How is Facebook responsible for a misuse of information that its users voluntarily disseminated into the public domain?

A great many people freely share their political views on facebook, along with all sorts of other personal information. Why is it facebook's responsibility to guard information the individuals themselves don't guard. Facebook isn't a utility company divulging information given to them via a contract for services, people put their information on facebook voluntarily knowing the security risks posed by their doing so. I don't get it. Shouldn't the anger be directed at the firms harvesting and selling this information?

Facebook’s rules for accessing user data lured more than just Cambridge AnalyticaThe social media giant changed its policies in 2015, but not before apps such as FarmVille and Tinder — and the Obama campaign — took advantage.https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/facebooks-rules-for-accessing-user-data-lured-more-than-just-cambridge-analytica/2018/03/19/31f6979c-658e-43d6-a71f-afdd8bf1308b_story.html
ForkNdaRoads avatar Technology
Share
12 62

In the beginning I could understand people not knowing what damage they were doing to themselves by sharing information on the internet, but there is no excuse for it anymore. Like the old saying goes: "If you want to keep a secret, don't tell it to anyone."

Maybe this will prompt the next developers to come up with something new and we will watch the demise of facebook, just as we watched the death of it's predecessors like MySpace etc etc.

@JustJimColo Maybe this will prompt the next developers to come up with something new and we will watch the demise of facebook...

Facebook did come up with something new: Ad-free social media.

People just never bothered to think through how they managed to do that, I suppose.

I wanted to hear what MZ said; I kept wondering what he was apolozing for...

@Sukiesnow I wanted to hear what MZ said; I kept wondering what he was apolozing for...

I think he's going through the expected motions to keep his company from tanking, not because he thinks he should, but because he knows it's what people want.

This comment was deleted by its author.
@2737857

That's true, they have preyed on human weakness for sure. And the firms using this information as well. I don't think this is a betrayal of trust though. But that's just my opinion.

Now, if my utility company publishes (or sells for a profit) my unlisted phone number, address etc. without my consent and only has this info because I've taken up a contract with and paid them for an exchange of services... That's a betrayal of trust. That's information I had no choice but to provide. In most states I'm forced to do business with their (water, gas, electric) monopoly, were I free to sever business with them, I would.

This situation with facebook is totally different. imo But I'm interested to hear the argument it being an abuse of privacy. Maybe I'm missing something.

This comment was deleted by its author.
@2737874

Exactly, they've literally written liability out of their tos.

@2737857

It’s not just Facebook. Google, Microsoft, etc. all do it. It’s the “price for free” methodology.
But really FB’s privacy settings clearly state everything is game. Here’s a snippet:

“We collect the content and other information you provide when you use our Services, including when you sign up for an account, create or share, and message or communicate with others. This can include information in or about the content you provide, such as the location of a photo or the date a file was created. We also collect information about how you use our Services, such as the types of content you view or engage with or the frequency and duration of your activities.”

I really think most of the people who love facebook are stupid. fussy children or adults with the fussy child mentality. Sure none of our people are like that - just feel it is for silly people.

@LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundred I really think most of the people who love facebook are stupid. fussy children or adults with the fussy child...

I don't think people who use it are stupid by any means, many have turned it into a lucrative business opportunity.

I just can't imagine anyone not being aware or the risks that come with a public profile on social networking sites. If they put the info out their voluntarily, seems wrong to blame others for the misuse of it.

This user has been banned.
@2738102

I never said it was acceptable for one but not another. My remarks on the matter are pretty straightforward, certainly not congruent with your above.

This user has been banned.
@2738607

Not quite current, that's pretty old news.

This user has been banned.
@2739158

In this context, roughly 4 years. lol That's how hold my old is. biggrin smilie

This user has been banned.
@2739206

Feel better now? I'm shocked you were able to hold it in so long. lol

This user has been banned.
@2739210

It would shock me if it shocked you since weaponizing govt. has proven one of few things mankind excels at...

This user has been banned.
@2739226

Seems you've got both sides of your conversation covered, so um, I'm just gonna go now...

This user has deactivated their account.
@2738133

"Admittedly, I haven't read FB's privacy policy, and basically agree that any website or app we use "free of charge" is paid for by allowing the collection and use of our data per the terms of use and privacy policy. Do the terms state that by using FB you are extending that permission to include any entity any of your friends on FB use? I don't know."

Exactly.

If your profile is set to public then yes, you're extending that net to your friends-list. More importantly, facebook tos include permissions to access your camera, microphone and to make public what may have been once private information at any time, for any or no reason and without any liability to them.

That last part is a pretty standard CYA provision for any social media site or app. Just fyi.

Yeah, whether or not the firms harvesting the info are committing a crime is a completely different question altogether. I would submit that they aren't so long as the clause is included or the info is set to public by the user. But that's just my opinion. And whether or not it's legal for them to sell, trade or harvest this for a political campaign would likely be a different question as well.

But on the question of whether or not facebook has violated the public trust by allowing other companies to access this info... I don't think they have and I'm not sure they could stop them, honestly.

This user has deactivated their account.
@2738181

There are permissions in most //all/ social media apps (including Viber and others like it) to access the mic and camera (there have to be to use the app) facebook has it in both, citing the same reason.

That is, according to the last time I checked them out, which was in 2015, but I can't imagine them having gone backward since, that's a rarity. There were special permission to run

Part of MZ's statement noted that they reached out the CA upon discovering they retained data from a previous permission granted several years prior and asked them to deleted, then CA returned an official declaration of intent, or some such throwaway document. I don't think he even needed to pursue it, but he claims they did, they just never followed up on it.

Yes, CA is basically aiming to be Skynet. Which is frightening given the majority of the population are drifting aimlessly anyway, just waiting for someone to tell them what to think. lmao

This user has deactivated their account.
@2738368

Yes, just by joining and logging in, it applies. It also applies to the app. From what I've observed, it's being pushed as a necessary "formality" for any site where you can face to face chat via web cam or mic etc.

The messenger app is provided by fb, as an example, but isn't a fb app technically, and it has the cam / mic permissions as well written almost identically to the ones in fb's tos.

The one in fb's tos, for the site itself, has actually been there for several years.

The special permission, if my understanding is correct, allowed them to run a piece of software to mine further. FB has since revoked that permission, not just for them, for everyone, and contacted CA to request they delete any information they gathered as a result of the permission. CA sent back a declaration of intent, for lack of a better term, which held little weight legally. Fb never followed up on whether they did or didn't, which as far as I can tell, they were really required to do.

Yes, I've read up a bit on CA. There's definitely a web of unholy matrimony there.

Got me there, no one makes people give their info, your name could be Scrooge McDuck for that matter

@Sunny_the_skeptic Got me there, no one makes people give their info, your name could be Scrooge McDuck for that matter

Or in my case: Fork NdaRoad

The main problem with social media that is see is not just how willing people are to give away the farm that is their info, but how willing they are to give up their friends and families'.

Everyone knows that Facebook sells our information. That is why it is free to use.
The only reason there is a fit being thrown is because a Republican candidate figured out how to use it. When Obama used it the media was talking about how smart and forward thinking he was.

@PennyThoughts Everyone knows that Facebook sells our information. That is why it is free to use. The only reason there is a fit...

I wouldn't suggest that what happened here was tantamount to republicans figuring out how to use facebook like Obama. lol

What Cambridge Analytica did was totally illegal.

Wylie's testimony, the thousands of documents (and now even the actual code) he's presented is nothing short of breathtaking.

That isn't something that I'd pin to any credible political party.

@ForkNdaRoad I wouldn't suggest that what happened here was tantamount to republicans figuring out how to use facebook like...

The only difference I see is CA hid behind an personality quiz and Obama said it was for the campaign. It is sleezy but how is it illegal?
It is micro-targeting. Again everyone knows if you click on anything on FB or sign up for anything (even on paper) it puts you on the list for spam etc.

The Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica both gained access to huge amounts of information about Facebook users and their friends, and in neither case did the friends of app users consent.

But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes.

The Obama campaign used the data to have their supporters contact their most persuadable friends. Cambridge Analytica targeted users and their friends directly with digital ads.

@PennyThoughts The only difference I see is CA hid behind an personality quiz and Obama said it was for the campaign. It is sleezy...

We're not talking about a political campaign using facebook though, this wasn't something the Trump campaign says they were doing. They've flatly denied using any shred of the data provided by CA.

One of the allegations is that foreign nationals were potentially being given false immigration documentation by CA to come here on false grounds and work in elections. Also that their Canadian sister group, AggregateIQ, created the software used to collect the data. That's an allegation that SCL's Nix denied under oath, but has proven true.
https://gizmodo.com/aggregateiq...ftw-1824026565

So, there's a helluva lot more than facebook quizes to this, with all due respect.

Gee, it's like a man pretending to be a woman and claiming they're being stalked by someone who pointed out things they posted themselves

Anonymous +1Reply

From your cited article -

"Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg in 2007 invited outside developers to build their businesses off Facebook’s data, giving them ready access to the friend lists, “likes” and affinities that connect millions of Facebook users. Practically any engineer who could persuade a Facebook user to download an app or to sign into a website using Facebook’s popular “log-in through Facebook” feature would have been able to access not only the profile, behavior and location of that Facebook user but also that of all the user’s Facebook friends, developers said."

Did you know Facebook would / could do that with your information?

@Budwick From your cited article - "Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg in 2007 invited outside developers to build...

Yeah, that's one of many reasons why I don't have a facebook account with my real information and I don't use quick log-ins for sites... Ever. That isn't exclusive to facebook either, that game could be used on any number of sites. Even this one.

In truth, that's what people most enjoy about facebook, isn't it? That's the whole reason they go there, right? Surely we aren't just now discovering it's a double edged sword, yeah?

@ForkNdaRoad Yeah, that's one of many reasons why I don't have a facebook account with my real information and I don't use quick...

I don't know what a 'quick log-in' is.
I haven't a clue what people enjoy about Facebook. To me the concept is simple self promotion - I find it boring and intrusive.

I tried it briefly, years ago. Before I had even found a way to post something, Facebook was digging up people I should become friends with. In no time they had already creeped me out with their methods.

@Budwick I don't know what a 'quick log-in' is. I haven't a clue what people enjoy about Facebook. To me the concept is...

Quick log-ins are when you download an app or create an account for a new site and rather than creating a completely new account, with a new password and filled out account info, you just click "sign in with" and select facebook or google. I think there's also one for twitter. When you do it that way, the two accounts are permanently linked with each other.

Sounds innocuous, but all those accounts being linked give, in the best case scenario, ad companies a pretty long reach into your life and by extension the lives of those around you.

I don't ever use that either.

That's what I meant. From what I gather, the whole reason people like facebook is because of the level of connectivity it offers people. That "reach" is what people enjoy most. It's also the most dangerous element of the site. In my opinion, that is.

The few times I've logged in there, my comp got super slow, I could instantly tell they had mega mega background programs running. That's where the truly hinky business goes on.

@ForkNdaRoad Quick log-ins are when you download an app or create an account for a new site and rather than creating a...

Thank you for the well explained information.

Yeah the idea of being able to message my whole family about stuff was the original attraction to me. Then, I discovered the truth about how they wanted me to share the information with everyone on the planet - and I bailed.

Thanks again.

@Budwick Thank you for the well explained information. Yeah the idea of being able to message my whole family about stuff...

Now they have more refined privacy settings, certainly better than they did in the beginning. But their tos clearly states that any private info can be made public at any time and they shoulder no liability for how that may be misused.

Most welcome.

@ForkNdaRoad Now they have more refined privacy settings, certainly better than they did in the beginning. But their tos clearly...

Perhaps not. Democrats right now are thinking Facebook helped Trump steal the election, along with the Russians. [Even though when THEY did the same thing for Obama, the plan was genius.]

@Budwick Perhaps not. Democrats right now are thinking Facebook helped Trump steal the election, along with the Russians...

I think govt. as a whole has been salivating at any opportunity to regulate the net, they'd love nothing more than to turn it into yet another big few monopoly industry. Even the recent repub roll-back of net-neutrality regs was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

But there are some legitimate concerns surrounding tactics employed by the Trump camp in the last election. As is usually the case with political camps. I doubt very seriously that fb ads or fb news feeds had much to do with it. jmo

The Russian hack into the software company that provided updates /patches / other maintenance to some of our voting machines is a very real threat. imo It was also pure brilliance.

Whether or not that had anything to do with Trump's camp, I have no idea. But I do think it's worth checking into. I just think the process should be more transparent. I really think that's a big solution.

My opinions on all of the above are mine and aren't flavored with politics, I assure you. I can't stand any of 'em, dem or rep alike. I'd be saying the same no matter who won the last election. Matter of fact, I was lmao the night he won at all the tears. BUT, he doesn't get a free pass either. Just where I'm at on it.

@ForkNdaRoad I think govt. as a whole has been salivating at any opportunity to regulate the net, they'd love nothing more than...

A Russian hack into the software company provided updates /patches / other maintenance to some of our voting machines?

Can you cite a report on this? I know there have been many unsubstantiated claims, and I agree that it would be a concern. I know the DNC was hacked thanks to one guy, name escapes me that fell for a phishing scam. There hasn't been any evidence of collusion. Greater transparency would be nice. The DNC has YET to turn over their server to authorities.

@Budwick A Russian hack into the software company provided updates /patches / other maintenance to some of our voting...

Image in content

Just to be clear, are you saying you were unaware of that information or that you were aware of it, but thought it an unsubstantiated claim? There's no wrong answer, and no judgement on my part, I'm just unclear on the meaning of the first statement in your second paragraph.

The RNC hasn't turned over the servers either. We've already established my position on both parties being the problem.

Here is the evidence:
https://www.documentcloud.org/d...rphishing.html

https://theintercept.com/2017/0...2016-election/

From the article:
"On August 24, 2016, the Russian hackers sent spoofed emails purporting to be from Google to employees of an unnamed U.S. election software company... The spear-phishing email contained a link directing the employees to a malicious, faux-Google website that would request their login credentials and then hand them over to the hackers... the hackers apparently got what they needed.

Two months later, on October 27, they set up an “operational” Gmail account designed to appear as if it belonged to an employee at VR Systems, and used documents obtained from the previous operation to launch a second spear-phishing operation “targeting U.S. local government organizations.”

That information is over a year old, has all been proven with their own documents and that was just the beginning. They also targeted and penetrated election officials, or "at least one" according to their documents, involved in voter registration at the state level, with simple spear-phishing.

Budwick, I'm trying to have an earnest discussion with you on the facts and you make that incredibly difficult when you constantly roll out talking points like "no evidence of collusion."

I'm aware that you believe there's no evidence of collusion, I've made you aware of the arrests of Trump's own campaign chairmen and for what cause. There's far more to this than that. Just sayin...

@ForkNdaRoad Just to be clear, are you saying you were unaware of...

Your photo of 'Top Secret' diagram is poor resolution,unable to read.

I'm aware of the consistent accusations. I'm NOT aware of actual evidence / findings of something like tampering with voting machines.

I'll have the discussion. I'm not clear what you're headed with this, what the complaint is - I'm left to guess. Stuff like "unnamed U.S. election software company" is like unnamed sources close to the situation. I do not want to discuss conjecture.

@Budwick Your photo of 'Top Secret' diagram is poor resolution,unable to read. I'm aware of the consistent accusations...

The quality of the document in the cloud is better, I was just trying to make it easier.

They didn't tamper with voting machines. They tampered with software that is used to maintenance voting machines and then deployed it. They also gained email log-in credentials of elections officials that oversee voter registration, among multiple other tactics.

I gave you the evidence, that's the NSA's own report on it. The software company is named in the article, just not in the document, as is always the case with leaked documents.

Do with it what you wish. Just don't say evidence doesn't exist simply because you dislike it. This has been authenticated and out in the public domain for over a year. The leaker was arrested and charged over it. Even Trump himself concedes the validity of the above documents. lol

It is as or more credible than say, a leaked wikileaks email of Donna Brazille's.

Is that conjecture because of who the entity is that reported on it?

@ForkNdaRoad The quality of the document in the cloud is better, I was just trying to make it easier. They didn't tamper with...

Please Fork, we're trying to have a civil discussion. I understand caution when talking to a political 'opponent' but we do have some history, it hasn't always been so, ... abrasive.

Yes, I've heard thousands of reports about Russian ATTEMPTS to goof with the election. We also know that this is nothing new, and that they're not the only ones trying.

Is there any evidence that their attemp0ts at tampering altered the vote count? Is there any evidence that Trump had anything to do with even the attempts? If not, my position on the topic is that we need to take steps to ensure that nothing happens in the future. [Trump and everyone else has said the same thing.] Beyond that - it's a go no where story IMO.

@Budwick Please Fork, we're trying to have a civil discussion. I understand caution when talking to a political 'opponent'...

Well now you have evidence, the evidence according to the NSA and President. It wasn't an attempt, it was effective and it had little to do with facebook ads.

To my knowledge, there was no evidence that it affected the vote in any form. That was never part of their investigation, the NSA never pursued that question at length, but they say that to their knowledge it was not affected. I'll take that at face value. But I must admit, that creates more questions than answers, why were they there? That's the whole point.

I can see that without the lens of politics, that's my point. I don't need to think it happened to rig an election like so many seem to need to believe that Russia elected pur president.

But I won't grant that it's all a hoax when there's actual evidence to the contrary. So... I completely disagree that it's a "go-nowhere" story. Nor will I grant that this Cambridge Analytica story is a "go-nowhere" story. Already evidence is stacking up to support Wylie's claims.

People are just clinging to all the wrong elements of each... as we so often do.

@ForkNdaRoad Well now you have evidence, the evidence according to the NSA and President. It wasn't an attempt, it was effective...

Fork, you and many others are fixated on what Russia attempted to do. OK - so fix it! It's not an internal political issue. It's a National Security issue.

And Cambridge Analytica? I never commented on. But I will now. You realize that the Obama campaign did exactly the same thing, right? Except they did it as the government, democrats, etc. Facebook had no problem helping out the left agenda.

Now, Cambridge Analytica didn't tell Facebook the truth about WHY they wanted the data. They assumed that they probably wouldn't have gotten it if they had. So, Trump targeted ads. Just like a gazillion others do. Where's the beef?

I don't know who Wylie is.

@Budwick Fork, you and many others are fixated on what Russia attempted to do. OK - so fix it! It's not an internal...

No more fixated than you are on Hillary Clinton's emails, which I suspect you would say you aren't at all. Both this and that are legitimate issues.

Actually, you did bring it up, just not in the proper context:
"Democrats right now are thinking Facebook helped Trump steal the election"

They think "fake news" on fb helpd steal the election. I don't agree with that but that ultimately goes to the CA question. I know CA was dishonest, and I would disagree that Trump had anything to do with anything. Or at least, that's the position he's taking. Maybe some people around him did, I doubt he did.

That's why I mentioned Wylie, I presumed you didn't know who he was. If you were to go listen to his testimony yesterday, it would give you an opportunity to form some opinions free of political bias. That's why I mentioned it. So when we discuss that issue in the future, and I'd bet my right arm we will, most people will, we'll have a mutual understanding of the relevant facts / allegations.

@ForkNdaRoad No more fixated than you are on Hillary Clinton's emails, which I suspect you would say you aren't at all. Both...

RE: Hillary's email and server - my only question is why there's no investigation regarding the already proven collusion there.

Do you think that democrats are completely understanding that Trump simply used an advertising techniques learned from Obama?

I still don't know who Wylie is.

@Budwick RE: Hillary's email and server - my only question is why there's no investigation regarding the already proven...

There was and to my knowledge still is and investigation into Hillary Clinton and it's far more expansive than that.

There was also an investigation into her emails. Comey would never have been able to "reopen" an investigation into her emails had there not been an investigation in the first place.

I get that you dislike the outcome of that process, but to deny it ever happened is to deny reality as we know it.

Trump and his campaign have outright denied using any advertising techniques or the data acquired by CA.

If you still don't know who Wylie is it's because you haven't tried to find out. Maybe google him.

@ForkNdaRoad There was and to my knowledge still is and investigation into Hillary Clinton and it's far more expansive than...

I don't think you're correct about denial over ad techniques - the very same techniques that the left congratulated Obama for using by the way.

I don't think there's an issue here Fork. No law broken. It might piss some people off that republicans were successful at a game they learned from democrats - but I think to be honest, the REAL problem for democrats in 2016 was that people didn't like Hillary.

I stumbled across Wylie a minute ago. The whistle blower. Who said that President Trump’s election made him speak out

"“In other words, if Hillary had won, the general public would remain oblivious to Facebook’s (and other social media giants) massive data-gathering efforts,” Zero Hedge proclaimed. “And Mark Zuckerberg would still be the 4th richest person in the world (instead of 8th!).”

@Budwick I don't think you're correct about denial over ad techniques - the very same techniques that the left congratulated...

Check it out if you don't believe me, they claim they hired CA to do research, but they never used any of it. And I'm taking them at their word, no speculation on my part.

But I think CA did and I would go out on a limb to say I know Strategic Communication Laboratories did.

Wylie first spoke out to UK officials and the Guardian (anonymously, since he was under an NDA) about what was happening at CA in 2014, so it's a mathematical impossibility that Trump's election is what caused this. His comments about Trump's election regarded the NDA he signed. That is, according to his sworn testimony... Which you should watch.

The dems problem is they believe they can play by a separate set of rules than those to which they hold others. Hillary is a criminal, she's a murderer and she should be in jail. Just not for her emails.

But that's beside the point, she's now an "unemployed Grandmother of the forest." Those currently occupying power are the primary consideration now.

Facebook is NOT a public domain, that's how.

@Walt_OReagun Facebook is NOT a public domain, that's how.

As it relates to the use of information you provide, it certainly is. You're ceding certain rights by even signing up to use the site.

From Facebook's own TOS:

"When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)."

And a quick review of their data policy further evidences this point:
https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/

https://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy

"In addition, when you download or use such third-party services, they can access your Public Profile, which includes your username or user ID, your age range and country/language, your list of friends, as well as any information that you share with them. Information collected by these apps, websites or integrated services is subject to their own terms and policies."

@ForkNdaRoad As it relates to the use of information you provide, it certainly is. You're ceding certain rights by even signing...

Sharing data that users voluntarily give their consent to share (by joining the group/organization) does not make that organization "public domain".

If it were truly "public domain", users could not opt-out of sharing information by changing their profile/security settings. They would not be able to set "only friends" to see their posts - nor set it so nobody could post on their "wall".

@Walt_OReagun Sharing data that users voluntarily give their consent to share (by joining the group/organization) does not make...

The problem is this, FB disclaims any liability should information that was once set to private suddenly become public and for any or no reason at all... As does google, btw.

Users can't opt out of providing certain information that FB shares. FB tos require that people use their real names to create an account can even require users to send in a copy of their photo ID to keep their account. That's about as public as it gets.

They've also outsourced liability to third party app creators for much of the real data collection the site relies on to remain ad free. You wave it every time you log into one using a quick login / account creator.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.