13 ms·

There's breaking reporting that Facebook just had personnel in the Cambridge Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants. https:

by fooey 9y ago

There's breaking reporting that Facebook just had personnel in the Cambridge Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121 https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121 > BREAKING: Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office.. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975855218490519552?s=19 https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975855218490519552... > To be clear, @facebook was trying to "secure evidence" ahead of the UK authorities. Nice try, @facebook. The UK Information Commissioner's Office cracking whip...British legal investigation MUST take precedence over US multibillion $ company..... Something VERY wrong is going on at Facebook. edit, with another account: https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/975856097163702272 https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/975856097163702272 > Facebook have confirmed that auditors and legal counsel acting on behalf of the company were in the offices of Cambridge Analytica this evening until they were told to stand down by the Information Commissioner. These investigations need to be undertaken by the proper authorities

debt 9y ago
"Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office.." Uhh....that's not good. In effect, this is a sanctioned data breach. Facebook opened the firehouse of user data by knowingly keeping very lax access to their developer APIs while not at all preventing developers from storing the data they accessed. That's a very serious breach of consumer trust. A terms of service is only as good as your user's ability to understand it's implications. Just because users check a box doesn't mean Facebook is any less liable.
- DrScump 9y ago
  have now "stood down" ... which could mean simply that "we finished doing what we came to do".
zilchers 9y ago
I seriously feel like I’m missing something here, why isn’t Facebook fully behind getting to the bottom of this? Going back even further, why was it so difficult for them to even admit they had a problem during the election? I don’t think it’s as simple as “more money,” but maybe as simple as people too close to the problem and too enamored by what they’ve created?
- jnbiche 9y ago
  It could be that Facebook employees somehow got caught up in some of Cambridge Analytica's unethical activities, as recently revealed by an undercover Channel 4 investigation: https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to-entrap-politicians-investigation https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...
  - zilchers 9y ago
    Had not thought of that, though it would only really work if it was Zuck getting caught up, I don’t think a lower level person getting netted would change how he acts.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- fooey 9y ago
  Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended.
  - gowld 9y ago
    How? Facebook doesn't get paid when app-developers access users, do they? Wouldn't facebook make more money if CA was forced to go through FB's ad-targeting systems instead of CA's own offsite ad campaigns?
    - 9y ago
netsharc 9y ago
I'm no fan of Facebook, but if they have some sort of contract with CA, isn't it within their right to audit them? And if one company wanted to invite another for whatever collaboration, they should be allowed to. And if the collaboration is doing something illegal, obviously personnel from both companies should be charged. And FB can do whatever investigation it wants (as long it's legal) and the authorities are free to ignore their findings.
- celticninja 9y ago
  if there has been a breach of the law that takes precedence over contract law. If a criminal prosecution takes place and results in a conviction then it makes the civil case a much easier win (and less costly to as the government is doing the majority of the work).
  - prepend 9y ago
    Obstructing justice or going against a legal order takes precedence over contract law. But pretty much all laws take precedent over contract when the contract is in conflict. Facebook at CA isn’t illegal in and of itself. The important factor will be what they were doing.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  When police are involved that's one of those 'get in line' situations. I suspect the UK authorities are far more worried about the potential for destruction of evidence that they are in hampering an 'investigation' by FB.
  - Applejinx 9y ago
    I would think it was very likely that Facebook itself seeks to destroy evidence. They've got a much clearer sense of their culpability than any outsider would.
  - 9y ago
walshemj 9y ago
"stood down" sounds very waltish behavior to be.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> There's breaking reporting that Facebook just had personnel in the Cambridge Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants Do we have a reputable source corroborating this claim?
- arboroia 9y ago
  The tweets are from Carole Cadwalladr, a journalist at the Guardian working on Cambridge Analytica stories Twitter: https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla Guardian Profile: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/carolecadwalladr https://www.theguardian.com/profile/carolecadwalladr I'm sure we'll see an article published by the Guardian on it by the morning in the UK
mandeepj 9y ago
Facebook had enough time to cleanup this mess with Cambridge Analytica (CA). The news about how CA exploited their platform was out just after 2016 election results. If FB was even little bit serious about it they could have done at that time what they are doing now
- dpwm 9y ago
  Perhaps Facebook were contacted for comment on the Channel 4 story (in which CA's CEO suggested something that sounded a lot like sex trafficking Ukranians in to Sri Lanka to help a fictional Sri Lankan businessman discredit his opponents) and by BBC's Newsnight (in which the CEO was interviewed before the Channel 4 interview aired but was to be shown at 22.30 GMT) and realised that something big was going down involving CA.
- daodedickinson 9y ago
  It's not an "exploit". This stuff was freely given to Obama back in 2012. My best friend was a canvasser and before going into each house, the iPad they used told canvassers what to talk about and not to talk about. It knew who was pro-life so you wouldn't bring up abortion. It knows who's pregnant and who's recently had an abortion (you can get this through knowing what purchases someone has made and not made). There is a file on everybody, their intricate political and consumer dispositions, and this is Facebook's product. CA has blown up in the news despite being only one of many consumers of the same thing because journalists can make the technically true charge that they are "Trump’s election consultants" and millions are primed to go apeshit at that. But CA is just one of many buying the unethical products, and Facebook is just one of many producers of these data sets.
  - jbooth 9y ago
    That's not facebook data, that's DNC/Obama data, accumulated over time by other canvassers including your friend. They've done that since before Facebook even existed. Facebook's product is not selling that data, it's selling ads using the data. You can only sell the data once, you can sell the ads forever.
laythea 9y ago
Authorities cannot get in until an estimated Wednesday. Tomorrow, they will apply for a warrant from the court, as they did not get sufficient answers to questions previously asked. Now Facebook has moved tonight to go into the London offices. I wonder what they are doing.
- cmpxchg 9y ago
  Do you have a source for this? It sounds a bit hard to believe. If the police believe that evidence was/is at risk of being destroyed (as you are implying), they could get an emergency search warrant immediately, even outside normal court hours. In the U.S., there are magistrate (warrant) judges on call overnight for exactly this type of situation; I imagine a similar system exists in the UK.
  - laythea 9y ago
    Yes, I seen the lady in charge of the regulator (not police) on Channel 4 news (here in UK), stating that she will likely be in on Wed and they cant walk in right now. See for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700
Khaine 9y ago
Thats some shady shit
lsh123 9y ago
Just curious, what authority does FB have to have the personnel in CA offices? Why didn't CA simply call the cops to get them out?
- mrtksn 9y ago
  According to the statement by FB, they just asked CA politely.
- notahacker 9y ago
  I would assume the banal reality is that they heard a lot of adverse publicity about someone who was a major client including claims they'd breached Facebook guidelines around storing data taken from APIs, and demanded a meeting. Which CA, who don't really want to get kicked off Facebook's platform, were happy to oblige, whether they were prepared to disclose much information or not. Of course, when the ICO gets involved then whether CA breached Facebook's EULA or not is moot, and Facebook become relevant only inasmuch as the question of whether their own executives breached or encouraged breaches of data protection laws.
- strathmeyer 9y ago
  Are people having a hard time understand a criminal conspiracy?
- rmc 9y ago
  Maybe CA & FB are friends here and looking after each other.
cryoshon 9y ago
they were destroying evidence, of course. hopefully the people responsible will go to prison for interfering with the investigation.
mirimir 9y ago
That is just bloody incredible! Talk about ham-handed CYA bullshit. This is plainly evidence destruction, no?
downandout 9y ago
I’m stunned that this didn’t end with the Facebook crew being arrested for trespassing. Is it legal in the U.K. for a mob of people with no legal authority to walk into a private business and demand anything from anyone?
switch007 9y ago
ICO cracking whip, lol. Let's not pretend the ICO has unlimited funds, people and legal resources to install the fear of God in to companies. Like many other departments and organisations, it's been badly hit by "austerity" measures. It's mostly funded by organisations that process data, plus some grants from the Ministry of Justice for Freedom of information work, the latter affected by "significant reductions ... for our current levels of FOI work" Their current full year budget forecast is £25M (and costs of £26M) > Elizabeth Denham [the Information Commissioner] says it's nonsense to suggest her office will be handing out huge fines routinely once the General Data Protection Regulation comes into force. "Predictions of massive fines under the GDPR that simply scale up penalties we’ve issued under the Data Protection Act are nonsense."
- rmc 9y ago
  The GDPR is mostly the same EU data protection law, but one new part is that civic organisations/NGOs/consumer organisations are allowed to sue the companies to enforce privacy law. So the ICO might do nothing. But Max Schrem's new org NOYB might.
mcintyre1994 9y ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-40852227/the-digital-guru-who-helped-donald-trump-to-the-presidency http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-40852227/the-digital-g... It's worth rewatching this video: specifically, Project Alamo (Trump's digital campaign) had Cambridge Analytica inhouse, and they had their Facebook/Google staff in the same building. It's easy to imagine that people at Facebook knew what data CA had, and have knowingly lied since.

by fooey 9y ago

debt 9y ago

"Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office.." Uhh....that's not good. In effect, this is a sanctioned data breach. Facebook opened the firehouse of user data by knowingly keeping very lax access to their developer APIs while not at all preventing developers from storing the data they accessed. That's a very serious breach of consumer trust. A terms of service is only as good as your user's ability to understand it's implications. Just because users check a box doesn't mean Facebook is any less liable.

DrScump 9y ago
have now "stood down" ... which could mean simply that "we finished doing what we came to do".

zilchers 9y ago

I seriously feel like I’m missing something here, why isn’t Facebook fully behind getting to the bottom of this? Going back even further, why was it so difficult for them to even admit they had a problem during the election? I don’t think it’s as simple as “more money,” but maybe as simple as people too close to the problem and too enamored by what they’ve created?

jnbiche 9y ago
It could be that Facebook employees somehow got caught up in some of Cambridge Analytica's unethical activities, as recently revealed by an undercover Channel 4 investigation: https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to-entrap-politicians-investigation https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...
- zilchers 9y ago
  Had not thought of that, though it would only really work if it was Zuck getting caught up, I don’t think a lower level person getting netted would change how he acts.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fooey 9y ago
Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended.
- gowld 9y ago
  How? Facebook doesn't get paid when app-developers access users, do they? Wouldn't facebook make more money if CA was forced to go through FB's ad-targeting systems instead of CA's own offsite ad campaigns?
  - 9y ago

netsharc 9y ago

I'm no fan of Facebook, but if they have some sort of contract with CA, isn't it within their right to audit them? And if one company wanted to invite another for whatever collaboration, they should be allowed to. And if the collaboration is doing something illegal, obviously personnel from both companies should be charged. And FB can do whatever investigation it wants (as long it's legal) and the authorities are free to ignore their findings.

celticninja 9y ago
if there has been a breach of the law that takes precedence over contract law. If a criminal prosecution takes place and results in a conviction then it makes the civil case a much easier win (and less costly to as the government is doing the majority of the work).
- prepend 9y ago
  Obstructing justice or going against a legal order takes precedence over contract law. But pretty much all laws take precedent over contract when the contract is in conflict. Facebook at CA isn’t illegal in and of itself. The important factor will be what they were doing.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
anigbrowl 9y ago
When police are involved that's one of those 'get in line' situations. I suspect the UK authorities are far more worried about the potential for destruction of evidence that they are in hampering an 'investigation' by FB.
- Applejinx 9y ago
  I would think it was very likely that Facebook itself seeks to destroy evidence. They've got a much clearer sense of their culpability than any outsider would.
- 9y ago

walshemj 9y ago

"stood down" sounds very waltish behavior to be.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> There's breaking reporting that Facebook just had personnel in the Cambridge Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants Do we have a reputable source corroborating this claim?

arboroia 9y ago
The tweets are from Carole Cadwalladr, a journalist at the Guardian working on Cambridge Analytica stories Twitter: https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla Guardian Profile: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/carolecadwalladr https://www.theguardian.com/profile/carolecadwalladr I'm sure we'll see an article published by the Guardian on it by the morning in the UK

mandeepj 9y ago

Facebook had enough time to cleanup this mess with Cambridge Analytica (CA). The news about how CA exploited their platform was out just after 2016 election results. If FB was even little bit serious about it they could have done at that time what they are doing now

dpwm 9y ago
Perhaps Facebook were contacted for comment on the Channel 4 story (in which CA's CEO suggested something that sounded a lot like sex trafficking Ukranians in to Sri Lanka to help a fictional Sri Lankan businessman discredit his opponents) and by BBC's Newsnight (in which the CEO was interviewed before the Channel 4 interview aired but was to be shown at 22.30 GMT) and realised that something big was going down involving CA.
daodedickinson 9y ago
It's not an "exploit". This stuff was freely given to Obama back in 2012. My best friend was a canvasser and before going into each house, the iPad they used told canvassers what to talk about and not to talk about. It knew who was pro-life so you wouldn't bring up abortion. It knows who's pregnant and who's recently had an abortion (you can get this through knowing what purchases someone has made and not made). There is a file on everybody, their intricate political and consumer dispositions, and this is Facebook's product. CA has blown up in the news despite being only one of many consumers of the same thing because journalists can make the technically true charge that they are "Trump’s election consultants" and millions are primed to go apeshit at that. But CA is just one of many buying the unethical products, and Facebook is just one of many producers of these data sets.
- jbooth 9y ago
  That's not facebook data, that's DNC/Obama data, accumulated over time by other canvassers including your friend. They've done that since before Facebook even existed. Facebook's product is not selling that data, it's selling ads using the data. You can only sell the data once, you can sell the ads forever.

laythea 9y ago

Authorities cannot get in until an estimated Wednesday. Tomorrow, they will apply for a warrant from the court, as they did not get sufficient answers to questions previously asked. Now Facebook has moved tonight to go into the London offices. I wonder what they are doing.

cmpxchg 9y ago
Do you have a source for this? It sounds a bit hard to believe. If the police believe that evidence was/is at risk of being destroyed (as you are implying), they could get an emergency search warrant immediately, even outside normal court hours. In the U.S., there are magistrate (warrant) judges on call overnight for exactly this type of situation; I imagine a similar system exists in the UK.
- laythea 9y ago
  Yes, I seen the lady in charge of the regulator (not police) on Channel 4 news (here in UK), stating that she will likely be in on Wed and they cant walk in right now. See for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700

Khaine 9y ago

Thats some shady shit

lsh123 9y ago

Just curious, what authority does FB have to have the personnel in CA offices? Why didn't CA simply call the cops to get them out?

mrtksn 9y ago
According to the statement by FB, they just asked CA politely.
notahacker 9y ago
I would assume the banal reality is that they heard a lot of adverse publicity about someone who was a major client including claims they'd breached Facebook guidelines around storing data taken from APIs, and demanded a meeting. Which CA, who don't really want to get kicked off Facebook's platform, were happy to oblige, whether they were prepared to disclose much information or not. Of course, when the ICO gets involved then whether CA breached Facebook's EULA or not is moot, and Facebook become relevant only inasmuch as the question of whether their own executives breached or encouraged breaches of data protection laws.
strathmeyer 9y ago
Are people having a hard time understand a criminal conspiracy?
rmc 9y ago
Maybe CA & FB are friends here and looking after each other.

cryoshon 9y ago

they were destroying evidence, of course. hopefully the people responsible will go to prison for interfering with the investigation.

mirimir 9y ago

That is just bloody incredible! Talk about ham-handed CYA bullshit. This is plainly evidence destruction, no?

downandout 9y ago

I’m stunned that this didn’t end with the Facebook crew being arrested for trespassing. Is it legal in the U.K. for a mob of people with no legal authority to walk into a private business and demand anything from anyone?

switch007 9y ago

ICO cracking whip, lol. Let's not pretend the ICO has unlimited funds, people and legal resources to install the fear of God in to companies. Like many other departments and organisations, it's been badly hit by "austerity" measures. It's mostly funded by organisations that process data, plus some grants from the Ministry of Justice for Freedom of information work, the latter affected by "significant reductions ... for our current levels of FOI work" Their current full year budget forecast is £25M (and costs of £26M) > Elizabeth Denham [the Information Commissioner] says it's nonsense to suggest her office will be handing out huge fines routinely once the General Data Protection Regulation comes into force. "Predictions of massive fines under the GDPR that simply scale up penalties we’ve issued under the Data Protection Act are nonsense."

rmc 9y ago
The GDPR is mostly the same EU data protection law, but one new part is that civic organisations/NGOs/consumer organisations are allowed to sue the companies to enforce privacy law. So the ICO might do nothing. But Max Schrem's new org NOYB might.

mcintyre1994 9y ago

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-40852227/the-digital-guru-who-helped-donald-trump-to-the-presidency http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-40852227/the-digital-g... It's worth rewatching this video: specifically, Project Alamo (Trump's digital campaign) had Cambridge Analytica inhouse, and they had their Facebook/Google staff in the same building. It's easy to imagine that people at Facebook knew what data CA had, and have knowingly lied since.