Cambridge Analytica

[pawRoot]

Wait, so it's fine if they collect data from millions of people, but it's very bad if someone uses that data to "influence" elections, or voting in general.

All the left is butthurt about Trump winning the election since day one, they won't let it go .

[n_hologram]

Is everyone seriously going to pretend that Ted Cruz didn't try this platform two years ago?

This is not news.

https://www.npr.org/2016/02/19/46739521 ... next-level

Businesses that make money by collecting and selling detailed records of private lives were once plainly described as "surveillance companies." Their rebranding as "social media" is the most successful deception since the Department of War became the Department of Defense. - Edward Snowden

[debiman]

this is not about trump or any one particular politician or party in any one particular country.
hell, it's not even about mark zuckerberg.
of course facebook was the platform and willingly turned a blind eye, but really it's about the people who are willing to pay for services like this (yes, the same ones that promise YOU that they have your best interests in mind) and those willing to provide them.

i truly hope we get more news like this, because as long as companies abuse it like they do, the internet needs more rules.

btw, there's interesting articles cropping up now about the guy who blew the whistle on this one.

anyone who says "i don't know what evryone is so upset about" will probably continue saying so right up until human-induced apocalypse.
when they finally realize there was something to get upset about, they won't be able to utter the words anymore because there's only one million oxygen masks for 10 billion people...

[n_hologram]

My point was that the same issue was present before possible election meddling -- the writing has been on the walls for years, dating back to the 2010 xkcd comic I posted earlier. It usually takes mishandling or outright breakage for the public to even listen, and even then, action isn't promised.

There is only one difference catalysing this case: ties to the president. And if screenshots from die-hard responses to political criticism still ring as true as they did last week/year/decade, it's entirely plausible to assume that the president's entire fanbase (as with most political fanbases) now believes there is absolutely no truth in the issue. (And I think it's also plausible to assume that Facebook will the the medium through which they express this.) We're kind of an objective sounding-board here; it's a different world on Surveillancebook.

My favourite pastime is asking people if they're interested in selling their own money to companies, instead of letting Facebook. They'll think you're lying.

[ticojohn]

I have been previously chastised about making political comments on this board. I thinks this post has gotten too political and posters should refrain from linking political figures to the obvious abuse of power/wealth by Mr. Zuckerberg and company.

[Wheelerof4te]

^I agree with you, Mark is the bigger problem and the US media is just using this story to blast the current US president instead of focusing on Mark.

[Lysander]

this is not about trump or any one particular politician or party in any one particular country.
hell, it's not even about mark zuckerberg.
of course facebook was the platform and willingly turned a blind eye, but really it's about the people who are willing to pay for services like this (yes, the same ones that promise YOU that they have your best interests in mind) and those willing to provide them.

i truly hope we get more news like this, because as long as companies abuse it like they do, the internet needs more rules

Indeed, though I do question if these latest events will make any difference to peoples' usage of SM. People are addicated and though some will delete their FB accounts in protest, many just find themselves literally unable to leave SM, which is its raison d'etre. It is designed to suck the user in and have them disclose as much about themselves as possible.

My point was that the same issue was present before possible election meddling -- the writing has been on the walls for years, dating back to the 2010 xkcd comic I posted earlier. It usually takes mishandling or outright breakage for the public to even listen, and even then, action isn't promised.

Yes, further to my above point, election-fiddling has been part of the agenda for years, it's not going to change anytime soon. The Russian elections, the Turkish ones, the US ones and even the last UK election was won by questionable means. Attaining power is - if I can make such a generalisation - done by manipulation, stealth, cheating and screwing people over.

I have been previously chastised about making political comments on this board. I thinks this post has gotten too political and posters should refrain from linking political figures to the obvious abuse of power/wealth by Mr. Zuckerberg and company.

Facebook is only as important as its influence. It was very likely able to influence the outcome of a national election, so it's relevant - and important - to discuss it. Ultimately though, I expect the whole thing to blow over with very little resultant impact.

[bw123]

What I don't understand is why this has a sudden presence all over the media? Also I don't understand the logic of people who give their "private" information to someone, and then act surprised that it's not "private" anymore, wtf?

I think fb has a right to use whatever info is voluntarily provided to them anyway they want, as long as it is legal? Anything that someone posts, routes through, or otherwise puts on MY system I will use anyway I see fit. That's the way it always has been, things you post on the internet are *not* private.

I haven't seen any evidence yet that any harm was done? They targeted some ads to people, goes on all the time...

[ticojohn]

Facebook is only as important as its influence. It was very likely able to influence the outcome of a national election, so it's relevant - and important - to discuss it. Ultimately though, I expect the whole thing to blow over with very little resultant impact.

I agree that we should discuss the aspects of the influence of these companies, and how they can affect our way of life. Just saying that referring to specific political figures and how they may or may not have used data mining to achieve their specific objectives may not be appropriate. But I am not the one monitoring posts on this board. So have at it!

[Lysander]

What I don't understand is why this has a sudden presence all over the media? Also I don't understand the logic of people who give their "private" information to someone, and then act surprised that it's not "private" anymore, wtf?

Who is surprised? As far as I understand it, everyone now knows this is the case, grudgingly accepts it and then the posting continues. Everyone knows their data is mined these days, but they don't care enough to do anything about it.

I think fb has a right to use whatever info is voluntarily provided to them anyway they want, as long as it is legal?

You have to remember that rights are not naturally existent, they are enforced. Also legality crosses over with morality. So this is not only about whether something is legal, but about whether it should be legal.

I haven't seen any evidence yet that any harm was done? They targeted some ads to people, goes on all the time...

Hmm, many would say the election of Donald Trump was pretty harmful.

[bw123]

I haven't seen any evidence yet that any harm was done? They targeted some ads to people, goes on all the time...

Hmm, many would say the election of Donald Trump was pretty harmful.

Where's the evidence that any election results anywhere was actually "influenced" by this technology? I watch ads all day long about JG Wentworth, it drives me crazy with that stupid song, but I'd never don't have a structured settlement and I don;t need cash now, so it does no harm.

[Wheelerof4te]

^Mainstream media generally don't need evidence, as long as the story sells. This one does sell, so they go at it knowing that most of the public doesn't care. "Bread and games", as the saying goes.
Just look at the headlines from a few days ago, it's the same. No evidence needed.

[alan stone]

... the internet needs more rules.

Some food for thought about the impact of technology.

So how about, instead:

(1) refuse to consent to, and boycot predatory, crony people and organisations?
(2) stop whining when getting the consequences of not doing (1)?
(3) learn from mistakes and do better next?

No initiation of coercion, force or violence needed to solve a problem.

[Bulkley]

My point was that the same issue was present before possible election meddling -- the writing has been on the walls for years . . .

Correct. Here's Eben Moglen in 2012. "Eben Moglen is a professor of law and legal history at Columbia University, and is the founder, Director-Counsel and Chairman of Software Freedom Law Center, whose client list includes numerous pro bono clients, such as the Free Software Foundation." Eben Moglen on Facebook, Google and Government Surveillance

[n_hologram]

I agree that we should discuss the aspects of the influence of these companies, and how they can affect our way of life. Just saying that referring to specific political figures and how they may or may not have used data mining to achieve their specific objectives may not be appropriate.

I don't see how you can have a discussion about the internet without even unintentionally discussing politics, which shape the way we [are allowed or not allowed to] use it; laws are a huge factor behind censorship (or lack thereof) and surveillance (or lack thereof). I always thought the two unspoken boundaries were 1) passing judgment on a particular candidate, or 2) allowing a thread to break from the technology side so far that it is only about politics (or political opinions), not computers. Could be wrong though.

the US media is just using this story to blast the current US president instead of focusing on Mark.

It depends on your source. Lots of them have been ripping Zuckerberg apart since the original privacy breach, when everyone learned that the "privacy settings" did literally nothing, and the courts gave him a slap on the wrist.

I think fb has a right to use whatever info is voluntarily provided to them anyway they want, as long as it is legal?

You have to remember that rights are not naturally existent, they are enforced. Also legality crosses over with morality. So this is not only about whether something is legal, but about whether it should be legal.

Interestingly enough, because the information was trafficked through third-parties, there's a potential loophole that could classify all user data as "campaign donations," and would, therefore, violate some pretty well-known federal policies concerning the way candidates are allowed to receive campaign donations. If the courts determine this, there will be some interesting outcomes looking forward, including the potential for new laws (hopefully salient ones) regarding ways to interpret political data online, regulations on data collection and distribution, and the future of targeted, politically-charged advertisement.

(Edited for clarity.)

[acewiza]

It's all just marketing. The marketing people have been going insane for years over how much money they can collect with widely-cast Internet campaigns. It's not just politics either - anything bought or sold (including politicians) is now subject to media amplification on an unprecedented scale. The money-grubbers are like kids in a candy store with all sorts of media networked in the wild-west Internet setting these days. There's nothing that cannot be sold online to the highest bidder and anything can be sold to the people stupid enough to believe a scammer. Easily and quickly - online.

[debiman]

i don't know what triggered it originally - i think a combination of ongoing investigations into trump's campaign AND christopher wylie deciding to finally blow the whistle, but i could be wrong - but by now this is clearly a global issue, totally independent from US politicks.
i actually think the outrage is much greater in the UK and Europe.
And yes, it's been going on for years. brexit, obama, etc. etc. and that's only cambridge analytica - there's of course other companies who "haven't been caught yet" i hope.

i have been following news stories from at least 3 countries, and it is pretty clear:
a) the "general public" finally starts noticing and is upset
b) this will very likely go to court both in the EU and the US, and not only against cambridge analytica but also against facebook itself.

i think this is a good thing. i personally - and we linux forum dwellers - have of course known and seen the writing on the wall for years, but now more people than ever see it, and maybe start realising that the old "i-have-nothing-to-hide" argument is backfiring.

[bw123]

i don't know what triggered it originally - i think a combination of ongoing investigations into trump's campaign AND christopher wylie deciding to finally blow the whistle - but this is clearly a global issue.
<snip>

I think the trigger is the desire by governments to regulate (censor) the internet as a whole for content, either through taxation or some other means... The press is obviously not a disinterested party, because they make a lot of money using the internet (and from direct subsidy/bribes by govt), and have a lot of skin in the game.

p.s. I didn't say I was for or against, just setting out some parameters for a discussion of, "... if ; then"

[Wheelerof4te]

I think the reason for getting firmer grip on the Internet in the West (also in the East, example China) is even more dire. But I'm not going to speculate it here, since it's not allowed.
When you look at everything that's being broadcasted through media, you see fear and war morgering left and right. We are heading for some dark times, I'm afraid.
EDIT: OT:
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/101 ... nref=story
Mark finally responds.

I've been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again. The good news is that the most important actions to prevent this from happening again today we have already taken years ago.

Yeah, keep patting yourself on the back, Mark.

[debiman]

I've been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again. The good news is that the most important actions to prevent this from happening again today we have already taken years ago.

idk wtf that's even supposed to mean.
according to various articles facebook knew exactly what cambridge analytica (amongst others, i presume) were doing, and decided to turn a blind eye.
of course now this is all going south, they are more than willing to turn on their former partners in crime.