3 ms·

> Doesn't change my overall point. That's because you keep making points that ignore that the end users knowingly granted permission to Dr. Kogan. If I buy a

by ysavir 6y ago

> Doesn't change my overall point. That's because you keep making points that ignore that the end users knowingly granted permission to Dr. Kogan. If I buy a car, I don't expect the transmission manufacturer to be part of the specs or shopping process, so yes, I would sue Ford. But if Ford says "comes with Goodyear tires", and then one of those tires proves faulty, I'll be suing Goodyear, not Ford. But if you really want to use comparisons, let's use one that's appropriate: I purchase an iPhone from Apple. In this scenario, Apple has a policy that app developers can't share data with 3rd parties. I download an app and grant it permission to my data. The app developer then shares that data with someone else. Who is at fault? Who is the victim? Should I sue Apple? Should I sue the app developer? Can I really sue anyone considering I myself downloaded the app and granted it access to my data?

dragontamer 6y ago
Analogies seem to be failing. So lets actually talk about the case then. Cambridge Analytica asked user A for permission. Facebook allowed CA to gather information about B (A's friend), and B NEVER provided consent. B now is wondering who to sue: Facebook or CA. My opinion: (IANAL). B sues Facebook. Then, Facebook sues CA. This leads to a few results: 1. If B loses its case against Facebook, the game is over. 2. If B wins its case against Facebook, Facebook continues and sues CA. 3. If Facebook loses vs CA, then the game is over and Facebook is found to be at fault. If Facebook wins vs CA, then CA was at fault. 4. If CA was at fault, then maybe CA will then sue its consultant over the issue, and it may continue. So on and so forth until the root cause is discovered, wherein the game ends. Simple process. At least... simple if everyone could afford the proper legal process. B probably can't afford it and many "Bs" need to gather together for a class action lawsuit and all that jazz. The hardest part of the puzzle is what exactly B would be suing over. It feels like B was damaged as a whole, since Facebook leaked B's information to CA. But its hard for me to formalize the complaint. Then again: that's a lawyer's job to find out.
- ysavir 6y ago
  If we're going with a chain lawsuit, then why skip the step where B sues A for sharing their information with Dr. Kogan? B sues A for sharing their information, then A sues Facebook, then Facebook sues CA. That would be the full cycle, no? If B is allowed to skip suing A in favor of suing Facebook directly, why shouldn't they also skip suing Facebook and sue Dr. Kogan directly? Or maybe it doesn't even get to go that far: B just needs to sue A, Facebook gets to sue Dr. Kogan, and that's all we see.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    > If we're going with a chain lawsuit, then why skip the step where B sues A for sharing their information with Dr. Kogan? B interacts to A through Facebook, do they not? If Facebook wants to sue A as the next leg in the chain, they're certainly welcome to try. That's the joy about just following the edge of the graph: its Facebook's job to figure out if A is more at fault (and should be sued) or if Cambridge Analytica is more at fault. This "chain" methodology further demonstrates which lawsuits are likely fruitless. The concept of Facebook suing A, or even Cambridge Analytica for suing A (if it goes that far) is clearly improper at face value. Breaking things up one-step at a time allows us to seek justice. IE: the entire point of the justice system.
    - ysavir 6y ago
      > B interacts to A through Facebook, do they not? And what impact does that have? > its Facebook's job to figure out if A is more at fault (and should be sued) or if Cambridge Analytica is more at fault. No, it's not Facebook's job to figure that out. If this was an investigation, then it would be the investigating office's job to figure out that. But it's not an investigation, it's a lawsuit, an accusation by one party against another party. The only thing to figure out here is if the accusation is legitimate. This thread started with the GP remarking that the accusation shouldn't be found valid. To say that it should be found valid because the accused can then separately try to sue another party is not a proper evaluation of the accusation, nor is it demonstrative of a productive legal process (at least in my opinion), nor is it "the entire point of the justice system".
  - 6y ago
- politicalloss 6y ago
  > Cambridge Analytica asked user A for permission. Facebook allowed CA to gather information about B (A's friend), and B NEVER provided consent. B now is wondering who to sue: Facebook or CA. B consented to sharing their information with A (by accepting a friend request or making specific data items public-readable), who granted Facebook the right to share that information with (edit) not CA, Dr. Kogan.

by ysavir 6y ago

dragontamer 6y ago

Analogies seem to be failing. So lets actually talk about the case then. Cambridge Analytica asked user A for permission. Facebook allowed CA to gather information about B (A's friend), and B NEVER provided consent. B now is wondering who to sue: Facebook or CA. My opinion: (IANAL). B sues Facebook. Then, Facebook sues CA. This leads to a few results: 1. If B loses its case against Facebook, the game is over. 2. If B wins its case against Facebook, Facebook continues and sues CA. 3. If Facebook loses vs CA, then the game is over and Facebook is found to be at fault. If Facebook wins vs CA, then CA was at fault. 4. If CA was at fault, then maybe CA will then sue its consultant over the issue, and it may continue. So on and so forth until the root cause is discovered, wherein the game ends. Simple process. At least... simple if everyone could afford the proper legal process. B probably can't afford it and many "Bs" need to gather together for a class action lawsuit and all that jazz. The hardest part of the puzzle is what exactly B would be suing over. It feels like B was damaged as a whole, since Facebook leaked B's information to CA. But its hard for me to formalize the complaint. Then again: that's a lawyer's job to find out.

ysavir 6y ago
If we're going with a chain lawsuit, then why skip the step where B sues A for sharing their information with Dr. Kogan? B sues A for sharing their information, then A sues Facebook, then Facebook sues CA. That would be the full cycle, no? If B is allowed to skip suing A in favor of suing Facebook directly, why shouldn't they also skip suing Facebook and sue Dr. Kogan directly? Or maybe it doesn't even get to go that far: B just needs to sue A, Facebook gets to sue Dr. Kogan, and that's all we see.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  > If we're going with a chain lawsuit, then why skip the step where B sues A for sharing their information with Dr. Kogan? B interacts to A through Facebook, do they not? If Facebook wants to sue A as the next leg in the chain, they're certainly welcome to try. That's the joy about just following the edge of the graph: its Facebook's job to figure out if A is more at fault (and should be sued) or if Cambridge Analytica is more at fault. This "chain" methodology further demonstrates which lawsuits are likely fruitless. The concept of Facebook suing A, or even Cambridge Analytica for suing A (if it goes that far) is clearly improper at face value. Breaking things up one-step at a time allows us to seek justice. IE: the entire point of the justice system.
  - ysavir 6y ago
    > B interacts to A through Facebook, do they not? And what impact does that have? > its Facebook's job to figure out if A is more at fault (and should be sued) or if Cambridge Analytica is more at fault. No, it's not Facebook's job to figure that out. If this was an investigation, then it would be the investigating office's job to figure out that. But it's not an investigation, it's a lawsuit, an accusation by one party against another party. The only thing to figure out here is if the accusation is legitimate. This thread started with the GP remarking that the accusation shouldn't be found valid. To say that it should be found valid because the accused can then separately try to sue another party is not a proper evaluation of the accusation, nor is it demonstrative of a productive legal process (at least in my opinion), nor is it "the entire point of the justice system".
- 6y ago
politicalloss 6y ago
> Cambridge Analytica asked user A for permission. Facebook allowed CA to gather information about B (A's friend), and B NEVER provided consent. B now is wondering who to sue: Facebook or CA. B consented to sharing their information with A (by accepting a friend request or making specific data items public-readable), who granted Facebook the right to share that information with (edit) not CA, Dr. Kogan.