5 ms·

I'm having a hard time believing that this is a legitimate opinion and not conjured up by Facebook PR. Facebook is the one that collected the data. It is their

I'm having a hard time believing that this is a legitimate opinion and not conjured up by Facebook PR. Facebook is the one that collected the data. It is their responsibility to ensure that who they give your data to is who they are, and that they are doing what they should be doing to your data. The should have a comprehensive compliance program for third parties with access to user data and have the necessary enforcement regime with enough bite to prevent abuse. Not to hide behind their policies until they get caught red-handed and then shrug off their responsibilities to everyone but themselves.

Aperocky 7y ago
I have a hard time understanding why your first sentence is necessary. Nothing against what you said subsequently (and I think it's totally right), and myself disliking facebook, your first sentence is entirely unnecessary and beside the point. From what I read, your parent comment sound entirely logical coming from a different POV. I don't see anything illegitimate about it, even if it WAS Facebook PR, the point within are entirely valid.
- starfallg 7y ago
  The comment I replied to completely ignored FB's responsibility to its user's data and rather than accepting that FB was supposed to be responsible, proceeded to blame everyone else but themselves. I just don't see that as reasonable in discourse. I mean you can hold those beliefs, but if you do express them in public I think it's right to be called out on how unacceptable that is.
  - Aperocky 7y ago
    Yes, attack the idea, not the user. I also don't see you guys are on the same page either. For one, was there false reporting? It is entirely possible to do 5 bad things and have media report you did 10 bad things. And while 5 bad things was committed it doesn't excuse the media for wrong reporting, not saying that they did this in this case.
    - starfallg 7y ago
      That's exactly the reason why it feels like a classic PR tactic. Instead of discussing what went wrong and how FB's policies and operations are deficient, the conversation is being shifted towards how much the media is biased towards it. FB is not the victim here. Hence to have a productive discussion, being on the same page is indeed important - as in accepting first and foremost what FB's responsibilities are.
      - Aperocky 7y ago
        The conversation did not shift, both started from the opposite end and did not move, there were no conversation to begin with. And this is why we have the schism in our society. No one is willing to find the middle ground and listen any more. Everyone simultaneously believes that listening is others responsibility.
        starfallg 7y ago
        As I said, you need to agree there is a problem before we can talk about it productively. This is "being on the same page". If there is a obvious problem that one side is steadfastly refusing to acknowledge and insists on blaming it on others, then yeah we have a schism in our society as one side is just ignoring reality.
        cameronbrown 7y ago
        Of course one side is denying reality. I'll leave it up to you to decide which :)
        starfallg 7y ago
        Please. Only one side is portraying that Facebook is the victim.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
manfredo 7y ago
From what I gather, Facebook did have a compliance program in place to ensure that data was only shared with those that met its usage policies. Aleksandr Kogan was working at the University of Cambridge at the time, so the claim that he was using this data for academic purposes would seem credible to Facebook. Here are a couple sources that state that Kogan told Facebook that the data was to be used for academic purposes [1] [2]. Certainly, with the benefit of hindsight we can see that the potential for abuse for this kind of data sharing - even with the requirement that it's only used for academic purposes - is significant. But it seems to me that the primary culprit here is Kogan, who lied to Facebook about the use of the collected data, rather than Facebook whose fault was being too trusting of academics. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/technology/aleksandr-kogan-facebook-cambridge-analytica.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/technology/aleksandr-koga... 2. https://www.businessinsider.com/aleksandr-kogan-facebook-defamation-lawsuit-cambridge-analytica-2019-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/aleksandr-kogan-facebook-def...
- ori_b 7y ago
  > From what I gather, Facebook did have a compliance program in place to ensure that data was only shared with those that met its usage policies. Aleksandr Kogan was working at the University of Cambridge at the time, so the claim that he was using this data for academic purposes would seem credible to Facebook As though simply working at a university is sufficient reason to trust someone.
  - alchemism 7y ago
    Social engineering at its finest.
    - incongruity 7y ago
      Which is why their compliance process wasn’t rigorous enough. As others have said, requiring evidence of University IRB review (which it doesn’t sound like they did) would have been a way to require more safeguards. Yes, bad actors could and maybe would have still abused the system, it makes their work harder and more visible.
freepor 7y ago
Sure, like a bank has the duty to protect your safe deposit box, but CA defrauded Facebook the way a bank can be robbed.
- starfallg 7y ago
  In which case, the bank should be held responsible for your loss. And they should have adequate security in place to prevent it from happening in the first place, or refrain from that line of business. These are all costs that FB has skirted.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > Sure, like a bank has the duty to protect your safe deposit box, but CA defrauded Facebook the way a bank can be robbed. Choosing to give away your property to third parties is not comparable to being robbed. Facebook collected the data on unsuspecting users and proceeded to willingly give away the data. Thus Facebook is responsible for what comes out of it. There is no way around it, and it boggles the mind how this fact is brushed aside.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > Choosing to give away your property to third parties is not comparable to being robbed. Facebook collected the data on unsuspecting users and proceeded to willingly give away the data. Thus Facebook is responsible for what comes out of it. There is no way around it, and it boggles the mind how this fact is brushed aside. This crucially omits the part where Cambridge Analytica lied about the purposes of the data that was collected, and subsequently lied again when Facebook learned of this deception and demanded that the data Cambridge Analytica collected be deleted. You're right this isn't like a bank robbery. This is more like someone securing a loan and then running off with the money. The bank's customers were harmed and one could criticize the bank's scrutiny of its debtors. But there nefarious party is the one deceiving the bank.
    - rumanator 7y ago
      > This crucially omits the part where Cambridge Analytica lied about the purposes of the data that was collected, This line of complaint is absurdly disingenuous. The problems that Facebook has created are not solved with EULAs, and Facebook's responsibility on having created this whole mess is not brushed aside by claiming that third parties did not clicked on the right checkbox when downloading Facebook's data. This is precisely the type of PR problem that Facebook creates for themselves: this insistent, desperate, cynical, and pathetically inneficient way they try to pin the blame on others for the problem Facebook single-handedly created. Force-feeding this nonsense through astroturfing campaigns doesn't change the problem and the responsibility that Facebook has.

Aperocky 7y ago

I have a hard time understanding why your first sentence is necessary. Nothing against what you said subsequently (and I think it's totally right), and myself disliking facebook, your first sentence is entirely unnecessary and beside the point. From what I read, your parent comment sound entirely logical coming from a different POV. I don't see anything illegitimate about it, even if it WAS Facebook PR, the point within are entirely valid.

starfallg 7y ago
The comment I replied to completely ignored FB's responsibility to its user's data and rather than accepting that FB was supposed to be responsible, proceeded to blame everyone else but themselves. I just don't see that as reasonable in discourse. I mean you can hold those beliefs, but if you do express them in public I think it's right to be called out on how unacceptable that is.
- Aperocky 7y ago
  Yes, attack the idea, not the user. I also don't see you guys are on the same page either. For one, was there false reporting? It is entirely possible to do 5 bad things and have media report you did 10 bad things. And while 5 bad things was committed it doesn't excuse the media for wrong reporting, not saying that they did this in this case.
  - starfallg 7y ago
    That's exactly the reason why it feels like a classic PR tactic. Instead of discussing what went wrong and how FB's policies and operations are deficient, the conversation is being shifted towards how much the media is biased towards it. FB is not the victim here. Hence to have a productive discussion, being on the same page is indeed important - as in accepting first and foremost what FB's responsibilities are.
    - Aperocky 7y ago
      The conversation did not shift, both started from the opposite end and did not move, there were no conversation to begin with. And this is why we have the schism in our society. No one is willing to find the middle ground and listen any more. Everyone simultaneously believes that listening is others responsibility.
      - starfallg 7y ago
        As I said, you need to agree there is a problem before we can talk about it productively. This is "being on the same page". If there is a obvious problem that one side is steadfastly refusing to acknowledge and insists on blaming it on others, then yeah we have a schism in our society as one side is just ignoring reality.
        cameronbrown 7y ago
        Of course one side is denying reality. I'll leave it up to you to decide which :)
        starfallg 7y ago
        Please. Only one side is portraying that Facebook is the victim.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

manfredo 7y ago

From what I gather, Facebook did have a compliance program in place to ensure that data was only shared with those that met its usage policies. Aleksandr Kogan was working at the University of Cambridge at the time, so the claim that he was using this data for academic purposes would seem credible to Facebook. Here are a couple sources that state that Kogan told Facebook that the data was to be used for academic purposes [1] [2]. Certainly, with the benefit of hindsight we can see that the potential for abuse for this kind of data sharing - even with the requirement that it's only used for academic purposes - is significant. But it seems to me that the primary culprit here is Kogan, who lied to Facebook about the use of the collected data, rather than Facebook whose fault was being too trusting of academics. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/technology/aleksandr-kogan-facebook-cambridge-analytica.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/technology/aleksandr-koga... 2. https://www.businessinsider.com/aleksandr-kogan-facebook-defamation-lawsuit-cambridge-analytica-2019-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/aleksandr-kogan-facebook-def...

ori_b 7y ago
> From what I gather, Facebook did have a compliance program in place to ensure that data was only shared with those that met its usage policies. Aleksandr Kogan was working at the University of Cambridge at the time, so the claim that he was using this data for academic purposes would seem credible to Facebook As though simply working at a university is sufficient reason to trust someone.
- alchemism 7y ago
  Social engineering at its finest.
  - incongruity 7y ago
    Which is why their compliance process wasn’t rigorous enough. As others have said, requiring evidence of University IRB review (which it doesn’t sound like they did) would have been a way to require more safeguards. Yes, bad actors could and maybe would have still abused the system, it makes their work harder and more visible.

freepor 7y ago

Sure, like a bank has the duty to protect your safe deposit box, but CA defrauded Facebook the way a bank can be robbed.

starfallg 7y ago
In which case, the bank should be held responsible for your loss. And they should have adequate security in place to prevent it from happening in the first place, or refrain from that line of business. These are all costs that FB has skirted.
rumanator 7y ago
> Sure, like a bank has the duty to protect your safe deposit box, but CA defrauded Facebook the way a bank can be robbed. Choosing to give away your property to third parties is not comparable to being robbed. Facebook collected the data on unsuspecting users and proceeded to willingly give away the data. Thus Facebook is responsible for what comes out of it. There is no way around it, and it boggles the mind how this fact is brushed aside.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > Choosing to give away your property to third parties is not comparable to being robbed. Facebook collected the data on unsuspecting users and proceeded to willingly give away the data. Thus Facebook is responsible for what comes out of it. There is no way around it, and it boggles the mind how this fact is brushed aside. This crucially omits the part where Cambridge Analytica lied about the purposes of the data that was collected, and subsequently lied again when Facebook learned of this deception and demanded that the data Cambridge Analytica collected be deleted. You're right this isn't like a bank robbery. This is more like someone securing a loan and then running off with the money. The bank's customers were harmed and one could criticize the bank's scrutiny of its debtors. But there nefarious party is the one deceiving the bank.
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > This crucially omits the part where Cambridge Analytica lied about the purposes of the data that was collected, This line of complaint is absurdly disingenuous. The problems that Facebook has created are not solved with EULAs, and Facebook's responsibility on having created this whole mess is not brushed aside by claiming that third parties did not clicked on the right checkbox when downloading Facebook's data. This is precisely the type of PR problem that Facebook creates for themselves: this insistent, desperate, cynical, and pathetically inneficient way they try to pin the blame on others for the problem Facebook single-handedly created. Force-feeding this nonsense through astroturfing campaigns doesn't change the problem and the responsibility that Facebook has.