Facebook suspends controversial data firm Cambridge Analytica

"Facebook accused of conducting mass surveillance through its apps

Company gathered data from texts and photos of users and their friends, court case claims

Facebook used its apps to gather information about users and their friends, including some who had not signed up to the social network, reading their text messages, tracking their locations and accessing photos on their phones, a court case in California alleges..."

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...conducting-mass-surveillance-through-its-apps

 

@deBoetie It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. From what I can see the GDPR is great news after continual privacy invasions for years, but at the same time I'm saying, OK what's the catch. Of course, early days. I'm not sure what it says about brokers either but after being grilled on this question at the US meeting, Zuckerberg wasn't shy in saying they recently stopped going to data brokers, as if shutting the gate after the horse has bolted somehow fixes everything - I mean in some cases the damage can cause permanent harm from the time the information hits the internet, even if it's taken down quickly.

The way both the US and EU meetings took place, it pretty much meant nothing could be dealt with properly. Time and again the 4 minute time frame proved to be his ideal escape route for the Capitol Hill meeting. He fared much better with the EU in that he could choose what questions to answer and answer them much more generally without being specific. That's why I think this whole business is a charade and he really made a spectacle of himself dodging questions about tracking non FB users and logged out users, something that was not lost on both the US and EU.

Whatever might transpire from any behind the scenes shenanigans, I don't see Zuckerberg suffering any great trauma in the forseeable future, but I sincerely hope I'm wrong. There seems to be a huge amount of discontent about him being extremely evasive and fudging the facts.

It looks like GDPR requires the opt-in model and thats a really good thing. The opt-out model is exceptionally vexatious putting the onus on people to do something that's incredibly time consuming. Having to go through numerous settings is ridiculous. That's exactly how they want it to be so you won't bother. Something else wrong with this is that each company puts the burden on you without caring one iota about the cumulative affect of other companies doing exactly the same. You could spend a good part of your day dealing with the STUPID opt out model. I can't speak highly enough of the OPT-IN model. People get to choose if/when they want in on something without suffering adverse affects like being pestered with creepy ads and other annoyances.

If people join FB thats their prerogative. It's up to them how they tame the FB monster and keep up with its "moving target" policies, but there's a world of difference between FB users and non FB users. Zuckerberg needs to stop being slippery and front up with precise details on exactly what information it holds on every single person in its system that is a non FB user. It should come clean about all the methods they've used to track these people and yet it has continually given bland answers or not answered at all. Then they should permanently delete any information held on non FB users under the watchful eyes of the GDPR regulators. Then it should be permanently banned from ever collecting it again. Anything less is theft of peoples private information.

 

hxxps: //www. theverge. com/2018/5/25/17393766/facebook-google-gdpr-lawsuit-max-schrems-europe

I seriously hope they throw the book at them AND reimburse all the people they've stolen private information off. That would be a good start.

 

@Reality - thanks for the analysis. I think to an extent, FB is its own data broker, it has the power because it gets so much input. Like you, my Tos violation is that FB collect on non-members - completely unacceptable, and as for face reco GAAHHHA. Pleased to see Schrems is active out of the gate.

Agree that Zuckerberg hasn't been questioned at all really, it's a public charade. I want to see these cases in court, that's the only time we're going to see the reality of GDPR.

I also want to see fair contract terms imposed website Tos and policies, the same way as they do for real-life businesses. You should not have to read the detail to know that you will not be required to deliver your firstborn, GDPR doesn't affect that aspect.

 

I'm right with you on face recognition @deBoetie. It's really scraping the bottom of the barrel now they've resorted to this, and where I am, there was a recent case of someone being wrongly accused. I really hate all these cameras in your face and I'm not shy in telling people where I can still make a difference.

Yes when Zuckerberg can be so ironic as to pull the most naive stunts imaginable (complete with the innocent eyed look) and get away with it, you know something is very wrong with FB. It has become so unwieldy with way too much power, so yes "its own data broker" about says it all.

Never heard of Schrems before, but I hope he pushes very very hard, although I heard that they are going to be "lenient" to start with in some situations, like start-ups who are genuinely trying to find their way. I can't imagine for a second how FB could fit into this category. I am almost speechless at the endless doublespeak and slippery lie and deny tactics FB has pulled and this years events are only the tip of the iceberg. Some one noted that the apology campaign is now at #16.

I want to see the results of all the "we'll get back to you on this" promises, preferably in court and specifically for nonusers. My thoughts on TOS/policies in it's most basic form is that these are like an agreement between two parties, where both have protection like as you say, in real life. The trouble is on the net and on websites, it's all one sided. The website dictates everything and the visitor has little to no rights. This absolutely needs to change. What narcissistic arrogance for FB to lay claim, for example, to users photos, profiles etc. There was a real backlash about that.

GDPR IF it is enforced on the likes of FB and the google monster will be a good start.

 

A Cambridge Analytica Alum Launches a New Data Firm
Data Propria founder Matt Oczkowski will continue the behavioral targeting pioneered by Cambridge Analytica—but says this time will be different.
May 29, 2018
https://www.wired.com/story/data-propria-data-cambridge-analytica/

 

"Facebook to build [another] massive data center

EAGLE MOUNTAIN — Facebook is set to build a new data center in Eagle Mountain that will span nearly one million square feet and represent a $750 million investment...located on a 490-acre site..."

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46330279&n...-build-massive-data-center-in-eagle-mountain-

 

Now Russia wants Zuckerberg to testify for them, too
May 31, 2018
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/31/...estify-facebook-parliament-federation-council

 

87 million reasons to protect your data
Cambridge Analytica's Facebook data scandal is a wake-up call every firm should heed. It's put data security firmly back on the agenda.
June 1, 2018
https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2018/06/01/87-million-reasons-to-protect-your-data

 

‘Corporate dictatorship’? Facebook shareholders get their turn to grill Mark Zuckerberg
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06...ders-get-their-turn-to-grill-mark-zuckerberg/

 

"Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends...

As Facebook sought to become the world’s dominant social media service, it struck agreements allowing phone and other device makers access to vast amounts of its users’ personal information.

Facebook has reached data-sharing partnerships with at least 60 device makers — including Apple, Amazon, BlackBerry, Microsoft and Samsung — over the last decade, starting before Facebook apps were widely available on smartphones, company officials said. The deals allowed Facebook to expand its reach and let device makers offer customers popular features of the social network, such as messaging, “like” buttons and address books.

But the partnerships, whose scope has not previously been reported, raise concerns about the company’s privacy protections and compliance with a 2011 consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission. Facebook allowed the device companies access to the data of users’ friends without their explicit consent, even after declaring that it would no longer share such information with outsiders. Some device makers could retrieve personal information even from users’ friends who believed they had barred any sharing,..."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ebook-device-partners-users-friends-data.html

 

Facebook Denies Claims Mobile Data Sharing Broke Privacy Pledges
June 4, 2018
https://www.silicon.co.uk/workspace/facebook-denies-mobile-data-sharing-privacy-233343

 

"Facebook discloses data-sharing with Chinese phone makers

Facebook on Wednesday confirmed four Chinese device makers were among those that had broad access to customer data under a program spotlighted in a New York Times story last weekend. Among them was Huawei, which has close ties to the Chinese government and has been cited by U.S. officials as a national security threat..."

https://www.axios.com/facebook-has-...654-0cbe43e7-fd00-4cbc-abcf-9e481c161fdc.html

 

Court Finds Facebook Page Administrator ‘Jointly Responsible’ For Data Protection

https://www.silicon.co.uk/workspace/court-finds-facebook-page-responsible-data-protection-233429

 

Would you delete your account if a social media provider misused your data?

https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2018/06/07/delete-social-media-account/

 

Don’t Let Facebook, or Any Tracker, Follow You on The Web

https://blog.torproject.org/dont-let-facebook-or-any-tracker-follow-you-web

 

14 Million Facebook Users May Have "Unknowingly" Shared Posts With Public

"Facebook says millions of users who thought they were sharing privately with their friends may have shared with everyone because of a software bug...

According to Facebook, a software bug, which was live for 10 days in May, updated the audience for some user’s posts to “public” without any warning..."

https://www.recode.net/2018/6/7/17438928/facebook-bug-privacy-public-settings-14-million-users

 

EU Demands Facebook to Stop Sending Its Lobbyists

https://wccftech.com/eu-facebook-stop-sending-lobbyists/

 

"Facebook made additional user data available to some firms after 2015

Facebook Inc. inked data-sharing agreements with a group of partners that included special access to member records after 2015, when Facebook said it cut off all developers from such data, The Wall Street Journal reported late Friday. ...

Known as "whitelists," the deals gave this group of companies access to information about users' friends, including phone numbers and an internal Facebook data point known as "friend link" that measures how close users are with one another. The agreements were with companies such as RBC Capital Markets and Nissan Motor Co. and demonstrate that Facebook doled out access to more firms than was previously reported. It raises questions about the total number of firms and people who has access to the data of the more than two billion Facebook users, according to the Journal...."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/f...rms-after-2015-2018-06-08?link=MW_latest_news

 

Mirimir, going back over older stuff. If you haven't already discovered it check out this site.
https://www.fakenamegenerator.com/

 

Facebook may ban businesses that mislead users about products
The company is cracking down on inaccurate shipping times and product descriptions.
June 12, 2018
https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/12/facebook-false-advertising-businesses-user-reviews/

 

@ronjor, Thanks. From a link within your linked page, one can download a comprehensive pdf (229 pages) - It presents further answers FB promised to "get back on". Highly recommended to those who want to get deeper insights to the nightmare that is FB. Answers to privacy issues are tiny in comparison to things such as political bias and (so-called) hate speech. Most questions are answered by means of referring to a categorized "one size fits all" answer.

Of course I haven't read the whole document. The inherent dangers of ever using such a platform as FB is starkly evident if for nothing else, just by the sheer size of the FB monster. Being more interested in non FB users I intend to learn anything else that may have come to light to that end. So far all I can see FB has offered is they say they don't profile non users or identify them. HOWEVER, that is only half the story as is the case for many answers FB has carefully crafted in its responses to pacify those who question, by obfuscation and/or omission.

"Question 93. Yes or no: Does Facebook collect data on individuals who are not registered
Facebook users?
If so, does Facebook use this data as part of the advertising products it sells?
If so, does Facebook share or has Facebook ever shared this data with third parties? "

(emphasis mine)
"Facebook does not create profiles for people who do not hold Facebook accounts.

When people visit apps or websites that feature our technologies—like the Facebook Like
or Comment button—our servers automatically log (i) standard browser or app records of the
fact that a particular device or user visited the website or app (this connection to Facebook’s
servers occurs automatically when a person visits a website or app that contains our
technologies, such as a Like button, and is an inherent function of Internet design); and (ii) any
additional information the publisher of the app or website chooses to share with Facebook about
the person’s activities on that site "

... and goes on to excuse this as a

"standard feature of the Internet, and most websites and apps share this same information "

and (emphasis mine)

"When the person visiting a website featuring Facebook’s tools is not a registered
Facebook user, Facebook does not have information identifying that individual, and it does not
create profiles for this individual.
We use the browser and app logs that apps and websites send to us—described above—in
the following ways for non-Facebook users. First, these logs are critical to protecting the security
of Facebook and to detecting or preventing fake account access. " .....

Folks, no company should enforce it's policies on the internet as a whole using it's own security requirements as an excuse to do this.

Because, like google, FB is a MONSTER of epic proportions, I don't trust that anything they say can be relied on to be the whole truth. I'm also interested the GDPR implications, plus the many ways the camels nose is in the door (or close to it), for example, that FB would like to "anonymously" share health data with the medical sector, but has put it on hold for now. (see " Hospital Data Sharing Project " Page 191)

"using fully-anonymized Facebook data could help the medical community advance our understanding in this area. [...] In March, we decided that we should pause these discussions " ...

The FB model at its very core is diametrically opposed to an inherent right for people to have private lives. Zuckerbergs "mission" to make a "better society" doesn't fly. If you want to use FB don't expect privacy without compromising other values you would rather have not given up.