4 ms·

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

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!!

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!!