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

[captain_to_fire]

Source: Facebook

 

Quote

Today, Facebook is launching the Data Abuse Bounty to reward people who report any misuse of data by app developers.

 

We committed to launching this program a few weeks ago as part of our efforts to more quickly uncover potential abuse of people’s information. The Data Abuse Bounty, inspired by the existing bug bounty program that we use to uncover and address security issues, will help us identify violations of our policies.

 

This program will reward people with first-hand knowledge and proof of cases where a Facebook platform app collects and transfers people’s data to another party to be sold, stolen or used for scams or political influence. Just like the bug bounty program, we will reward based on the impact of each report. While there is no maximum, high impact bug reports have garnered as much as $40,000 for people who bring them to our attention.

Before anything else, do you think this will make MySpace and Google+ great again?

 

I don't know if I can take anything Facebook said at face value considering the ramifications of the entire controversy like allegedly influencing elections by leaking personal information and targeting those people with specific political ads. Unlike a typical bug bounty where a white hat/gray hat hacker does penetration testing to an OS or hardware, how is this going to happen with Facebook being mostly a web service? Is Facebook's source code even open source for inspection? Nonetheless, Mark Zuckerberg made a promise in the senate hearing that Facebook will not only follow the GDPR but extend those data protections to everyone and not just EU citizens as The Verge reports:

Quote

In today’s hearing before the House Committee on Commerce and Energy, 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.

But looking at The Verge article, even the lawmakers themselves aren't buying that Zuck will extent GDPR rules worldwide and I share the same sentiment. Facebook's business model is about ads and bid data and I doubt that so much will change despite the $40k bounty. Definitely this is Zuck's worst nightmare as CEO. Since Facebook is operating in the EU as well, he's probably glad that the controversy didn't erupt on May 25, 2018 which is the date where the GDPR will be enacted.

 

I encourage everyone to listen to the following Marketplace Tech podcast with Molly Wood episodes in relation to the Facebook controversy:

04/11/2018: The Data Economy: the role of advertising

04/10/2018: The deal we made with our data

03/22/2018: What Congress wants to hear from Facebook

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by hey_yo_
added some more info

[Mooshi]

Lmao people actually believe Facebook cares about privacy? That's as daft as trying to convince oneself that McDonald's is healthy, be just as delusional.

[Taf the Ghost]

8 minutes ago, Mooshi said:

Lmao people actually believe Facebook cares about privacy? That's as daft as trying to convince oneself that McDonald's is healthy, be just as delusional.

You can eat better a McD's than you can get privacy from Facebook. 

[GoldenLag]

there wasnt an option in the poll for "having a profile and havingit downloaded, but actually never uses it more than once a month at max"

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, Mooshi said:

Lmao people actually believe Facebook cares about privacy? That's as daft as trying to convince oneself that McDonald's is healthy, be just as delusional.

 

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

You can eat better a McD's than you can get privacy from Facebook. 

In point of fact, McD's isn't that unhealthy as long as you moderate portions and what you choose to eat from there. That dipstick Spurlock decided that eating 5000 calories a day, much of it in milkshakes and cookies, and stopping any forms of exercise was representative of people who eat at Mcdonalds. There's a reason he was unwilling to publish his food log. Mind you, it would get boring fast and you would almost certainly want to take the occasional vitamin supplement. Along with some Metamucil.

[Taf the Ghost]

23 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

 

In point of fact, McD's isn't that unhealthy as long as you moderate portions and what you choose to eat from there. That dipstick Spurlock decided that eating 5000 calories a day, much of it in milkshakes and cookies, and stopping any forms of exercise was representative of people who eat at Mcdonalds. There's a reason he was unwilling to publish his food log. Mind you, it would get boring fast and you would almost certainly want to take the occasional vitamin supplement. Along with some Metamucil.

It's the Soda and the buns. If you skip those, you're fine eating a lot of McD's. Spurlock's stunt exactly what you'd expect when you remove the ability to say "No" and intentionally overeat. You couldn't do that stunt again with something like an Organic diet. That'd risk actually killing you.

[captain_to_fire]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

-snip-

 

1 hour ago, ravenshrike said:

-snip-

Since when a thread about online privacy have anything to do with fast food restaurants? ??‍♂️

[captain_to_fire]

4 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

wait till you see the ads on facebook in a bit

I was scrolling for food ads but instead I found this... maybe because I rarely use Facebook 

[captain_to_fire]

2 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

you watched the nudecnc video in the past hour haven't you

I don't know what that is? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Ryujin2003]

Quote

This program will reward people with first-hand knowledge and proof of cases where a Facebook platform app collects and transfers people’s data to another party to be sold, stolen or used for scams or political influence.

 

Awesome... A privacy policy that is super privacy in the loosest of terminology. So... This applies to 3rd party aps and not to FB themselves? Awesome.

[DragonTamer1]

Am I part of the delete facebook movement if I deleted my account 3 days before any of the news of the Analitica thing broke?

 

I just got sick of it, I hated facebook.

The people pissed me off

The ads pissed me off

The politics pissed me off

I never talked to any of my "friends" most of them pissed me off

 

Best decision I ever made in my life, now I'm off to go live under a rock for the rest of my life I'm much happier now.

[Drak3]

Easier money than holding onto BTC for a month.

[LAwLz]

Obama uses data harvested through Facebook for his campaign = Media thinks it is super clever and applaud him for it.

Trump uses data harvested through Facebook for his campaign = Media thinks it is a scandal and new legislation gets pushed.

 

 

I am not a Trump support (nor a Hillary supporter), but I find that observation kind of sad.

On the bright side, hopefully this will lead to something good. Maybe some good legislation, or at the very least it has made people aware of the dangers of data harvesting.

[PocketNerd]

43 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Obama uses data harvested through Facebook for his campaign = Media thinks it is super clever and applaud him for it.

Trump uses data harvested through Facebook for his campaign = Media thinks it is a scandal and new legislation gets pushed.

 

 

I am not a Trump support (nor a Hillary supporter), but I find that observation kind of sad.

On the bright side, hopefully this will lead to something good. Maybe some good legislation, or at the very least it has made people aware of the dangers of data harvesting.

The question becomes, how was the Data Harvested? As far as the Trump Campaign is concerned, they got the Data from a Foreign Company who obtained that data Fraudulently.

Data Harvesting itself isn't necessarily bad, but who obtained that data and how makes all the difference.

[ravenshrike]

Technically I have a facebook account. I mean, I last logged in 9 years and 3 states ago, but I technically still have the account.

[RotoCoreOne]

I think it's best if everyone goes online knowing that anything and everything they do is tracked one way or another and by anyone

[the_kevin96]

It's going to be interesting if any laws or policies are actually going to come out of this after all the media attention. 

 

Or is it just going to be faded out and forgotten about until the next election or privacy breach....

[Maxxtraxx]

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Obama uses data harvested through Facebook for his campaign = Media thinks it is super clever and applaud him for it.

Trump uses data harvested through Facebook for his campaign = Media thinks it is a scandal and new legislation gets pushed.

 

 

I am not a Trump support (nor a Hillary supporter), but I find that observation kind of sad.

On the bright side, hopefully this will lead to something good. Maybe some good legislation, or at the very least it has made people aware of the dangers of data harvesting.

 

13 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

The question becomes, how was the Data Harvested? As far as the Trump Campaign is concerned, they got the Data from a Foreign Company who obtained that data Fraudulently.

Data Harvesting itself isn't necessarily bad, but who obtained that data and how makes all the difference.

I'll just leave these here...

Link

Quotes

"in fact, the Obama campaign used Facebook to gain a massive political advantage by doing exactly what Cambridge Analytica did and the Obama campaign's media director even bragged about it and confirmed Facebook was aware of it."

"This resulted in the Obama campaign accessing roughly 189 million friend profiles that didn't authorize the app and targeted them with political propaganda."

 

Link #2

 

Quote

"Facebook on Wednesday said that the data of up to 87 million users may have been improperly shared" (by Cambridge analytical)

 

Link #3

 

quote

"The crucial decision(to not use Cambridge's data) was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump's digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor."

[NMS]

I deleted Facebook when they stopped being a proper social media platform and turned into the shit that it is today; so about 8 years ago

[Maxxtraxx]

4 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

oh wow. any secound sources for the goldwater link?

Second source link

[PocketNerd]

12 hours ago, Maxxtraxx said:

 

-snip-

Firstly, your link doesn't show how the RNC got their data, so the point being made could be moot.

Second, all you have (potentially) proven is that both parties are shitty, which isn't really anything new. I'm Canadian, so my opinion doesn't truly matter in this context, and my point still stands that how you obtain the data matters.

I literally posited that question purely to draw out people such as yourself, and not as a means of trying to prop up the Dems as being the good guys. Because those are the kinds of questions EVERYONE should be asking.

[Maxxtraxx]

2 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

Firstly, your link doesn't show how the RNC got their data, so the point being made could be moot.

Second, all you have (potentially) proven is that both parties are shitty, which isn't really anything new. I'm Canadian, so my opinion doesn't truly matter in this context, and my point still stands that how you obtain the data matters.

I literally posited that question purely to draw out people such as yourself, and not as a means of trying to prop up the Dems as being the good guys. Because those are the kinds of questions EVERYONE should be asking.

Wow, angry are we?

 

All the sources I've read have shown that the Trump campaign use of Cambridge data was extremely limited and have never any indication from any source anywhere that the RNC ever used data from Cambridge. (BTW the Trump campaign and the RNC are separate entities)

 

If you have any evidence to the contrary please present it.

 

The RNC and the Dems have been gathering voter data far longer than the infantile company known as Cambridge has been.

 

Why are do you seem to be most concerned with the political party usage of Facebook data?

 

Why is ALL of this not entirely Facebook's fault?

 

Why has anyone who has ever used windows 10, Google, Android, Gmail, Yahoo, apple IOS or any other data gathering service that is fronted by a product or service that provides us personally benefit in exchange for them being allowed to gather data to help target us with ads for products and services that we might purchase ever expected any semblance of privacy from or expected personal ownership of the data that they've collected on us?

 

If how you gather the data matters then you need to look at Facebook and others who have made a business out of knowing you and your habits in order to make money off of that and decide if you're ok with what they do... not with the many other entities (including political parties)who have used what these tech companies have made... And if you're not, then stop using their products.

 

15 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

what are your thoughts on obama's team using an in-team app to influence an election but only his own? because that's the only difference I can find vs cambrilitica o_o

I think that both parties will use the best resources they can find to get their respective messages out to those they believe they can impact the most.

 

I personally have no problem with companies collecting data on me to help them target me with ads for products and services that are more relevant and interesting to me.

 

For example, I would rather see ads for PC and automotive parts and products that I might like than to see random ads for feminine hygiene products and geriatric diet supplements.

 

I don't see a moral or ethical problem with what I described above.

 

As an example of what I wouldn't approve of:

 

I would have an issue with that data being used by a police state(like China) to hunt down people that are Christian Church communities or other minorities that are outside of the state's enforced belief or thought system.

 

I'm also not ok with the hipocracy and double standard that seems to be in effect within the media and left wing technomonopolies that decide that it's ok for their political party of preference to use the data but not any other parties, also the idea of Facebook giving more privileged information to one party over another would be a ethical violation in my eyes.

 

So, I'm unsure if I answered your question fully... I think it's ok so long as the playing field is level and no preferential treatment is given and the usage is for ads and promotions and not to enforce thought or silence voices.

[2FA]

The reason why Cambridge Analytica is different than the Obama campaign is because CA illicitly gained the user data. They bought the data off of Aleksandr Kogan who was supposedly collecting user data using Facebook's tools (Facebook approved of this) for academic purposes and wasn't authorized to sell that data or use it for other purposes.

[Maxxtraxx]

19 minutes ago, 2FA said:

The reason why Cambridge Analytica is different than the Obama campaign is because CA illicitly gained the user data. They bought the data off of Aleksandr Kogan who was supposedly collecting user data using Facebook's tools (Facebook approved of this) for academic purposes and wasn't authorized to sell that data or use it for other purposes.

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)

Edited April 14, 2018 by Maxxtraxx
more stuff

[kirashi]

15 minutes ago, 2FA said:

They bought the data off of Aleksandr Kogan who was supposedly collecting user data using Facebook's tools (Facebook approved of this) for academic purposes and wasn't authorized to sell that data or use it for other purposes.

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.