facebook Amidst the Senate hearing about the Cambridge Analytica controversy, Facebook just launched a "Data Abuse Bounty"

[2FA]

16 minutes ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Then the fault on that front is primarily with Kogan and with Facebook who to my understanding was extremely lax in their data control and usage enforcement for many years and also in in their favoritism in the entities they gave privelidged access to.

 

If they don't enforce the rules and bend them at their own particular whim then problems like this will occur and the fault is primarily their own.

 

edit:

 

I should also specify that I don't absolve Cambridge of wrongdoing, but in their case any wrongdoing is dependent entirely upon the knowledge that they had about the data when it was purchased, if they knew that Kogan selling the data was outside of his allowances in the contractual use of the data... then they would be in the wrong as well. However, if Cambridge was only aware that they were purchasing data... but were unaware of or not told of any restrictions on that data through no fault of their own, then they would be absolved.

 

However, i've not read fully into this particular issue but IMO my suspicion would be that they may have had some knowledge of the data's source but did not expect facebook to attempt enforcement of their rules. (this previous sentence is entirely speculation with no particular source of info)

Not sure how relevant it may be but one of the founders of CA who left the company a few years ago has described the company very much as the ends justifies the means type of org.

[Maxxtraxx]

1 hour ago, kirashi said:

I really hope this gets brought up since Aleksandr should be dealt with prior to anyone else being affected at Facebook. I'm not disputing the fact that we need to reach Europe's level of consumer protection laws: this is a definitive goal if North Americans are to ever have the same quality of life that many Countries in the EU offer. However, in this instance, Aleksandr knowingly violated Facebook's own ToS and app developer policies by wording his Quiz App's ToS to be in direct violation of Facebook's own ToS. Again, I do agree with the knowledge-lacking senate and Mark himself that Facebook has a responsibility to police their platform within reason, but Aleksandr is the first person that needs dealing with before the senate's Facebook employee witch hunt begins since he willfully violated Facebook's own ToS through the app he developed.

I can agree with that being brought up(though i'm not entirely sure about the EU's consumer protection laws... and I seldom tend to be in favor of many of the things i see coming out of the EU(but that is a personal world view and mindset difference on my part more than anything else))

 

I can both agree with and disagree with "policing their platform within reason"

example:

 

Agree with policing for: Content like "backpage" or other flagrant abuses used to exploit people are a definite  NO NO

 

Disagree with policing for: Content like "Diamond and Silk" where another persons beliefs and opinions are censored if they may be even mildly upsetting to anyone and not in line with the company's leanings(liberal/progressive in Facebooks case)

 

Very Secondary note: example of EU things that disturb me: French court ruling that a pro-life commercial depicting Happy people with down syndrome being censored because it may disturb women who have had aborted down syndrome babies... so it must therefore be censored, Short and simple: person A's life cannot be included or celebrated because their existence may disturb person B who made a personal choice entirely separate from person A.

 

1 hour ago, 2FA said:

Not sure how relevant it may be but one of the founders of CA who left the company a few years ago has described the company very much as the ends justifies the means type of org.

I see your point exactly.

 

AND i completely do not believe the individual and the company when they say they disavow that article he wrote, he wrote it as a point of fact for the companies feelings.

[AresKrieger]

I find it funny how they seemed to think data farming in an election is a new thing, it's been done since prior to the internet  

 

Regardless of any of that the EULA nonsense companies try to establish as binding, the lack of user data protection, and the general nonsense tech companies get away with needs to end. I'm not a fan of regulation in general out of principle but I also am not a fan of using users as a commodity in this manner and facebook so ultimately I guess I have mixed feelings about this but in the end see it as a net positive they are getting smacked. However I feel like this is more along the lines of a witch hunt for more Russia nonsense (ie this is a political shitshow and nothing more) which is concerning at this point.

[kirashi]

1 hour ago, Maxxtraxx said:

Disagree with policing for: Content like "Diamond and Silk" where another persons beliefs and opinions are censored if they may be even mildly upsetting to anyone and not in line with the company's leanings(liberal/progressive in Facebooks case)

Oh, I'm absolutely on the same page as you there. I should clarify that by policing content I meant only content that is either clearly being used for promoting acts of terror, threats, or heavy handed harassment, or content that promotes drugs & alcohol in an unsafe manner, etc. This is an impossibly difficult thing to do though, since one person's views may not be deemed by some as much right or left winged as another person's views.

 

The real question is "What regulation is the right regulation for the internet as a whole?", which Mark brought up many times in the first 2 hours of the hearing. I do plan to watch the remaining 8+ hours of the hearings when I get around to finishing up day 1 and starting day 2, but so far many valid points have come up regarding privacy and security around services we use on the internet everyday.

 

Normally I couldn't give two midgets shitting into a bucket's worth of car regarding politics because of the under-the-table backroom deals that all political figures make (or have made) at some point in their "careers", even though I do make an effort to vote in every federal, provincial, and municipal election we have in Canada. However, for citizen's privacy and content censorship I'll make an exception, as healthy communication is the most effective way to start solving the world's problems.

[captain_to_fire]

14 minutes ago, kirashi said:

The real question is "What regulation is the right regulation for the internet as a whole?", which Mark brought up many times in the first 2 hours of the hearing.

He said that he will extent GDPR rules not only to EU Facebook users but to everyone in the world. While that would be nice, I don't think I can buy that

[LAwLz]

20 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

He said that he will extent GDPR rules not only to EU Facebook users but to everyone in the world. While that would be nice, I don't think I can buy that

Are you sure that's what he said?

Because this article I read says that they will not do that. They will extend some of the GDPR changes worldwide, but not all of it. Mark also refused on comment on which parts would or would not be included in the world wide version.

[captain_to_fire]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Are you sure that's what he said?

Because this article I read says that they will not do that. They will extend some of the GDPR changes worldwide, but not all of it. Mark also refused on comment on which parts would or would not be included in the world wide version.

Quote

Mark Zuckerberg stated that the changes Facebook is making in response to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will be available worldwide. Zuckerberg made a commitment to not only provide the same privacy controls but making the same kinds of disclosures and treating users’ data the same. The GDPR imposes requirements on how user data is collected, and how user data must be deleted at the user’s request.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17224492/zuckerberg-facebook-congress-gdpr-data-protection

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, hey_yo_ said:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/11/17224492/zuckerberg-facebook-congress-gdpr-data-protection

I recommend you read the entire article. The Zucc seems to change his mind a lot, even during the same hearing. 

I would not be so sure all the things will be extended worldwide. Then again, GDPR is more than just adding a few buttons and disclaimers. Maybe all of them will be ported over, but a lot of the administrative backend stuff won't?