3 ms·

The plug-in is open sourced: https://github.com/OnlinePoliticalTransparency/social-media-collector https://github.com/OnlinePoliticalTransparency/social-media-.

The plug-in is open sourced: https://github.com/OnlinePoliticalTransparency/social-media-collector https://github.com/OnlinePoliticalTransparency/social-media-... You can download a release straight from there and import it into your browser. Browsers also do some reviews of the plugins that are in their stores, so every update should be tested by both Google and Mozilla (even if only superficially). I'd say the odds of them managing to pull off scraping anything else without anyone noticing are rather slim.

KaiserPro 6y ago
with respect, thats not the issue. With facebook they only collect "limited" information. Its what they do with it afterwards that matter. How is it stored, is it secure, how do they anonymise it, who has access to the raw data, what happens when there is a break, is there monitoring, etc etc etc. They are making a massive honey pot, and we just have to trust them that they are doing good job. (much like facebook....)
- loopz 6y ago
  Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's no obligation to opt-in, and there's risk in everything we do and don't do.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    The tool would need to guarantee that the data of a user opting in doesn't contain private information about his contacts which may not have done so.
- tjpnz 6y ago
  Facebook doesn't have the greatest security track record. While it wouldn't be productive to argue that one group is inherently more trustworthy than the other it's worth pointing out (as others already have) that the code is available to the public.
  - KaiserPro 6y ago
    Code being public doesn't mean its secure. See php, django, gnupgp, openssl etc etc etc. Again, the issue isn't the collection, its the storage, processing and disposal that really matters here.
    - cutemonster 6y ago
      > its the storage, processing and disposal that really matters That you can say about almost all web apps? Then almost maybe you shouldn't use the Internet, I start thinking
- mattnewton 6y ago
  The last part is the crux of this dispute to me. If the users are opting into this, isn't that the same argument for letting them opt into the Facebook platform itself? Why must we protect them from NYU and not from Facebook?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ankit219 6y ago
Thanks for the link. I agree odds would be slim, but this can potentially set a precedent for others to do similar things. Imagine, in the future, a new company comes up with similar add-in claiming to scan ads, and take more data than needed. Facebook needs to be careful of that too. (though i think that is not the reason they are shutting this down, just that privacy is favorable to them in this case :)). There has to be a better way to do this, and that needs serious discussion. Also, as an aside, the add-in records the following things: country, age, gender, language etc. and the text of the ad. Not so clear what happens when ads have personal info (or friends' names) attached like xyz likes page. Payload seems to suggest they take every bit of info so it could include that as well maybe.
- mattnewton 6y ago
  What is the alternative? No visibility for the general public into hyper targeted ad campaigns? If the users are opting into this, isn't that the same argument for letting them opt into the Facebook platform itself? Why must we protect them from NYU and not from Facebook?

KaiserPro 6y ago

with respect, thats not the issue. With facebook they only collect "limited" information. Its what they do with it afterwards that matter. How is it stored, is it secure, how do they anonymise it, who has access to the raw data, what happens when there is a break, is there monitoring, etc etc etc. They are making a massive honey pot, and we just have to trust them that they are doing good job. (much like facebook....)

loopz 6y ago
Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's no obligation to opt-in, and there's risk in everything we do and don't do.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  The tool would need to guarantee that the data of a user opting in doesn't contain private information about his contacts which may not have done so.
tjpnz 6y ago
Facebook doesn't have the greatest security track record. While it wouldn't be productive to argue that one group is inherently more trustworthy than the other it's worth pointing out (as others already have) that the code is available to the public.
- KaiserPro 6y ago
  Code being public doesn't mean its secure. See php, django, gnupgp, openssl etc etc etc. Again, the issue isn't the collection, its the storage, processing and disposal that really matters here.
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    > its the storage, processing and disposal that really matters That you can say about almost all web apps? Then almost maybe you shouldn't use the Internet, I start thinking
mattnewton 6y ago
The last part is the crux of this dispute to me. If the users are opting into this, isn't that the same argument for letting them opt into the Facebook platform itself? Why must we protect them from NYU and not from Facebook?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ankit219 6y ago

Thanks for the link. I agree odds would be slim, but this can potentially set a precedent for others to do similar things. Imagine, in the future, a new company comes up with similar add-in claiming to scan ads, and take more data than needed. Facebook needs to be careful of that too. (though i think that is not the reason they are shutting this down, just that privacy is favorable to them in this case :)). There has to be a better way to do this, and that needs serious discussion. Also, as an aside, the add-in records the following things: country, age, gender, language etc. and the text of the ad. Not so clear what happens when ads have personal info (or friends' names) attached like xyz likes page. Payload seems to suggest they take every bit of info so it could include that as well maybe.

mattnewton 6y ago
What is the alternative? No visibility for the general public into hyper targeted ad campaigns? If the users are opting into this, isn't that the same argument for letting them opt into the Facebook platform itself? Why must we protect them from NYU and not from Facebook?