3 ms·

The level of uninformed populism is reaching Trumpian levels. How anyone thinks that FB should be fined in any of this is ridiculous. "We hate Facebook, they

by jariel 7y ago

The level of uninformed populism is reaching Trumpian levels. How anyone thinks that FB should be fined in any of this is ridiculous. "We hate Facebook, they make too much money, therefore fine them!" FB had APIs, that everyone in the entire world knew about. There maybe a little 'too open' for some, but nobody was screaming fraud. It seemed reasonable to most. Then, a sneaky company inevitably came along and used the APIs to break the rules somewhat (arguably even then CA may not have). As a result, FB did the prudent thing and nudged the APIs a little bit tighter. By the way - FB did the appropriate thing long before there was any scandal, any noise, any blowback. FB investigated CA to make sure they deleted the data, in turn out CA lied and hid copies of the data. There wasn't any material harm to anyone - even if CA was able to use the data to help target people (they weren't really), there are innumerable opportunities for companies to do that anyhow. From the article: "Unless those individuals undertook a complex process of modifying their settings on Facebook, their personal information was disclosed by Facebook to the “This is Your Digital Life” App by default." This is misrepresentative to the point of being a lie. Facebook enables users to upload data and will only share such data with apps which the user has given authorization. In this case, users absolutely had to provide CA with the authority to access certain data, in the same way, they would have for any other app. When Mark Zuckerberg visited Congress for his smackdown, it became clear very quickly that almost none of the Senators had a clue how FB even worked. Of all the things I don't like Facebook for, there's nothing wrong with what they did here. They had a set of APIs unlike anyone had ever made before, the realized that they were probably a little to lose, so they tightened them up by their own volition.

thdrdt 7y ago
Well I agree with you a lot of reasoning is very uninformed. But I don't agree Facebook isn't to blame. Power comes with responsibility. At least that is what most countries believe. So if you make money with a very powerful tool that could potentially bring down a government (this is what a judge has to decide) then you are to blame when your APIs where to lose. It's like building a nuclear facility with mud.
- jariel 7y ago
  A) Facebook did not abuse their power in any way (at least in the case). B) The notion that the resulting action 'brought down governments' is just beyond false. Anyone involved in digital marketing knows how absurd these claims are, moreover, there are numerous other, legal, and very common practices being used all the time that are considerably more impactful. To boot: C) The suing government's actions are vindictive and biased. A commenter above posted a link to refer to the UK government's damage claims. As part of the countersuit, FB demanded that UK office (ICO) demonstrate it's objectivity in the situation (the judge agreed). So guess what happened? The government made a quick perusal of their own communications and realized they would be destroyed in scandal and moved for a quick resolution with a very small settlement. FB has good and bad attributes we have to be smart about it, this kind of 'anti information angry mob' stuff should be beneath people.
  - thdrdt 7y ago
    A: I am aware of this. But they provide the tool. B: They did not bring down any government. But the question is: is the tool named Facebook powerful enough to do so? And if true: did they do enough to prevent this? C: Maybe they are biased. That's up to a judge to decide.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > But I don't agree Facebook isn't to blame. > Power comes with responsibility. At least that is what most countries believe. But the question remains unanswered: what is Facebook to blame for? What responsibility did they shirk? Cambridge Analytica lied about the purposes of their data and subsequently lied about deleting the data they collected. But Facebook remained true to their agreement to only share this data for academic purposes, and when they discovered that some university researchers were violating this agreement they terminated this data sharing program. With the benefit of hindsight we can say that Facebook should have been more doubtful of the integrity of academics - but without that hindsight I'm not sure what Facebook did wrong.
TristanDaCunha 7y ago
>FB investigated CA to make sure they deleted the data, in turn out CA lied and hid copies of the data. That's not true - they had deleted the data as requested. I worked there.
- jariel 7y ago
  Ok, well that helps the case of FB even more, but there have been quite a number of reports indicating that CA did not in fact delete the data as requested. If you have a public reference that indicates they did, that'd be great. This entire issue seems to be about 'misinformation and narrative' not actual facts.
  - TristanDaCunha 7y ago
    Yeah, the Guardian was actually interested in the story because they were mislead by the statements of the CEO of CA and by Christopher Wylie into believing that CA was involved in a campaign for Brexit in 2016. They wanted to delegitimise the outcome of the referendum. Funnily enough, the newspaper doesn't mention that Wylie didn't work at CA in 2016 - so he can't be considered a first hand witness or a whistleblower concerning the American presidential election or Brexit. He left in 2014 after obtaining the Facebook dataset to start his own political data consultancy, Eunoia Technologies. The company was based on the concept of micro-targeting(, which he falsely believed was a novel idea). He competed with CA for contracts unsuccessfully, and Eunoia was ultimately sued by CA for stealing clients. (This might explain why he was so willing to work with the Guardian to bring the company down.) All of the information in the above paragraph can be found on Wikipedia, except for the parts in brackets. You can read the report from QC Julian Malins or the ICO about the whole situation, they're found no evidence of CA retaining the data. But you can't prove a negative.
    - jariel 7y ago
      They really made Wylie into a brand what with his fresh hair colour and 'whistleblower' cred style. I felt that the entire story was as much about narrative than anything. It's sad because these stories are important, The Guardian is mostly a credible entity, they really ruin their credibility with such shenanigans.
bryan_w 7y ago
In general, I agree with your sentiment, but there is one bit of nuance: "In this case, users absolutely had to provide CA with the authority to access certain data, in the same way, they would have for any other app." Unfortunately in this case the data also included your friend list and some items about your friends that may have been marked "friends only" . This was the big mistake that Facebook is being crucified for, sadly. Like you said, they made changes to clamp things down long before any of the media knew of CA.
shkkmo 7y ago
> FB had APIs, that everyone in the entire world knew about. There maybe a little 'too open' for some, but nobody was screaming fraud. It seemed reasonable to most. Let's flip this around then: Australia’s Privacy Act 1988 lays out clear rules and penalties. Facebook had a responsibility to learn and follow these rules if they wanted to do business in Australia. > In this case, users absolutely had to provide CA with the authority to access certain data, in the same way, they would have for any other app. That is not true, and this is clearly explained by the OIAC statement referenced in the article: 'Most of those individuals did not install the “This is Your Digital Life” App; their Facebook friends did. Unless those individuals undertook a complex process of modifying their settings on Facebook, their personal information was disclosed by Facebook to the “This is Your Digital Life” App by default.'
easytiger 7y ago
You will be downvoted to oblivion but you are correct. HN discussion on topics like this has descended into utter childish conspiratorial giberish.

by jariel 7y ago

thdrdt 7y ago

Well I agree with you a lot of reasoning is very uninformed. But I don't agree Facebook isn't to blame. Power comes with responsibility. At least that is what most countries believe. So if you make money with a very powerful tool that could potentially bring down a government (this is what a judge has to decide) then you are to blame when your APIs where to lose. It's like building a nuclear facility with mud.

jariel 7y ago
A) Facebook did not abuse their power in any way (at least in the case). B) The notion that the resulting action 'brought down governments' is just beyond false. Anyone involved in digital marketing knows how absurd these claims are, moreover, there are numerous other, legal, and very common practices being used all the time that are considerably more impactful. To boot: C) The suing government's actions are vindictive and biased. A commenter above posted a link to refer to the UK government's damage claims. As part of the countersuit, FB demanded that UK office (ICO) demonstrate it's objectivity in the situation (the judge agreed). So guess what happened? The government made a quick perusal of their own communications and realized they would be destroyed in scandal and moved for a quick resolution with a very small settlement. FB has good and bad attributes we have to be smart about it, this kind of 'anti information angry mob' stuff should be beneath people.
- thdrdt 7y ago
  A: I am aware of this. But they provide the tool. B: They did not bring down any government. But the question is: is the tool named Facebook powerful enough to do so? And if true: did they do enough to prevent this? C: Maybe they are biased. That's up to a judge to decide.
manfredo 7y ago
> But I don't agree Facebook isn't to blame. > Power comes with responsibility. At least that is what most countries believe. But the question remains unanswered: what is Facebook to blame for? What responsibility did they shirk? Cambridge Analytica lied about the purposes of their data and subsequently lied about deleting the data they collected. But Facebook remained true to their agreement to only share this data for academic purposes, and when they discovered that some university researchers were violating this agreement they terminated this data sharing program. With the benefit of hindsight we can say that Facebook should have been more doubtful of the integrity of academics - but without that hindsight I'm not sure what Facebook did wrong.

TristanDaCunha 7y ago

>FB investigated CA to make sure they deleted the data, in turn out CA lied and hid copies of the data. That's not true - they had deleted the data as requested. I worked there.

jariel 7y ago
Ok, well that helps the case of FB even more, but there have been quite a number of reports indicating that CA did not in fact delete the data as requested. If you have a public reference that indicates they did, that'd be great. This entire issue seems to be about 'misinformation and narrative' not actual facts.
- TristanDaCunha 7y ago
  Yeah, the Guardian was actually interested in the story because they were mislead by the statements of the CEO of CA and by Christopher Wylie into believing that CA was involved in a campaign for Brexit in 2016. They wanted to delegitimise the outcome of the referendum. Funnily enough, the newspaper doesn't mention that Wylie didn't work at CA in 2016 - so he can't be considered a first hand witness or a whistleblower concerning the American presidential election or Brexit. He left in 2014 after obtaining the Facebook dataset to start his own political data consultancy, Eunoia Technologies. The company was based on the concept of micro-targeting(, which he falsely believed was a novel idea). He competed with CA for contracts unsuccessfully, and Eunoia was ultimately sued by CA for stealing clients. (This might explain why he was so willing to work with the Guardian to bring the company down.) All of the information in the above paragraph can be found on Wikipedia, except for the parts in brackets. You can read the report from QC Julian Malins or the ICO about the whole situation, they're found no evidence of CA retaining the data. But you can't prove a negative.
  - jariel 7y ago
    They really made Wylie into a brand what with his fresh hair colour and 'whistleblower' cred style. I felt that the entire story was as much about narrative than anything. It's sad because these stories are important, The Guardian is mostly a credible entity, they really ruin their credibility with such shenanigans.

bryan_w 7y ago

In general, I agree with your sentiment, but there is one bit of nuance: "In this case, users absolutely had to provide CA with the authority to access certain data, in the same way, they would have for any other app." Unfortunately in this case the data also included your friend list and some items about your friends that may have been marked "friends only" . This was the big mistake that Facebook is being crucified for, sadly. Like you said, they made changes to clamp things down long before any of the media knew of CA.

shkkmo 7y ago

> FB had APIs, that everyone in the entire world knew about. There maybe a little 'too open' for some, but nobody was screaming fraud. It seemed reasonable to most. Let's flip this around then: Australia’s Privacy Act 1988 lays out clear rules and penalties. Facebook had a responsibility to learn and follow these rules if they wanted to do business in Australia. > In this case, users absolutely had to provide CA with the authority to access certain data, in the same way, they would have for any other app. That is not true, and this is clearly explained by the OIAC statement referenced in the article: 'Most of those individuals did not install the “This is Your Digital Life” App; their Facebook friends did. Unless those individuals undertook a complex process of modifying their settings on Facebook, their personal information was disclosed by Facebook to the “This is Your Digital Life” App by default.'

easytiger 7y ago

You will be downvoted to oblivion but you are correct. HN discussion on topics like this has descended into utter childish conspiratorial giberish.