4 ms·

The response to Cambridge Analytica set out a clear social contract: to allow users to share their data with a 3rd party is to take responsibility for what the

The response to Cambridge Analytica set out a clear social contract: to allow users to share their data with a 3rd party is to take responsibility for what the 3rd party does with it. Users cannot be trusted to read consent screens or make their own decisions about authorization. And even if they can, they don't have the consent of others involved in the data (whether friends on social media, or counterparties to bank transactions). Companies taking steps to block interoperability is an outcome of the righteous campaign that this community fought and won. Comments here should be celebrating.

ahartmetz 7y ago
Facebook was selling other people's data. This is about accessing your own data. Both are about about having control over your data. There is no contradiction.
- closeparen 7y ago
  There was no sale. Cambridge Analytica used the free, public API just like any other FB Platform developer, including 15-year-old me. Users clicked through OAuth consent screens to share their data with its personality test app. It being a social network, much of that data involved their friends. Bank transactions are not "your own data" any more than what CA scraped from personality quiz users was "their own data." In both cases, there are people on the other side of each record.
  - mantap 7y ago
    There's definitely a quantative difference between the amount of other individuals' personal data in your bank records vs in your social network account.
stereolambda 7y ago
But was Cambridge Analytica really adversarial? If they used the data without the knowledge or specific consent of FB, the latter should not be blamed in principle. (And that was no the case) Although being pretty against FB's practices and business model, I have to admit that the mainstream backlash against it have been largely "politically" motivated (as in, more partisanship than ideology). So likely FB would be bashed for this specific reason anyway. I'm open to the idea that there should be a way to interoperate without the consent or responsibility of the primary operator and no way of preventing it by them. Though I don't know about the oughts, but nowadays the desire to integrate and annotate your finance seems quaint in the light of possible data weaponization and profiling. (And institutions are trying to do it whether you like it or not, my bank does try to sort my transactions "intelligently", no thanks). I'd say I would want to do it at home on paper if at all, but people probably[0] should be able to do these thing and others if they want. [0] Unless there is a legitimate case to be made that they endanger freedom of others.
- closeparen 7y ago
  Facebook published an API for third party apps to access data with user consent, and Cambridge Analytica used it. The outrage indicates that a belief that there should not have been such an API. Or at least that users were not competent to consent and that Facebook should have been controlling which 3rd parties they could share with.
matheusmoreira 7y ago
We care about interoperability with our software. We should be able to download the data and process it ourselves on our computers without having to trust random companies. Needless to say, they hate it when we do this. It's totally fine when they run javascript on our computers to collect personal information but when we run our scripts against their site suddenly it's abuse.
- closeparen 7y ago
  The lesson of CA is that if you can download the data then you can share it with a third party, and when the third party abuses it, everyone is going to hold the guy with the Download button responsible for that.

ahartmetz 7y ago

Facebook was selling other people's data. This is about accessing your own data. Both are about about having control over your data. There is no contradiction.

closeparen 7y ago
There was no sale. Cambridge Analytica used the free, public API just like any other FB Platform developer, including 15-year-old me. Users clicked through OAuth consent screens to share their data with its personality test app. It being a social network, much of that data involved their friends. Bank transactions are not "your own data" any more than what CA scraped from personality quiz users was "their own data." In both cases, there are people on the other side of each record.
- mantap 7y ago
  There's definitely a quantative difference between the amount of other individuals' personal data in your bank records vs in your social network account.

stereolambda 7y ago

But was Cambridge Analytica really adversarial? If they used the data without the knowledge or specific consent of FB, the latter should not be blamed in principle. (And that was no the case) Although being pretty against FB's practices and business model, I have to admit that the mainstream backlash against it have been largely "politically" motivated (as in, more partisanship than ideology). So likely FB would be bashed for this specific reason anyway. I'm open to the idea that there should be a way to interoperate without the consent or responsibility of the primary operator and no way of preventing it by them. Though I don't know about the oughts, but nowadays the desire to integrate and annotate your finance seems quaint in the light of possible data weaponization and profiling. (And institutions are trying to do it whether you like it or not, my bank does try to sort my transactions "intelligently", no thanks). I'd say I would want to do it at home on paper if at all, but people probably[0] should be able to do these thing and others if they want. [0] Unless there is a legitimate case to be made that they endanger freedom of others.

closeparen 7y ago
Facebook published an API for third party apps to access data with user consent, and Cambridge Analytica used it. The outrage indicates that a belief that there should not have been such an API. Or at least that users were not competent to consent and that Facebook should have been controlling which 3rd parties they could share with.

matheusmoreira 7y ago

We care about interoperability with our software. We should be able to download the data and process it ourselves on our computers without having to trust random companies. Needless to say, they hate it when we do this. It's totally fine when they run javascript on our computers to collect personal information but when we run our scripts against their site suddenly it's abuse.

closeparen 7y ago
The lesson of CA is that if you can download the data then you can share it with a third party, and when the third party abuses it, everyone is going to hold the guy with the Download button responsible for that.