5 ms·
A lot of comments I've seen draw the line between NYU's extension and Cambridge Analytica because the latter was using a native platform. But that feels like a
by tqi 6y ago
A lot of comments I've seen draw the line between NYU's extension and Cambridge Analytica because the latter was using a native platform. But that feels like a distinction without a difference, if the net effect is still that "something I shared with my friend ended up in a third party's possession". Ultimately, if something has been shared with me, should I be able to save it or reshare it with others? The mechanism by which that save or reshare happens feels like an implementation detail.
Fundamentally speaking, who has what rights to shared data (like contact info or posts) feels like an unresolved question that has important implications.
- freeopinion 6y agoWhat about that question is unresolved? If you tell me your name, I have the right to tell others your name unless I have specifically contracted that right away. Same if you tell me your age or your address or that you <3 ice cream. If I see you in class, I have the right to tell anybody that I saw you in class. If you give me a note to pass to Pat, I have the right to disclose that unless I have contracted that right away or fall under specific regulation. But I'm sure there is some interesting territory for discussion here. Where do you see "fundamental" unresolved questions about data? Within the USA, what considerations do you think trump the first amendment?
- kinkrtyavimoodh 6y agoDo you also agree that FB was unfairly raked through the coals in the Cambridge Analytica (CA) case and that they (FB) weren't actually at fault? I do, but at least I am consistent. If the what happened in the CA incident is wrong, the NYU incident is wrong too (ethically. I am not a lawyer and can't comment on legality). If CA was not wrong, this isn't wrong either. Since at least in the court of public opinion, CA was wrong and FB was a terrible company for letting CA happen, then well FB is doing the right thing by asking NYU to stop.
- cleansingfire 6y agoCA used deceptive practices to collect user data, & downloaded personally identifiable information for u users and their friends without notification or consent, unlike NYU. Those are significant differences.
- sfashset 6y agoCA didn't do any of those things. They purchased some data an academic had collected from a FB quiz app. There's absolutely nothing stopping one of the NYU academics from selling the data they collect for their study to "Cambridge Analytica 2.0" in 12 months. If that happens, which FB would not be able to stop, this situation become identical to the CA scenario. There would be no significant differences.
- freeopinion 6y agoI think it is significant that one happened server-side using FB tooling and the other happens client-side without FB being complicit. One was explicitly installed by the user, the other was foisted upon the unwitting user. So, maybe some significant differences, depending on your POV.
- tqi 6y agoBut AFAIK both CA and NYU got "consent" to access data from the users who installed their game/extension, but neither are asking consent from users' friends (ie the crux of the CA scandal).
- chillacy 6y agoI only vaguely recall the details but GDPR defines the concepts of Data Controllers, Data Subjects, and Data Processors, and has statements on rights for EU citizens.
- tqi 6y agoHm I'm wasn't able to find any definitive sources to explain what GDPR does / does not allow in this case. Most of the articles I could find seem to think that GDPR would have prevented CA because it requires explicit user consent to access personal data. However it is unclear to me whether that consent needs to be from the user or from the users friends?