5 ms·

Neither case was illegal, but Obama’s was far more invasive. What makes it so much worse is that Obama accessed 4x as many profiles as Kogan did, and they did i

Neither case was illegal, but Obama’s was far more invasive. What makes it so much worse is that Obama accessed 4x as many profiles as Kogan did, and they did it with Facebook’s blessings. This enabled them to keep the data current, while Trump’s dataset was both far smaller and years older than Obama’s by the time it was used. Sadly, there are still no apologies for the gross invasion of privacy that Zuckerberg authorized Obama to commit against ~200 million people, ~199 million of whom never authorized Obama to take their information. I hope one is forthcoming, but I won’t hold my breath.

mehrdadn 9y ago
The illegality I'm referring to was that CA falsely certified destruction of the data. My understanding is that was illegal, and people are mad at why Facebook made it that easy to lie and get away with it.
- downandout 9y ago
  It wasn’t “illegal” for them to not destroy the data. Kogan had a contractual duty to not sell it to CA, and Facebook can sue him for breach of that duty (and possibly CA for using it). But, at least under US law, nothing that occurred was “illegal”. What happened was a breach of a civil contract between two private parties - nothing more.
  - mehrdadn 9y ago
    EDIT: OK, I think I figured it out (I think I'd seen this but forgotten about it). It seems they say it was illegal because they believe campaign finance laws were violated. [1] Which, again, I understand was not the case for Obama, meaning equating the two would be incorrect. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/26/watchdog-says-cambridge-analytica-violated-us-election-law/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/26/watchdog-says-cambridge-... ________________________________________ Original comment: I assumed they meant it was fraud/perjury/something along those lines, not merely breach of contract. Otherwise, if not, then then what do news sources keep saying the obtaining and/or keeping of this data was illegal? (e.g. [1] [2]) [1] https://qz.com/1231643/cambridge-analytica-illegally-obtained-data-from-50-million-facebook-users-to-run-trump-ads/ https://qz.com/1231643/cambridge-analytica-illegally-obtaine... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analy...
    - downandout 9y ago
      These articles again throw around and conflate the words “illegal” and “violation of TOS” which are two vastly different things. I’m not an expert in EU privacy law, but under US law, nothing that has occurred here (that has been publicly disclosed) was “illegal”. There are certainly potential civil lawsuits here, but nothing “illegal”.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - mehrdadn 9y ago
        OK, I think I figured it out. See my edit.
        downandout 9y ago
        With regard to your edit... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16683742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16683742
        mehrdadn 9y ago
        Thanks for the response. You make good points; I guess we'll have to wait and see what gets uncovered. The most I know that has been uncovered so far is the admission by CA heads that they bribe officials [1], but given that it wasn't exactly a sworn testimony (or even a statement about a concrete case) I could see them getting away with it legally. [1] https://www.salon.com/2018/03/19/undercover-investigation-claims-cambridge-analytica-engages-in-illegal-tactics/ https://www.salon.com/2018/03/19/undercover-investigation-cl...
        mistermann 9y ago
        If this keeps up we may have a worldwide shortage of straws before too long!!
- mistermann 9y ago
  > My understanding is that was illegal, and people are mad at why Facebook made it that easy to lie and get away with it. Can you explain how you know specifically why people are mad, that it's not the ability for people to get their hands on this data at all, and not what was done with it, but actually at a nuanced difference in one step (between obtaining the data, and using it for election analytics)? I've read numerous people on HN stating with extreme certainty that they know precisely why people are mad (and why they are not), and how this difference in step 2 makes a comparison between the two situations completely invalid, but I don't follow the logic of either claim at all.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> Neither case was illegal Cambridge Analytica probably broke U.S. election laws [1]. The Obama campaign didn’t. This recurring false equivalence is disengenuois. [1] https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/exclusive-cambridge-analytica-accused-violating-us-election-laws/story?id=54010145 https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/exclusive-cambridge-anal...
- downandout 9y ago
  No finding has been made that they violated anything, nor is there anything suggesting that they "probably" violated anything. The article you linked to says that a radical left-wing group called Common Cause filed a complaint with the FEC saying that in their opinion, a violation has been committed. It means absolutely nothing at this point. This wasn't an action instigated by the FEC because a professional decided that there is probable cause to believe that something happened. This is more akin to a neighbor who was angry at not being invited to a party weeks earlier calling the police and filing a false noise complaint. Finally, the equivalence is that Obama used the data outside of the Facebook developer TOS at the time, which stated that the data acquired through the API was supposed to only be used for the operation of their apps. By all accounts, including celebratory news articles sourced directly from campaign staffers, they used that data in violation of the developer TOS for campaign strategy and ad targeting purposes - with great effect. ~199 million people that did not authorize Obama to have their data had it handed to him anyway, for the express purpose of defeating a candidate that about half of them wanted to be President. I'm not sure how that's not far worse than the CA situation.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Common Cause is a radical left-wing group? Since when? And by what definition?
    - downandout 9y ago
      The liberal media refers to them as "Left Center," [1] however I think by most reasonable individuals' definition, they'd be considered "left wing". Regardless, they are on the left side, as in, biased against the right. [1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-cause/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-cause/

mehrdadn 9y ago

The illegality I'm referring to was that CA falsely certified destruction of the data. My understanding is that was illegal, and people are mad at why Facebook made it that easy to lie and get away with it.

downandout 9y ago
It wasn’t “illegal” for them to not destroy the data. Kogan had a contractual duty to not sell it to CA, and Facebook can sue him for breach of that duty (and possibly CA for using it). But, at least under US law, nothing that occurred was “illegal”. What happened was a breach of a civil contract between two private parties - nothing more.
- mehrdadn 9y ago
  EDIT: OK, I think I figured it out (I think I'd seen this but forgotten about it). It seems they say it was illegal because they believe campaign finance laws were violated. [1] Which, again, I understand was not the case for Obama, meaning equating the two would be incorrect. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/26/watchdog-says-cambridge-analytica-violated-us-election-law/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/26/watchdog-says-cambridge-... ________________________________________ Original comment: I assumed they meant it was fraud/perjury/something along those lines, not merely breach of contract. Otherwise, if not, then then what do news sources keep saying the obtaining and/or keeping of this data was illegal? (e.g. [1] [2]) [1] https://qz.com/1231643/cambridge-analytica-illegally-obtained-data-from-50-million-facebook-users-to-run-trump-ads/ https://qz.com/1231643/cambridge-analytica-illegally-obtaine... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analy...
  - downandout 9y ago
    These articles again throw around and conflate the words “illegal” and “violation of TOS” which are two vastly different things. I’m not an expert in EU privacy law, but under US law, nothing that has occurred here (that has been publicly disclosed) was “illegal”. There are certainly potential civil lawsuits here, but nothing “illegal”.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - mehrdadn 9y ago
      OK, I think I figured it out. See my edit.
      - downandout 9y ago
        With regard to your edit... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16683742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16683742
        mehrdadn 9y ago
        Thanks for the response. You make good points; I guess we'll have to wait and see what gets uncovered. The most I know that has been uncovered so far is the admission by CA heads that they bribe officials [1], but given that it wasn't exactly a sworn testimony (or even a statement about a concrete case) I could see them getting away with it legally. [1] https://www.salon.com/2018/03/19/undercover-investigation-claims-cambridge-analytica-engages-in-illegal-tactics/ https://www.salon.com/2018/03/19/undercover-investigation-cl...
        mistermann 9y ago
        If this keeps up we may have a worldwide shortage of straws before too long!!
mistermann 9y ago
> My understanding is that was illegal, and people are mad at why Facebook made it that easy to lie and get away with it. Can you explain how you know specifically why people are mad, that it's not the ability for people to get their hands on this data at all, and not what was done with it, but actually at a nuanced difference in one step (between obtaining the data, and using it for election analytics)? I've read numerous people on HN stating with extreme certainty that they know precisely why people are mad (and why they are not), and how this difference in step 2 makes a comparison between the two situations completely invalid, but I don't follow the logic of either claim at all.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> Neither case was illegal Cambridge Analytica probably broke U.S. election laws [1]. The Obama campaign didn’t. This recurring false equivalence is disengenuois. [1] https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/exclusive-cambridge-analytica-accused-violating-us-election-laws/story?id=54010145 https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/exclusive-cambridge-anal...

downandout 9y ago
No finding has been made that they violated anything, nor is there anything suggesting that they "probably" violated anything. The article you linked to says that a radical left-wing group called Common Cause filed a complaint with the FEC saying that in their opinion, a violation has been committed. It means absolutely nothing at this point. This wasn't an action instigated by the FEC because a professional decided that there is probable cause to believe that something happened. This is more akin to a neighbor who was angry at not being invited to a party weeks earlier calling the police and filing a false noise complaint. Finally, the equivalence is that Obama used the data outside of the Facebook developer TOS at the time, which stated that the data acquired through the API was supposed to only be used for the operation of their apps. By all accounts, including celebratory news articles sourced directly from campaign staffers, they used that data in violation of the developer TOS for campaign strategy and ad targeting purposes - with great effect. ~199 million people that did not authorize Obama to have their data had it handed to him anyway, for the express purpose of defeating a candidate that about half of them wanted to be President. I'm not sure how that's not far worse than the CA situation.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Common Cause is a radical left-wing group? Since when? And by what definition?
  - downandout 9y ago
    The liberal media refers to them as "Left Center," [1] however I think by most reasonable individuals' definition, they'd be considered "left wing". Regardless, they are on the left side, as in, biased against the right. [1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-cause/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-cause/