4 ms·

I think their value comes from the collected data of Facebook profiles. If they just copy the data and their trained models, they essentially just use the IP th

I think their value comes from the collected data of Facebook profiles. If they just copy the data and their trained models, they essentially just use the IP that brought them into that mess in the first place. All the knowledge doesn't help them, they'll need to use their models which they've developed at CA. Otherwise they can know a lot about machine learning and statistical methods, but don't have the data to train their models. I think it will be revealed that they just use the same data. Which is borderline illegal, IMO.

consumer451 8y ago
> they'll need to use their models which they've developed at CA This is what drove me to quit FB many years ago. They kept resetting my privacy prefs, which most considered a minor annoyance. "Just change it back, big deal." The thing is that this citizen profiling data lives on until you die. Most people don't change their basic beliefs and interests very often. A bad actor only needs one opportunity to profile you for life.
lozenge 8y ago
Their psychographic model was hugely overblown. A couple of Facebook likes do not mean they suddenly know the path to change your mind with some ads. They were just a political dirty tricks operative. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/19/cambridge-analytica-execs-boast-dirty-tricks-honey-traps-elections https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/19/cambridge-an...
- mockingbirdy 8y ago
  In the article you've linked, the whistleblower says: "the company itself was founded on using Facebook data" (watch at minute 09:00). Their models might not be the most accurate, but they are a big part of their success. + all those dirty tricks they've pulled off.
bradleyjg 8y ago
Not especially borderline. That they were involved with the prior company doesn't make it any less illegal to take its intellectual property.
- mockingbirdy 8y ago
  I didn't want to say this for legal reasons. My personal opinion is that there will be a high probability that they use data which they've obtained illegally.

consumer451 8y ago

> they'll need to use their models which they've developed at CA This is what drove me to quit FB many years ago. They kept resetting my privacy prefs, which most considered a minor annoyance. "Just change it back, big deal." The thing is that this citizen profiling data lives on until you die. Most people don't change their basic beliefs and interests very often. A bad actor only needs one opportunity to profile you for life.

lozenge 8y ago

Their psychographic model was hugely overblown. A couple of Facebook likes do not mean they suddenly know the path to change your mind with some ads. They were just a political dirty tricks operative. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/19/cambridge-analytica-execs-boast-dirty-tricks-honey-traps-elections https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/19/cambridge-an...

mockingbirdy 8y ago
In the article you've linked, the whistleblower says: "the company itself was founded on using Facebook data" (watch at minute 09:00). Their models might not be the most accurate, but they are a big part of their success. + all those dirty tricks they've pulled off.

bradleyjg 8y ago

Not especially borderline. That they were involved with the prior company doesn't make it any less illegal to take its intellectual property.

mockingbirdy 8y ago
I didn't want to say this for legal reasons. My personal opinion is that there will be a high probability that they use data which they've obtained illegally.