5 ms·

I guess I'm still confused about this matter. As I understand it, nothing was exploited. A company used intrinsic capabilities of the system to do a job. Are we

I guess I'm still confused about this matter. As I understand it, nothing was exploited. A company used intrinsic capabilities of the system to do a job. Are we just raising the question of whether this is an appropriate business model? I suppose that's a good discussion to have. I'm just a bit miffed that we're effectively holding another obscenities hearing while the only thing going on with the Equifax debacle is that a tech manager has been charged with insider trading.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dfxm12 9y ago
nothing was exploited Assuming you're only considering the computer security definition of "exploit", I'm not totally sure why this matters. User data was obtained via means not allowed by Facebook. Facebook realized this & didn't disclose it to the US government or its users, as required (or, at the very least questionably required) by its consent decree with the FTC. Based on this, it's not out of line for the government to question Facebook about this.
- ibejoeb 9y ago
  >User data was obtained via means not allowed by Facebook That's what I'm asking. 1) Is it alleged that CA found a flaw in FB's design and 2) did something illegal with it? I've seen accounts alluding to that, but that makes me think that it is entirely by design and it's just be framed negatively for the greatest political impact.
  - dljsjr 9y ago
    It's illegal for foreign nationals to make direct or indirect contributions to US politics. So the line that has to be drawn is one connecting that law to the CA scandal and its alleged use to drive the strategies of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. I don't know for sure if Facebook can be seen as being complicit in breaking US election law. I think their issues are completely domestic as it stands right now. But I'm not a lawyer.
    - ibejoeb 9y ago
      It's all fascinating. How do we reconcile a facebook bot account that may be, at best, loosely tied to Russia, according to some speculators with a foreign national and intelligence officer, Richard Steele, compiling a op report on the Republican presidential candidate?
      - ibejoeb 9y ago
        Ahh, the phantom downvotes. Would you like to address my point? Why is it okay that a foreign national campaigns for one candidate and another foreign national campaigns for another?
m52go 9y ago
The way Cambridge Analytica's got its data was a little nefarious...as I understand it, they obtained data through ways Facebook discouraged (but still enabled). Whether you consider that an 'exploit' or not is subjective. It's certainly not an 'exploit' in the more common infosec sense. But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald Trump. It's political.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  >But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald Trump. It's political. This bit is really terrifying to me. I don't support Trump, but the idea that we're going to make it even harder for "unapproved" political candidates should make everyone's skin crawl.
  - sincerely 9y ago
    I thought the issue was that foreign actors were able to use Facebook to push for their candidate of choice, not that Trump was "unapproved" (why do you use quotes? that phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the comment you're responding to).
    - ibejoeb 9y ago
      Why is it important that Facebook was the medium? Zuck just done saying that they identified 400-500 Russian accounts the were politically active. The "unapproved" in quotes part there is that these are Russians. Simultaneously, there were tens of thousands of foreign nationals demonstrating in the streets of major cities all over the country, and this is "approved." This is why I'm left wondering: what are we after?
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      I don't believe for a second that this much fuss would have been made over this issue if Trump had lost the election. Some law enforcement action may have been taken, but it wouldn't have been front page news. The reason for my quotes is that Trump is "unapproved" which is the explanation for the scale of the reaction. I don't particularly approve of him either, but considering the real motivations of the people writing regulation is important.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dfxm12 9y ago

nothing was exploited Assuming you're only considering the computer security definition of "exploit", I'm not totally sure why this matters. User data was obtained via means not allowed by Facebook. Facebook realized this & didn't disclose it to the US government or its users, as required (or, at the very least questionably required) by its consent decree with the FTC. Based on this, it's not out of line for the government to question Facebook about this.

ibejoeb 9y ago
>User data was obtained via means not allowed by Facebook That's what I'm asking. 1) Is it alleged that CA found a flaw in FB's design and 2) did something illegal with it? I've seen accounts alluding to that, but that makes me think that it is entirely by design and it's just be framed negatively for the greatest political impact.
- dljsjr 9y ago
  It's illegal for foreign nationals to make direct or indirect contributions to US politics. So the line that has to be drawn is one connecting that law to the CA scandal and its alleged use to drive the strategies of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. I don't know for sure if Facebook can be seen as being complicit in breaking US election law. I think their issues are completely domestic as it stands right now. But I'm not a lawyer.
  - ibejoeb 9y ago
    It's all fascinating. How do we reconcile a facebook bot account that may be, at best, loosely tied to Russia, according to some speculators with a foreign national and intelligence officer, Richard Steele, compiling a op report on the Republican presidential candidate?
    - ibejoeb 9y ago
      Ahh, the phantom downvotes. Would you like to address my point? Why is it okay that a foreign national campaigns for one candidate and another foreign national campaigns for another?

m52go 9y ago

The way Cambridge Analytica's got its data was a little nefarious...as I understand it, they obtained data through ways Facebook discouraged (but still enabled). Whether you consider that an 'exploit' or not is subjective. It's certainly not an 'exploit' in the more common infosec sense. But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald Trump. It's political.

Consultant32452 9y ago
>But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald Trump. It's political. This bit is really terrifying to me. I don't support Trump, but the idea that we're going to make it even harder for "unapproved" political candidates should make everyone's skin crawl.
- sincerely 9y ago
  I thought the issue was that foreign actors were able to use Facebook to push for their candidate of choice, not that Trump was "unapproved" (why do you use quotes? that phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the comment you're responding to).
  - ibejoeb 9y ago
    Why is it important that Facebook was the medium? Zuck just done saying that they identified 400-500 Russian accounts the were politically active. The "unapproved" in quotes part there is that these are Russians. Simultaneously, there were tens of thousands of foreign nationals demonstrating in the streets of major cities all over the country, and this is "approved." This is why I'm left wondering: what are we after?
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    I don't believe for a second that this much fuss would have been made over this issue if Trump had lost the election. Some law enforcement action may have been taken, but it wouldn't have been front page news. The reason for my quotes is that Trump is "unapproved" which is the explanation for the scale of the reaction. I don't particularly approve of him either, but considering the real motivations of the people writing regulation is important.