5 ms·

I am appalled at how bad Facebook did here but buried at the very end of the article Vice does indicate that they needed to provide a valid traceable drivers li

I am appalled at how bad Facebook did here but buried at the very end of the article Vice does indicate that they needed to provide a valid traceable drivers license and last four of a (maybe?) matching SSN. This means that had they intended to actually publish the ads they would have put some real person on the hook (assuming the submitted data is actually checked against something). Still too easy but for the first 90% of the article I thought there was absolutely zero verification

dymk 8y ago
Weird how Vice would run such an intentionally misleading article, isn't it?
Zyst 8y ago
>In order to run a “Paid for by” disclosure on Facebook, you must first submit the name to the company for approval, along with an image of a valid driver’s license and the last four digits of your Social Security number. Paragraph in question. Are the driver's licences they used not the ones of the Senators? Or maybe they photoshopped them, or something along those lines? I'm a bit unhappy at the lack of elaboration on the methodology they used to test this out.
- TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
  That they say a valid driver's license makes it sound like it doesn't have to be the senator in question's.
  - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
    Hi, my name is John Validdriver and I work for senator Schmuck's office!
- waisbrot 8y ago
  Yes, it's difficult to follow exactly what they did. This: > We used 10 fake Facebook pages with no content, and changed the “paid for” disclosure after each senator was approved. Makes it sound to me like they got approval using a real identity and then changed the now-approved account to use a different name. Methodology aside, though, Facebook shouldn't be showing that they verified the identity if they did not verify the identity. Unless the methodology was "we stole the identities of some senators" or "we cracked their passwords", this is a failure a another breach of trust on Facebook's part.
  - gopher2 8y ago
    Based on other's comments in the thread about having their advertisements not approved by FB, it sounds like Facebook does have an approval process that is greater than just "literally not Mark Zuckerberg". However, Vice got around this by getting an ad approved and then editing (changing entirely?) the name and other properties of the ad. Maybe Facebook should re-approve ads when certain properties change? It's definitely impersonation... I'm not sure what officially constitutes stealing an identity. I'd be curious how this experiment of impersonating a senator and buying advertising would go across print/billboards/reddit/other platforms. Maybe Vice will try some more experiments.
- xkcd-sucks 8y ago
  In any case, senators aren't actually running ads, their staff are. So it requires a real background check
chrismcb 8y ago
Is that legal? I didn’t think you were allowed to ask... or require a ssn. This doesn’t seem like one of the exceptions.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  No, nothing prevents them asking. Businesses are allowed to ask, you're allowed to refuse, and they're allowed to refuse to transact with you, on the basis of your refusal. It's pretty stupid.
jjeaff 8y ago
Seeing as Experian leaked every single SSN in America to hackers, I'd say a SSN is a very small hurdle. Even if it had to match, which I'm sure it does not have to match the disclosure name - just the name of the payor.
- poooogles 8y ago
  >Experian Don't you mean Equifax? Or have I missed something. Google doesn't show anything interesting...
  - ams6110 8y ago
    Odds are they've been hacked. Too big a target. We just don't know it yet.
  - bausshf 8y ago
    Yeah, there seems to be nothing about Experian having a dataleak, but Equifax definitely comes up.
  - jjeaff 8y ago
    Yes, Equifax. I would correct it, but it appears the edit time period has elapsed.

dymk 8y ago

Weird how Vice would run such an intentionally misleading article, isn't it?

Zyst 8y ago

>In order to run a “Paid for by” disclosure on Facebook, you must first submit the name to the company for approval, along with an image of a valid driver’s license and the last four digits of your Social Security number. Paragraph in question. Are the driver's licences they used not the ones of the Senators? Or maybe they photoshopped them, or something along those lines? I'm a bit unhappy at the lack of elaboration on the methodology they used to test this out.

TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
That they say a valid driver's license makes it sound like it doesn't have to be the senator in question's.
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  Hi, my name is John Validdriver and I work for senator Schmuck's office!
waisbrot 8y ago
Yes, it's difficult to follow exactly what they did. This: > We used 10 fake Facebook pages with no content, and changed the “paid for” disclosure after each senator was approved. Makes it sound to me like they got approval using a real identity and then changed the now-approved account to use a different name. Methodology aside, though, Facebook shouldn't be showing that they verified the identity if they did not verify the identity. Unless the methodology was "we stole the identities of some senators" or "we cracked their passwords", this is a failure a another breach of trust on Facebook's part.
- gopher2 8y ago
  Based on other's comments in the thread about having their advertisements not approved by FB, it sounds like Facebook does have an approval process that is greater than just "literally not Mark Zuckerberg". However, Vice got around this by getting an ad approved and then editing (changing entirely?) the name and other properties of the ad. Maybe Facebook should re-approve ads when certain properties change? It's definitely impersonation... I'm not sure what officially constitutes stealing an identity. I'd be curious how this experiment of impersonating a senator and buying advertising would go across print/billboards/reddit/other platforms. Maybe Vice will try some more experiments.
xkcd-sucks 8y ago
In any case, senators aren't actually running ads, their staff are. So it requires a real background check

chrismcb 8y ago

Is that legal? I didn’t think you were allowed to ask... or require a ssn. This doesn’t seem like one of the exceptions.

wool_gather 8y ago
No, nothing prevents them asking. Businesses are allowed to ask, you're allowed to refuse, and they're allowed to refuse to transact with you, on the basis of your refusal. It's pretty stupid.

jjeaff 8y ago

Seeing as Experian leaked every single SSN in America to hackers, I'd say a SSN is a very small hurdle. Even if it had to match, which I'm sure it does not have to match the disclosure name - just the name of the payor.

poooogles 8y ago
>Experian Don't you mean Equifax? Or have I missed something. Google doesn't show anything interesting...
- ams6110 8y ago
  Odds are they've been hacked. Too big a target. We just don't know it yet.
- bausshf 8y ago
  Yeah, there seems to be nothing about Experian having a dataleak, but Equifax definitely comes up.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  Yes, Equifax. I would correct it, but it appears the edit time period has elapsed.