CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA COULD ALSO ACCESS PRIVATE FACEBOOK MESSAGES

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Poor Ted....jumping all over it like a fresh booger

 

Ted Cruz Leaps to Diamond & Silk’s Defense During Facebook Hearing

Sen. Cruz asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg during a Senate hearing why Trump supporters Diamond & Silk were “blocked” from the social platform.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ted-cruz-leaps-to-diamond-and-silks-defense-during-facebook-hearing

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Sr Kennedy brings the patois of his people.  

 

"There are some impurities in the Facebook punch bowl."

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

25 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

I dont buy it, 

Facebook screwed up because they took the eye off the ball. 

I agree but they are still doing that by censoring people on the Right for being "dangerous".

 

[Dashinka 24,500]

10 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

I dont buy it, 

Facebook screwed up because they took the eye off the ball. 

Facebook screwed up because they went against their political bias and actually attempted to be neutral politically.  

[Dashinka 24,500]

10 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Poor Ted....jumping all over it like a fresh booger

 

Ted Cruz Leaps to Diamond & Silk’s Defense During Facebook Hearing

Sen. Cruz asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg during a Senate hearing why Trump supporters Diamond & Silk were “blocked” from the social platform.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ted-cruz-leaps-to-diamond-and-silks-defense-during-facebook-hearing

 

So this is why the uproar.  We cannot allow a co-opted MDL platform to be used by the other side.  Oh the outrage.

[Dashinka 24,500]

I think Rich Lowery sums it up pretty well.

 

Once again, Mark Zuckerberg is sorry.

The founder of Facebook, who has apologized for privacy breaches throughout much of his company’s existence, is back at it, on a much larger stage than ever before.

The proximate cause is the Cambridge Analytica controversy. In violation of Facebook’s rules, the Trump-linked political consultancy schemed to get access to the data of 87 million users. This has made Facebook a scapegoat for President Donald Trump’s victory on par with the Russians and James Comey (at least before the FBI director got fired and became a Trump adversary).

 

In 2012, President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign did a less underhanded version of the same thing as Cambridge. The great chronicler of the Obama digital operation, Sasha Issenberg, wrote of how its “’targeted sharing’ protocols mined an Obama backer’s Facebook network in search of friends the campaign wanted to register, mobilize or persuade.” No scandal ensued—rather, the Obama team was hailed as geniuses who changed campaigning forever.

It’s not Zuckerberg’s fault that he has suddenly been deemed on the wrong side of history, but the Cambridge Analytica blowup is bringing a useful spotlight on the most sanctimoniously self-regarding large company in America. Facebook can’t bear to admit that it has garnered the largest collection of data known to man to sell ads against and line the pockets of its founder and investors.

The problem isn’t that Mark Zuckerberg is a businessman, and an exceptionally gifted one, but that he pretends to have stumbled out of the lyrics of John Lennon’s song “Imagine.” To listen to him, Facebook is all about connectivity and openness — he just happens to have made roughly $63 billion as the T-shirt-wearing champion of “the global community,” whatever that means.

It’s this pose that makes him and other Facebook officials sound so shifty. In a rocky interview with Savannah Guthrie of the “Today” show last week, Sheryl Sandberg was asked what product Facebook sells. “We’re selling the opportunity to connect with people,” she said, before catching herself, “but it’s not for sale.”

 

http://lacrossetribune.com/opinion/columnists/rich-lowry-zuckerberg-again-says-he-s-sorry/article_e5377921-4702-5f35-987a-695d2143fbea.html

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

For folks who are not in technology, it may not be easy to understand that Cambridge Analytica represents a data breach and that's is different than using the Facebook platform to advertise and connect to Facebook members. CA should have never been allowed to collect and take it offline through their "academic" proxy. Facebook violated their own agreement and their 2012 doj consent decree. The proof of that is a contrite (appearing) Mark Zuckerberg advocating for his company to be regulated by the Feds, he would not be pulling for that if the financial and existential threat from the public and investors ready to sue was not overhanging.

 

 

[Dashinka 24,500]

12 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

For folks who are not in technology, it may not be easy to understand that Cambridge Analytica represents a data breach and that's is different than using the Facebook platform to advertise and connect to Facebook members. CA should have never been allowed to collect and take it offline through their "academic" proxy. Facebook violated their own agreement and their 2012 doj consent decree. The proof of that is a contrite (appearing) Mark Zuckerberg advocating for his company to be regulated by the Feds, he would not be pulling for that if the financial and existential threat from the public and investors ready to sue was not overhanging.

 

 

So the feds should have access to FB data?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

21 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So the feds should have access to FB data?

I did not say that or imply that.

[Dashinka 24,500]

5 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

I did not say that or imply that.

What does regulated by the feds mean?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Facebook backs political ad bill, sets limits on 'issue ads'
David Ingram, Dustin Volz
4 MIN READ

SAN FRANCISCO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Facebook Inc backed for the first time on Friday proposed legislation requiring social media sites to disclose the identities of buyers of online political campaign ads and introduced a new verification process for people buying “issue” ads, which have been used to sow discord online.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy/facebook-backs-political-ad-bill-sets-limits-on-issue-ads-idUSKCN1HD2JH

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

19 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

You are on a social media platform right now, how safe is your data? 

Gmail, Outlook, Office 365?  

You have an expectation of privacy.

Do you use your personal phone for company email?  Or at least read the EULA that goes along with such?

If you add a corporate email to your phone, you allow your employer full access to everything on your phone, and the permission to completely wipe your phone clean to factory reset standards.  There is NO privacy in the digital media age my friend.  You pretty much sign away all your rights with every EULA you dismiss and click AGREE to.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

7 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Do you use your personal phone for company email?  Or at least read the EULA that goes along with such?

If you add a corporate email to your phone, you allow your employer full access to everything on your phone, and the permission to completely wipe your phone clean to factory reset standards.  There is NO privacy in the digital media age my friend.  You pretty much sign away all your rights with every EULA you dismiss and click AGREE to.

Wiping out your device should not be a concern.  You should have cloud services backup. I would be more concerned if a lost device could not be erased and company data compromised. 

My company is in the mobile business and has a sophisticated policy that aligns with State and Federal law.  Yours should too.

 

To your point NO ONE except the original set of lawyers reads the EULA.  That does not mean there is no privacy or laws protecting the. 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Wiping out your device should not be a concern.  You should have cloud services backup. I would be more concerned if a lost device could not be erased and company data compromised. 

My company is in the mobile business and has a sophisticated policy that aligns with State and Federal law.  Yours should too.

 

To your point NO ONE except the original set of lawyers reads the EULA.  That does not mean there is no privacy or laws protecting the. 

 

Well, obviously I read the EULA, that’s how I knew about and refused to load company email on my phone.

 

And for the tech savvy who know better than to use iPhones, what’s a cloud?

[Unidentified 2,930]

2 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Well, obviously I read the EULA, that’s how I knew about and refused to load company email on my phone.

 

And for the tech savvy who know better than to use iPhones, what’s a cloud?

Cloud computing isn't an iPhone thing. https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372163,00.asp.