12 ms·

"... we immediately banned Kogan's app from our platform, and demanded that Kogan and Cambridge Analytica formally certify that they had deleted all improperly

"... we immediately banned Kogan's app from our platform, and demanded that Kogan and Cambridge Analytica formally certify that they had deleted all improperly acquired data. They provided these certifications." How is it at all possible to certify that data has been deleted and no copies were taken..?

ProAm 9y ago
He "trusts them" [1] [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims...
- isoprophlex 9y ago
  Like we should trust him.
  - archerface 9y ago
    On that note, saw this on Reddit this morning: https://www.reddit.com/r/quotes/comments/8605g9/people_just_submitted_it_i_dont_know_why_they/ https://www.reddit.com/r/quotes/comments/8605g9/people_just_...
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't; that just leads to the same discussion over and over, which makes it off topic for HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16616988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16616988). There's tons of substance to be discussed here without reaching for the global hash table (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9722096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9722096). Fortunately the community has mostly been doing that, but let's not spoil it.
  - ProAm 9y ago
    @dang - Normally I agree with you, but I do feel in this instance, especially in regards to him trusting (or once trusting) a third party with his data that the quote is appropriate. It wasn't a troll comment to any HN'er but more of an observation of the pot calling the kettle black. Zuckerberg is absolutely 'trusting' that CA has deleted the data that they gained from FB. While it may be often brought up on HN, its one of Zuckerberg more profound quotes (especially in regards to privacy of information) and speaks to how he sees the world, the difference now is he's on the other side of the coin and we are getting to watch him deal with it.
    - dang 9y ago
      You've made a better case for it than I'd imagined! But is it necessary? IMO the damage of internet shame-memeing is larger than the local benefit. The point isn't to defend Zuckerberg, btw; it's to defend the quality of this community. If we're to realize our dreams of doing marginally better than internet median, we need people to check their worst instincts here.
philippnagel 9y ago
"formally". Technically you cannot.
threebody 9y ago
The definition of certify here is to "attest or confirm in a formal statement." So, Cambridge Analytica could be sued if they lied in such a statement.
- chubasco 9y ago
  This may be possible, however it is going to be interesting to see how Facebook gets standing to sue CA. From what I understood from Zuckerberg's statement, the agreement was between Facebook and Kogan. If CA got the data from Kogan, it seems like Facebook wouldn't have standing to go after CA directly. I haven't seen the specific agreements made by each party in this case, so I can't say for sure, but traditionally I think Facebook could only go after Kogan, who then may be able to go after CA depending on the specifics of their agreement.
  - tantalor 9y ago
    > Facebook wouldn't have standing to go after CA directly Seems to be plain copyright infringement... FB licensed the data to Kogan, not CA, hence CA violates FB's copyright on the data.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> How is it at all possible to certify that data has been deleted and no copies were taken..? By, e.g., signing a paper which says that. You probably meant how can you know that, which is a different issue than how can you certify it, and which amounts to a question of degree of internal accountability and control of data access. Certification is about assuming responsibility for the truth of the thing certified, which doesn't actually require knowing it (though obviously knowing it to a reasonable degree of certainty makes it more comfortable to certify it.)
product50 9y ago
Fwiw, Cambridge Analytica still maintains that they don't have any copy of FB data and are open to do a forensic test by a FB appointed team.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  Given their CEO's bragging about extortion, blackmail and prostitution/pandering I'd give their assurances almost no value at all.
  - product50 9y ago
    Hopefully the tests will prove that clearly.
- anonnel 9y ago
  A “forensic test” to check that they didn’t copy and hang on to some data in 2013 ... well I’m reassured.
  - product50 9y ago
    Do you have a better idea? Be productive with your comments vs. just being a hater.
    - anonnel 9y ago
      They are well aware there is no way to assure they haven’t copied data 5 years ago. Pointing that out with rightful indigence is not “being a hater”. (which isn’t a trope that belongs in reasonable conversation)
      - product50 9y ago
        Unless you have some sort of background in this area, I don't know why I should trust you. Your argument is - yeah sure, this is a bogus exercise, and then you are expecting people to fall in line with you. That is not how you build trust or win debates. I am hopeful they will find something useful.
bluetwo 9y ago
It's called "manufactured credibility" and it's about as worthless as the paper it is written on.
- xkjkls 9y ago
  It's as credible as any other legal agreement we have in our society.
  - bluetwo 9y ago
    Not exactly true. Many things that are important are audited or inspected, not simply signed off on.
    - xkjkls 9y ago
      True, but audits aren't necessarily guarantees of anything either, and also rely on a certain amount of trust and disclosure that those being auditing aren't actively trying to game the audit.
      - bluetwo 9y ago
        It's how society monitors things it cares about.
  - netsharc 9y ago
    "Yes I am over 18".
itp 9y ago
This feels strange to those of us from technical spheres, but much of the world works without formal verification of facts. There are in theory severe penalties, both implicit and explicit, that ostensibly act as deterrent to bad actors. This is usually only noteworthy when it fails, but by and large it works. The friction involved if we did not generally accept someone's (signed, notarized, appropriately formalized) word as bond would cause our world to grind to a halt.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > This feels strange to those of us from technical spheres, but much of the world works without formal verification of facts. Including many technical spheres, and particularly including the vast majority of the software world; formal verification exists in software, of course, but is most notable in not being used for most of it. Yet, even without that, there's usually a release process that includes the moral equivalent of a certification—without formal verification or certain knowledge—that the software does what it is supposed to.
- lisper 9y ago
  This predisposition to believe our fellow humans is actually hard-coded into our genes. This is one of the reasons it's so easy to spread fake news. The ability to lie to someone without direct consequences to yourself (because, for example, you are thousands of miles away) was not part of our ancestral environment, but it is part of our contemporary one, and some of us are exploiting this newly created ecological niche.
  - TangoTrotFox 9y ago
    I'm going to have request a source here, because this doesn't make much sense. We've spent very nearly all of our evolutionary time pillaging, raping, and murdering each other - not exactly singing kumbaya. There's tribal instinctual stuff that would include 'in-group' trust, but that's something far and away from trusting a person because they're a person as you're implying. 'Fake news' takes advantage of something much more simple. People believe what they want to believe. In other words the people led on by fake news tend to already want to believe what the news is about. When we see something that confirms our biases, many of us don't question it. And this is made even worse since people tend to work as apologists for fake news from sources they like, so instead of being able to discuss the issue of fake news - it ends up dividing people into splits on the 'fake' topic at hand, which in contemporary times is most often political.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vermontdevil 9y ago
Even if CA deleted their data, what about all the other data that has been taken out as per this [1]? All our data associated with FB unique id is out there. My understanding this has stopped in 2015 but for sure? Hopefully the data that is out there becomes less relevant over time. [1] https://medium.com/@jamesallworth/what-the-f-was-facebook-thinking-a1c49dbf29c2 https://medium.com/@jamesallworth/what-the-f-was-facebook-th...
- shostack 9y ago
  And just wait till it is joined up with the Equifax data and the Spectrum Health data. Fun times ahead for sure!
oh_sigh 9y ago
Along those lines, how is it possible for Facebook to demand that CA deleted the data, when CA is a third party and never had any kind of agreement with facebook(at least, relating to the information Kogan shared)? If someone leaks facebook data to a journalist, can FB demand that they delete it as well?
- nuclear_eclipse 9y ago
  Anyone can "demand" anything they want; many times it's up to the recipient to decide whether or not they comply with said demands.
- astrange 9y ago
  CA is a major customer of Facebook whose work has no free press implications. They can ask them to do whatever they want.
jd20 9y ago
I think it's the very fact that they cannot truly verify, which is why Facebook is so willing to go through the motions. In reality, they know many developers will not comply, but they can claim they did everything humanly possible before a grand jury. It costs Facebook nothing to ask developers to sign a contract written on virtual paper, yet can be used as a defense to cover their butt further down the line.

ProAm 9y ago

He "trusts them" [1] [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims...

isoprophlex 9y ago
Like we should trust him.
- archerface 9y ago
  On that note, saw this on Reddit this morning: https://www.reddit.com/r/quotes/comments/8605g9/people_just_submitted_it_i_dont_know_why_they/ https://www.reddit.com/r/quotes/comments/8605g9/people_just_...
dang 9y ago
Please don't; that just leads to the same discussion over and over, which makes it off topic for HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16616988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16616988). There's tons of substance to be discussed here without reaching for the global hash table (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9722096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9722096). Fortunately the community has mostly been doing that, but let's not spoil it.
- ProAm 9y ago
  @dang - Normally I agree with you, but I do feel in this instance, especially in regards to him trusting (or once trusting) a third party with his data that the quote is appropriate. It wasn't a troll comment to any HN'er but more of an observation of the pot calling the kettle black. Zuckerberg is absolutely 'trusting' that CA has deleted the data that they gained from FB. While it may be often brought up on HN, its one of Zuckerberg more profound quotes (especially in regards to privacy of information) and speaks to how he sees the world, the difference now is he's on the other side of the coin and we are getting to watch him deal with it.
  - dang 9y ago
    You've made a better case for it than I'd imagined! But is it necessary? IMO the damage of internet shame-memeing is larger than the local benefit. The point isn't to defend Zuckerberg, btw; it's to defend the quality of this community. If we're to realize our dreams of doing marginally better than internet median, we need people to check their worst instincts here.

philippnagel 9y ago

"formally". Technically you cannot.

threebody 9y ago

The definition of certify here is to "attest or confirm in a formal statement." So, Cambridge Analytica could be sued if they lied in such a statement.

chubasco 9y ago
This may be possible, however it is going to be interesting to see how Facebook gets standing to sue CA. From what I understood from Zuckerberg's statement, the agreement was between Facebook and Kogan. If CA got the data from Kogan, it seems like Facebook wouldn't have standing to go after CA directly. I haven't seen the specific agreements made by each party in this case, so I can't say for sure, but traditionally I think Facebook could only go after Kogan, who then may be able to go after CA depending on the specifics of their agreement.
- tantalor 9y ago
  > Facebook wouldn't have standing to go after CA directly Seems to be plain copyright infringement... FB licensed the data to Kogan, not CA, hence CA violates FB's copyright on the data.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> How is it at all possible to certify that data has been deleted and no copies were taken..? By, e.g., signing a paper which says that. You probably meant how can you know that, which is a different issue than how can you certify it, and which amounts to a question of degree of internal accountability and control of data access. Certification is about assuming responsibility for the truth of the thing certified, which doesn't actually require knowing it (though obviously knowing it to a reasonable degree of certainty makes it more comfortable to certify it.)

product50 9y ago

Fwiw, Cambridge Analytica still maintains that they don't have any copy of FB data and are open to do a forensic test by a FB appointed team.

wavefunction 9y ago
Given their CEO's bragging about extortion, blackmail and prostitution/pandering I'd give their assurances almost no value at all.
- product50 9y ago
  Hopefully the tests will prove that clearly.
anonnel 9y ago
A “forensic test” to check that they didn’t copy and hang on to some data in 2013 ... well I’m reassured.
- product50 9y ago
  Do you have a better idea? Be productive with your comments vs. just being a hater.
  - anonnel 9y ago
    They are well aware there is no way to assure they haven’t copied data 5 years ago. Pointing that out with rightful indigence is not “being a hater”. (which isn’t a trope that belongs in reasonable conversation)
    - product50 9y ago
      Unless you have some sort of background in this area, I don't know why I should trust you. Your argument is - yeah sure, this is a bogus exercise, and then you are expecting people to fall in line with you. That is not how you build trust or win debates. I am hopeful they will find something useful.

bluetwo 9y ago

It's called "manufactured credibility" and it's about as worthless as the paper it is written on.

xkjkls 9y ago
It's as credible as any other legal agreement we have in our society.
- bluetwo 9y ago
  Not exactly true. Many things that are important are audited or inspected, not simply signed off on.
  - xkjkls 9y ago
    True, but audits aren't necessarily guarantees of anything either, and also rely on a certain amount of trust and disclosure that those being auditing aren't actively trying to game the audit.
    - bluetwo 9y ago
      It's how society monitors things it cares about.
- netsharc 9y ago
  "Yes I am over 18".

itp 9y ago

This feels strange to those of us from technical spheres, but much of the world works without formal verification of facts. There are in theory severe penalties, both implicit and explicit, that ostensibly act as deterrent to bad actors. This is usually only noteworthy when it fails, but by and large it works. The friction involved if we did not generally accept someone's (signed, notarized, appropriately formalized) word as bond would cause our world to grind to a halt.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> This feels strange to those of us from technical spheres, but much of the world works without formal verification of facts. Including many technical spheres, and particularly including the vast majority of the software world; formal verification exists in software, of course, but is most notable in not being used for most of it. Yet, even without that, there's usually a release process that includes the moral equivalent of a certification—without formal verification or certain knowledge—that the software does what it is supposed to.
lisper 9y ago
This predisposition to believe our fellow humans is actually hard-coded into our genes. This is one of the reasons it's so easy to spread fake news. The ability to lie to someone without direct consequences to yourself (because, for example, you are thousands of miles away) was not part of our ancestral environment, but it is part of our contemporary one, and some of us are exploiting this newly created ecological niche.
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  I'm going to have request a source here, because this doesn't make much sense. We've spent very nearly all of our evolutionary time pillaging, raping, and murdering each other - not exactly singing kumbaya. There's tribal instinctual stuff that would include 'in-group' trust, but that's something far and away from trusting a person because they're a person as you're implying. 'Fake news' takes advantage of something much more simple. People believe what they want to believe. In other words the people led on by fake news tend to already want to believe what the news is about. When we see something that confirms our biases, many of us don't question it. And this is made even worse since people tend to work as apologists for fake news from sources they like, so instead of being able to discuss the issue of fake news - it ends up dividing people into splits on the 'fake' topic at hand, which in contemporary times is most often political.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

vermontdevil 9y ago

Even if CA deleted their data, what about all the other data that has been taken out as per this [1]? All our data associated with FB unique id is out there. My understanding this has stopped in 2015 but for sure? Hopefully the data that is out there becomes less relevant over time. [1] https://medium.com/@jamesallworth/what-the-f-was-facebook-thinking-a1c49dbf29c2 https://medium.com/@jamesallworth/what-the-f-was-facebook-th...

shostack 9y ago
And just wait till it is joined up with the Equifax data and the Spectrum Health data. Fun times ahead for sure!

oh_sigh 9y ago

Along those lines, how is it possible for Facebook to demand that CA deleted the data, when CA is a third party and never had any kind of agreement with facebook(at least, relating to the information Kogan shared)? If someone leaks facebook data to a journalist, can FB demand that they delete it as well?

nuclear_eclipse 9y ago
Anyone can "demand" anything they want; many times it's up to the recipient to decide whether or not they comply with said demands.
astrange 9y ago
CA is a major customer of Facebook whose work has no free press implications. They can ask them to do whatever they want.

jd20 9y ago

I think it's the very fact that they cannot truly verify, which is why Facebook is so willing to go through the motions. In reality, they know many developers will not comply, but they can claim they did everything humanly possible before a grand jury. It costs Facebook nothing to ask developers to sign a contract written on virtual paper, yet can be used as a defense to cover their butt further down the line.