Facebook/Cambridge Analytica legal primer: 'Breach' of data? No. Trust? Yes

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/03/20/heres-a-facebook-cambridge-a.html




It’s not a “breach” if they knowingly sold the information.


It’s the end of the world as we know it…and I feel fiiiiiiiiiiiiine


A good explanation here as to what CA has been up to:

“What Cambridge Analytica did in 2014 to steal Facebook data was not that unique, although it apparently was on a larger scale. It was in line with what many businesses do to try to game the biggest platforms to increase their audience or sales, Delany noted, pulling back the curtain on so-called psychographic profiling.”

“The company ran afoul of Facebook because it used a quiz app to gather data from users’ Facebook accounts—and those of their friends,” he said. “This kind of ‘scraping’ was apparently allowed back in 2014, though most vendors used it on a smaller scale than Cambridge seems to have done. Cambridge basically aimed to reconstruct the web of relationships and personal information embedded in Facebook so that it could manipulate the data without going through Facebook’s data interface—and Facebook’s rules on what they could access and share.”



What do the arrows mean?

And it still comes back to the issue we old farts learned long ago, but most people don’t think about.

If you’re getting the product for free, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT.

FB, Google, pick your favorite target. They exist because we provide information about ourselves that they can make money off
of selling to somebody else. Who they sell to might NOT be using that information for benign purposes.

ence On 3/20/2018 3:53 PM, Akimbo_NOT wrote:




There’s a boy, a little boy
Shooting arrows in the blue
And he’s aiming them at someone
But the question is at who
Is it me or is it you
It’s hard to tell until you’re hit
But you know it when they hit you
Cause they hurt a little bit

PS It’s text - lots of it - but this article is compelling and explains much about who was linked to whom.


There will be no jail time because no criminal laws were broken. Lawsuits away! But lawsuits never land anybody in the slam. They can’t.


Oh, finally I’m not the only one.


You’re kidding?

1 Like

1 Like



Gah! I am not, kidding. :frowning: I am struggling in the mire of my own scientistness… when doctoral student throws up a spaghetti bowl of words with a jillion arrows, and some squiggles, and some are fat, and some are missing arrowheads, or have on at each end and says “this is my conceptual model!”, I am like “The hell does that mean?!” and “How does this help us understand?”

Do the arrows mean Person caused the target? Do they mean person knows something about the target? Paid the target? Is dating the target’s mom? What do the two-way arrows mean? What does an arrow from an organization to another mean? The first is dating the target org’s parent company?

Inquiring minds and all that.

(I mean there it is as plain as day! According to this chart, Steve Bannon is dating the Holiding Company of Cambridge Analytics! :slight_smile: )


not by a long shot…

Great list - but remember, Carole Cadwalladr was writing about her investigations of Cambridge Analytica and its ‘sponsors’ a very long time before this month’s revelations linked specifically to FB. The Observer article of 18th March explains some of that, in passing.

ETA this is fun. Using UK DP rules to force the buggers to tell you what data they hold about you and where they got it from!

Last week, David Carroll, an associate professor at Parsons School of Design in New York, filed a statement in the high court in London in support of a claim to recover his data and reveal its source, citing Cambridge Analytica and SCL Elections Ltd, described as its parent company.

1 Like

Oh you, I know you’re oldie fartie.

1 Like

Yeah, I gotta go drink now, so I leave you to ponder.