Consultants working for Donald Trump's presidential campaign exploited the personal Facebook data of millions.
That's the key message in March 17 stories by The New York Times and the UK's Guardian and Observer newspapers, as well as in statements from Facebook. The stories and statements indicate the social networking giant was duped by researchers, who reportedly gained access to the data of more than 50 million Facebook users, which was then misused for political ads during the 2016 US presidential election.
Until now, most of what you've heard about Facebook and the 2016 election has been focused on meddling by Russian operatives. Those efforts are being investigated by the FBI and the US Senate.
Facebook says it told Cambridge Analytica to delete the data, but also that reports suggest the info wasn't destroyed. Cambridge Analytica says it complies with the social network's rules, only receives data "obtained legally and fairly," and did wipe out the data Facebook is worried about.
After five long days, Zuckerberg broke his silence Wednesday with a nearly 1,000-word post on his Facebook page. The post was his first since March 2, when he shared a photo of his family celebrating the Jewish holiday of Purim.
Zuckerberg acknowledged that Facebook had made mistakes with users' information. "We have a responsibility to protect your data," he wrote. "And if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you."
He also pledged an investigation into apps that had access to "large amounts of information" before the company made changes to how much information third-party apps could access in 2018. Facebook will conduct a full audit of apps that exhibit suspicious behavior and bar developers who don't agree to audits.
1.Facebook will investigate all large-scale applications that are allowed to obtain data, not only to obtain the user's own data, but also to include the data of the user's friends.
2.If someone has not used the app within 3 months, you can remove the developer's access to the data and reduce the type of information the app gets when the user logs in.
3.Efforts to ensure that people know who has access to their data, show everyone the tools at the top of news feeds next month, and allow users to easily revoke permissions.
This data life isn’t limited to Facebook. Google, famously, is in the same basic business, although the company is a bit more transparent about it. And Amazon is building a modern surveillance panopticon, replete with an always-on microphone for your kitchen and a jaunty camera for your bedroom, purely to sell you more stuff.
People may regularly be accepting terms and conditions that require them to give up their data, but that doesn’t mean they read them. Legal documents are not written to be read by humans, and certainly not to be read back-to-back in a harrowing marathon of End-User Licence Agreements. The modern notion of consent upon which the entire data edifice is built has the shakiest of foundations.
It would be a huge step, and one that is unlikely to come without a radical change in how the public views mass data collection.