social media outlets have not made the same call.
Facebook acknowledged the video is “false” but said the videos would remain on the platform.
Amid fierce calls across the public and government for Facebook to remove the video — which has been viewed 2.6 million times — and others like it, a Facebook official took to CNN on Friday to defend its decision.
Monika Bickert, a company vice president for product policy and counterterrorism, said the video was reviewed by fact-checking organizations, and after it deemed the video a hoax, the company “dramatically” reduced its distribution. But Facebook did not remove the video, Bickert said.
“We think it’s important for people to make their own informed choice for what to believe. Our job is to make sure we are getting them accurate information,” she said.
Zuckerberg and his band of henchmen are a bunch of lying evil SHYSTERS!