Deleted member 2533

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,325
It refers to this as a data "leak", but it sure sounds like they got the data from Facebook legally, they just might have broken some sort of user license agreement they're supposed to follow when using FB-provided data. I don't see any indication that this is a leak.

Kind of correct. The data appears to have been gathered through FB's APIs and whatnot that were designed to allow this information to be gathered for legitimate research purposes. From what I understand though, FB needs to adhere to privacy laws, and by extension their clients, and how all the parties have acted and handled this data, they've run afowl of privacy laws.

It's not really a leak, all the data was gathered through means designed to facilitate the transfer of data, the data's just been used illegally.
 

mugurumakensei

Elizabeth, I’m coming to join you!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,412
Right. But that's not illegal. On FB, I can see friends of my friends quite easily. So can apps. Now replace me with a bot, it's the same thing. That's not illegal for a bot to do in the US currently (I'm pretty sure, maybe I'm wrong), but maybe it should be.

That sounds like fraud, which is illegal. But not hacking.

Typically, apps can only see lists of friends. It can not actually get any information about those users beyond names as anything further requires explicit permission from the user to grant. Otherwise, you are accessing information that the user assumes to be private unless their profile and all posts are public which has not been the case for most people in a long long time.
 

Deleted member 2533

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,325
Right. But that's not illegal. On FB, I can see friends of my friends quite easily. So can apps. Now replace me with a bot, it's the same thing. That's not illegal for a bot to do in the US currently (I'm pretty sure, maybe I'm wrong), but maybe it should be.

That sounds like fraud, which is illegal. But not hacking.

This assumes that the data you can see as a user is the same data that FB sells to researchers for "academic purposes." It's possible stuff like "time spent on site," "devices used to access FB," "IP addresses," etc. are made available.
 

Johnny Blaze

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
4,268
DE
People would be sued into oblivion and maybe jailed if this happened with licensed media, but hey it's just private user data...
 

Red Cadet 015

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,947
Kind of correct. The data appears to have been gathered through FB's APIs and whatnot that were designed to allow this information to be gathered for legitimate research purposes. From what I understand though, FB needs to adhere to privacy laws, and by extension their clients, and how all the parties have acted and handled this data, they've run afowl of privacy laws.

It's not really a leak, all the data was gathered through means designed to facilitate the transfer of data, the data's just been used illegally.
From The Gaurdian's graphic, it seems the data was gathered as part of research for Cambridge University. The data was then transferred to Cambridge Analytica. That's probably illegal for several reasons. But it's not a hack or leak. I'm not sure Facebook had a legal obligation to report it as a breach.
This assumes that the data you can see as a user is the same data that FB sells to researchers for "academic purposes." It's possible stuff like "time spent on site," "devices used to access FB," "IP addresses," etc. are made available.
Indeed.
People would be sued into oblivion and maybe jailed if this happened with licensed media, but hey it's just private user data...
These companies can have all the private data on me they want as long as its anonymous and is used to benefit me in some way. This is not benefiting me, however.
 

Deleted member 2533

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,325
From The Gaurdian's graphic, it seems the data was gathered as part of research for Cambridge University. The data was then transferred to Cambridge Analytica. That's probably illegal for several reasons. But it's not a hack or leak. I'm not sure Facebook had a legal obligation to report it as a breach.

CA is definitely in jeopardy, the question as to if FB needs to report to users that their data has transferred hands from an authorised party to an unauthorised party is the same as their duty to inform users that their data has been accessed by unauthorised parties outright is a subtlety that I can't speak to.
 

dusteatingbug

Member
Dec 1, 2017
1,393
Twelve Moldovan teenagers make pro-Trump memes on Facebook: yes this is very serious we are looking into this we are very concerned about democracy

This shit happens: how about we don't tell anyone about this okay guys
 

Red Cadet 015

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,947
CA is definitely in jeopardy, the question as to if FB needs to report to users that their data has transferred hands from an authorised party to an unauthorised party is the same as their duty to inform users that their data has been accessed by unauthorised parties outright is a subtlety that I can't speak to.
It's also likely they didn't want to wade into the election. Facebook saying "hey, this company working for Donald Trump is committing a crime and it involves every user on Facebook." The political upheaval that would have cause with the FBI already investigating Clinton would have fucked with our system of government in ways that couldn't be anticipated at the time. It wasn't even in most people's head that Trump would win, and would have seemed there was more to loose by causing chaos than just ignoring the breach. In hindsight, yeah, they probably should have said something.

This reinforces my opinion even more that the Constitution needs major revisions- including one to delay an election if there is evidence of felonious activity on both sides. I feel like I'm alone in the dark on that though.
 

capitalCORN

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
10,436
Then why is Bannon still dragging his slug ass across Europe? Shouldn't he be arrested if he knew? I'm not sure he knew. Or maybe Mueller is just waiting (very possible).
Because Bannon is desperate for relevance. He's a primadonna first and foremost, and greatly relished the press claims of being the malevolent architect of the threat of the far right. After getting dumped from all relevance, he's simply just a wino looking degenerate who insists on dressing like a hobo.
 

Mahonay

Member
Oct 25, 2017
33,359
Pencils Vania
Some of my family members want me to use Facebook more to keep up with everyone, but holy shit it's the last thing I want to do. Fuck Facebook and fuck Zuckerberg.
 

Jmanunknown

Member
Oct 26, 2017
858
That is not a leak, that is maybe against a license agreement or terms of service.

Actually it kind of is a leak read the article
Only a tiny fraction of the users had agreed to release their information to a third party.

The information was legally gotten from facebook but it was illegally shared to third parties which a vast majority of the users who's information was used had not agreed to it being used or viewed by third parties.
 

ImaginaShawn

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,532
Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit all need to be regulated. They are not tech companies, they are media companies.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,268
From The Gaurdian's graphic, it seems the data was gathered as part of research for Cambridge University. The data was then transferred to Cambridge Analytica. That's probably illegal for several reasons. But it's not a hack or leak. I'm not sure Facebook had a legal obligation to report it as a breach.
Indeed.

These companies can have all the private data on me they want as long as its anonymous and is used to benefit me in some way. This is not benefiting me, however.

It is absolutely a data breach. They tricked users into a study and then further harvested the data.
 

Red Cadet 015

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,947
It is absolutely a data breach. They tricked users into a study and then further harvested the data.
That's not a data breach because they obtained the data without stealing it. It's fraud because they are not using the data for the purpose they expressed to FB.

Not surprising FB has the most strenuous privacy laws though, they are the US state that's most akin to Europe. Not sure whether I'm fully behind their investigation as it may set disturbing and regressive precedents. We definitely national laws on this though.
Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit all need to be regulated. They are not tech companies, they are media companies.
If it leads to these sites costing money because they can't mine your data for advertising, the public will not support it.

There must be balance... at least until we can use our computers for networked cloud computing in lieu of private information being provided. But people on this site seem to be against that idea...
 

enzo_gt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,299
I been tryna tell y'all that Cambridge Analytica is a WAY scarier election story than bots. The real, true Orwellian shit.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,268
That's not a data breach because they obtained the data without stealing it. It's fraud because they are not using the data for the purpose they expressed to FB.

Not surprising FB has the most strenuous privacy laws though, they are the US state that's most akin to Europe. Not sure whether I'm fully behind their investigation as it may set disturbing and regressive precedents. We definitely national laws on this though.
If it leads to these sites costing money because they can't mine your data for advertising, the public will not support it.

They disguised themselves as a research institute to trick people into a research study so they good use the Graph API to obtain data of which they used to target advertising for political gains
 
OP
OP
Tovarisc

Tovarisc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,555
FIN
They disguised themselves as a research institute to trick people into a research study so they good use the Graph API to obtain data of which they used to target advertising for political gains

Maybe 2016 US Elections were just one big research program for them?

How far you can push population analysis and targeting for political advertisements in order to influence and change political views.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,268
Maybe 2016 US Elections were just one big research program for them?

How far you can push population analysis and targeting for political advertisements in order to influence and change political views.

You can do this without creating a fake company to gather data that you then mine for targeted political ads, for a company that has political and financial ties to a campaign. There is no way you can spin this without it having a "malicious" intent.
 

Palette Swap

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
11,380
I knew this was Cambridge Analytica before I even clicked.
Yeah. I guess this could have been Palantir too.

I been tryna tell y'all that Cambridge Analytica is a WAY scarier election story than bots. The real, true Orwellian shit.
I post this article every time and am always a bit skeptical at how deep that rabbit hole seems to go because it all seems so crazy but yeah, it's pretty scary: https://www.theguardian.com/technol...eat-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy
 

Red Cadet 015

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,947
They disguised themselves as a research institute to trick people into a research study so they good use the Graph API to obtain data of which they used to target advertising for political gains
Yes, I agree. But that's fraud, not theft or a "breach." The difference is important because Facebook's liability hinges on wheather their security was breached or whether Facebook and its users were defrauded.

It is also important for the public discourse that people understand the difference. Regulation in this area should be targeted to enforce strict rules and possibly government notification about how the data is being used for research purposes (just like we do with medicine). Calling it a breach confuses the issue.
 
Oct 25, 2017
20,268
Yes, I agree. But that's fraud, not theft or a "breach." The difference is important because Facebook's liability hinges on wheather their security was breached or whether Facebook and its users were defrauded.

It is also important for the public discourse that people understand the difference. Regulation in this area should be targeted to enforce strict rules and possibly government notification about how the data is being used for research purposes (just like we do with medicine). Calling it a breach confuses the issue.

It's a breach in that a company was deciptive and got data.

I just don't want to see this downplayed over semantics of hack or breach or fraud. Outlets should absolutely play this up and come at it as a form of a breach or "hack". Let the lawyers deal with the language. People need to be aggressive and demanding towards these large internet companies who seem to change what their product is based on the current lawsuit
 

Red Cadet 015

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,947
The thing that was "breached" was Facebook's policies. They basically held onto information they had no right to possess.
Yes they breached the terms of the contract and likely the law. But that's not a breach of Facebook'' security system for the platform.

Regarding some of the details here, I'm almost certain the Trump campaign violated campaign finance law with this. They received from CA valuable electronic data that has monetary value. Campaign finance law is very clear that "things of value" must be reported and are subject to contribution limits. That is outside of the normal state privacy laws that would apply to this, and would certainly tie up the whole campaign on that alone. This doesn't even have to be tied to Russia. It's illegal all by itself.

Yet another rabbit hole for Mueller to explore if he isn't already.


Edit: Also for fun, let us count the number jurisdictions under which Trump is potentially legally exposed at this point:

Massachusetts: Campaign, Cambridge Analytica
New York: Money Laundering, Campaign
Virginia: Campaign
California: Stormy Daniels
Federal: Campaign, Russian Collusion, Stormy Daniels, Money Laundering, Cambridge Analytica

Feel free to add more. These are the ones if the top of my head.
 
Last edited:

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
(You generally don't want to link to The Hill, as they tend to just be leeching off other primary reporters, just a tip)

But it gets even worse: https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...er-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump

The problem with Nix's response to Collins is that Wylie has a copy of an executed contract, dated 4 June 2014, which confirms that SCL, the parent company of Cambridge Analytica, entered into a commercial arrangement with a company called Global Science Research (GSR), owned by Cambridge-based academic Aleksandr Kogan, specifically premised on the harvesting and processing of Facebook data, so that it could be matched to personality traits and voter rolls.

He has receipts showing that Cambridge Analytica spent $7m to amass this data, about $1m of it with GSR. He has the bank records and wire transfers. Emails reveal Wylie first negotiated with Michal Kosinski, one of the co-authors of the original myPersonality research paper, to use the myPersonality database. But when negotiations broke down, another psychologist, Aleksandr Kogan, offered a solution that many of his colleagues considered unethical. He offered to replicate Kosinski and Stilwell's research and cut them out of the deal. For Wylie it seemed a perfect solution. "Kosinski was asking for $500,000 for the IP but Kogan said he could replicate it and just harvest his own set of data." (Kosinski says the fee was to fund further research.)

Kogan then set up GSR to do the work, and proposed to Wylie they use the data to set up an interdisciplinary institute working across the social sciences. "What happened to that idea," I ask Wylie. "It never happened. I don't know why. That's one of the things that upsets me the most."

It was Bannon's interest in culture as war that ignited Wylie's intellectual concept. But it was Robert Mercer's millions that created a firestorm. Kogan was able to throw money at the hard problem of acquiring personal data: he advertised for people who were willing to be paid to take a personality quiz on Amazon's Mechanical Turk and Qualtrics. At the end of which Kogan's app, called thisismydigitallife, gave him permission to access their Facebook profiles. And not just theirs, but their friends' too. On average, each "seeder" – the people who had taken the personality test, around 320,000 in total – unwittingly gave access to at least 160 other people's profiles, none of whom would have known or had reason to suspect.

What the email correspondence between Cambridge Analytica employees and Kogan shows is that Kogan had collected millions of profiles in a matter of weeks. But neither Wylie nor anyone else at Cambridge Analytica had checked that it was legal. It certainly wasn't authorised. Kogan did have permission to pull Facebook data, but for academic purposes only. What's more, under British data protection laws, it's illegal for personal data to be sold to a third party without consent.

"Facebook could see it was happening," says Wylie. "Their security protocols were triggered because Kogan's apps were pulling this enormous amount of data, but apparently Kogan told them it was for academic use. So they were like, 'Fine'."

Kogan maintains that everything he did was legal and he had a "close working relationship" with Facebook, which had granted him permission for his apps.
Dr Kogan – who later changed his name to Dr Spectre, but has subsequently changed it back to Dr Kogan – is still a faculty member at Cambridge University, a senior research associate. But what his fellow academics didn't know until Kogan revealed it in emails to the Observer (although Cambridge University says that Kogan told the head of the psychology department), is that he is also an associate professor at St Petersburg University. Further research revealed that he's received grants from the Russian government to research "Stress, health and psychological wellbeing in social networks". The opportunity came about on a trip to the city to visit friends and family, he said.
You know what's also in St. Petersburg? That's right, you guessed it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency


https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/975120868333490177
 

flyinj

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,066
What was this app they got people to install? Was it like a "see what you look like as a baby" thing?
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
What was this app they got people to install? Was it like a "see what you look like as a baby" thing?
They paid people to take the quiz and got nearly 300K people, which was a large enough data set to draw correlations and let them use it as pattern-matching and targeting for the larger data.
 

flyinj

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,066
They paid people to take the quiz and got nearly 300K people, which was a large enough data set to draw correlations and let them use it as pattern-matching and targeting for the larger data.

Oh shit, they paid people to do it? What was the context for it? Was it framed as some consumer research thing?

This is so crazy