4 ms·

I agree with you. But the attorney for Cook County, who filed this absurd lawsuit, does not.

dragonwriter 9y ago
I don't see evidence for that. Particularly, I haven't seen any argument that Obama transferred information out of its app for other uses, instead of using it within the app in exactly the method allowed by FB’s public policies. While those policies may have been laxer than some would prefer, the Illinois lawsuit relied heavily on the fact that the info was used outside the parameters of those policies, while users were ensured it would be used only within the policies, and that FB was aware of the unauthorized use and failed to notify or arrest it, and indeed benefited from it. The thing that is charged as a violation is not “using Facebook data in an election campaign”, but “using personal data without even the kind of consent that comes from acting within public policied on how data will be used.”
- downandout 9y ago
  Particularly, I haven't seen any argument that Obama transferred information out of its app for other uses, instead of using it within the app in exactly the method allowed by FB’s public policies. That is actually not the case. The public policies at the time stated that the data gleaned from any app was to be used solely for the purpose of operating the app. Obama, however, with the full knowledge and consent of Facebook, used this data for campaign strategy and ad targeting. They downloaded the entire US social graph (also something no other app was allowed to do), and then used that data far outside of the publicly disclosed purposes. So if they can legitimately be sued for failing to do enough to stop Kogan/CA from using the data in violation of publicly stated policies, they suffer even more liability in the Obama case, as they were active and willing participants in Obama's activities that also violated the publicly stated policies.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > They downloaded the entire US social graph (also something no other app was allowed to do) That would be germane to a campaign finance complaint (this appears to be an issue of automatic flagging followed by discretionary response, which also happened in the CA case, and those are fraught because it's very hard to say that the terms and pricing were the same as generally available to other customers and not an in-kind donation of special services), but not to the kind of complaint being made here.
    - downandout 9y ago
      That would be germane to a campaign finance complaint That may be, but the crux of the complaint - allowing third parties to use data in a way that was not consistent with publicly disclosed policies - also occurred in the Obama case. The only difference seems to be that the actions of Facebook in assisting and endorsing the violations were willful in the Obama case, whereas the allegation seems to be that they were simply negligent in the Kogan/CA case.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > whereas the allegation seems to be that they were simply negligent in the Kogan/CA case. No, the allegations in the CA case—the specific lawsuit being discussed—is that they were willful and based on Facebook’s corporate strategy of selling itself on the basis of the platform as a tool to manipulate behavior.
        downandout 9y ago
        Which is also what the Obama campaign took advantage of. The victims of the Obama campaign - those that did not know that their data would be used in this way and did not authorize it - approximately 199 million people - all have causes of action against Facebook if this lawsuit is allowed to proceed.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Which is also what the Obama campaign took advantage of. I was refuting an alleged difference. > The victims of the Obama campaign - those that did not know that their data would be used in this way and did not authorize it - approximately 199 million people - all have causes of action against Facebook if this lawsuit is allowed to proceed. Well, no, even if we assume otherwise identical material facts, the state law in this case has a three-year statute of limitations for private causes of action. Also, the Obama 2008 and 2012 campaign committees presumably were dissolved years ago, so other than suing Facebook, there's no one to sue, even if the statute of limitations wasn't an issue.

I don't see evidence for that. Particularly, I haven't seen any argument that Obama transferred information out of its app for other uses, instead of using it within the app in exactly the method allowed by FB’s public policies. While those policies may have been laxer than some would prefer, the Illinois lawsuit relied heavily on the fact that the info was used outside the parameters of those policies, while users were ensured it would be used only within the policies, and that FB was aware of the unauthorized use and failed to notify or arrest it, and indeed benefited from it. The thing that is charged as a violation is not “using Facebook data in an election campaign”, but “using personal data without even the kind of consent that comes from acting within public policied on how data will be used.”

downandout 9y ago
Particularly, I haven't seen any argument that Obama transferred information out of its app for other uses, instead of using it within the app in exactly the method allowed by FB’s public policies. That is actually not the case. The public policies at the time stated that the data gleaned from any app was to be used solely for the purpose of operating the app. Obama, however, with the full knowledge and consent of Facebook, used this data for campaign strategy and ad targeting. They downloaded the entire US social graph (also something no other app was allowed to do), and then used that data far outside of the publicly disclosed purposes. So if they can legitimately be sued for failing to do enough to stop Kogan/CA from using the data in violation of publicly stated policies, they suffer even more liability in the Obama case, as they were active and willing participants in Obama's activities that also violated the publicly stated policies.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > They downloaded the entire US social graph (also something no other app was allowed to do) That would be germane to a campaign finance complaint (this appears to be an issue of automatic flagging followed by discretionary response, which also happened in the CA case, and those are fraught because it's very hard to say that the terms and pricing were the same as generally available to other customers and not an in-kind donation of special services), but not to the kind of complaint being made here.
  - downandout 9y ago
    That would be germane to a campaign finance complaint That may be, but the crux of the complaint - allowing third parties to use data in a way that was not consistent with publicly disclosed policies - also occurred in the Obama case. The only difference seems to be that the actions of Facebook in assisting and endorsing the violations were willful in the Obama case, whereas the allegation seems to be that they were simply negligent in the Kogan/CA case.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > whereas the allegation seems to be that they were simply negligent in the Kogan/CA case. No, the allegations in the CA case—the specific lawsuit being discussed—is that they were willful and based on Facebook’s corporate strategy of selling itself on the basis of the platform as a tool to manipulate behavior.
      - downandout 9y ago
        Which is also what the Obama campaign took advantage of. The victims of the Obama campaign - those that did not know that their data would be used in this way and did not authorize it - approximately 199 million people - all have causes of action against Facebook if this lawsuit is allowed to proceed.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Which is also what the Obama campaign took advantage of. I was refuting an alleged difference. > The victims of the Obama campaign - those that did not know that their data would be used in this way and did not authorize it - approximately 199 million people - all have causes of action against Facebook if this lawsuit is allowed to proceed. Well, no, even if we assume otherwise identical material facts, the state law in this case has a three-year statute of limitations for private causes of action. Also, the Obama 2008 and 2012 campaign committees presumably were dissolved years ago, so other than suing Facebook, there's no one to sue, even if the statute of limitations wasn't an issue.