Cambridge Analytica Isn’t Facebook’s Fault
- Mehedi Hassan
- Mar 23, 2018
-
111
This week, we learned that Cambridge Analytica, a data mining firm, stole personal data of 50 million Facebook users. The story hit Facebook hard, and it has raised new privacy concerns about the social network. And it was widely reported that a former Cambridge Analytica employee claimed that the data “stolen” from Facebook users was used to manipulate users through micro-targeting for the U.S. presidential election. Cambridge Analytica was also allegedly involved in manipulating the public during the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, as well as during multiple different political events in Kenya, Brazil, Mexico, and other countries around the world.
Cambridge Analytica reportedly used data collected by a personality quiz app on Facebook developed by a Cambridge University researcher. The data was used to predict voter behavior and then manipulate voters with propaganda. The data was also used by the firm to help political parties design their campaigns, help their leaders design speeches to talk about what people want to hear, and help political leaders take pride in what they do best: making false promises.
Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
All of this is obviously wrong in many different ways. But contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, none of this is Facebook’s fault.
Facebook’s apps platform is built to let third-party apps gain access to your personal data on the social network. But the social network has implemented multiple measures over the years to make sure that nefarious companies like Cambridge Analytica don’t misuse its users’ data. When a user gives a third-party app access to their personal data, Facebook specifically informs users of the exact type of data they are sharing The company even lets users limit the access of the third-party apps to their personal data with the single click of a button.
The process is incredibly straight-forward. But many Facebook users never bother to read the simple notice when they give a random third-party app access to their personal data. That’s become a major problem for the company, and its founder Mark Zuckerberg confirmed earlier that the firm is taking steps to limit third-party apps’ access to its users’ personal data. It will also provide users with new tools that make it easy for users to revoke access to their personal data for certain apps. And apps that they don’t use for 3 months will automatically have their access revoked in wake of the recent revelations.
The press is blaming Facebook for all of this. But Facebook shouldn’t be held responsible for its user’s actions. You see, once a Facebook user gives a third-party app access to their personal data, the third-party can do anything they want with the data. Improper use of the data is explicitly against Facebook’s terms of service — but for Facebook, it’s immensely difficult to constantly monitor all the millions of apps on its platform and how they are actually using its users’ data. Ultimately, it is up to you—not Facebook—-to determine whether to trust third parties with your data.
Yes, there are some things Facebook could have done to help prevent this type of event. The company found out about Cambridge Analytica’s wrongdoings in 2015, and it ordered the data mining firm to destroy the data because it was violating the Facebook terms of service. But instead of doing a complete audit to confirm Cambridge Analytica has destroyed all of the data, Facebook company was satisfied by a legal certification.
Problem is, Cambridge Analytica is full of vile culprits, ones that use sex workers to orchestrate outrageous strategies for its customers—mostly political parties—-to take down their client’s competitors. And The New York Times, the UK’s Channel 4 and The Guardian—some of the world’s most prestigious publications—all claim that Cambridge Analytica never did delete the Facebook user data they had gathered.
Facebook, the world’s largest and most profitable social network, should also have been more cognizant of the privacy implications of sharing its users data with third-parties. And that’s true even if the firm is technically not responsible for what their users decide to share. The company could have enabled different mechanisms to automatically limit third-party apps’ access to user data after a period of inactivity or suspicious activities, for example. Even better, it could have made it completely impossible for third-parties to access unnecessary information, such as a user’s friends lists or posts unless the app developer goes through some sort of verification process.
Facebook has a lot of work to do to rebuild trust with its users. In the interim, its executives will be busy meeting with government regulators while its engineers and security researchers work to protect its platform from other the Cambridge Analyticas out there.
The takeaway from this entire scandal for us—the billion-plus regular users who make up Facebook’s customer base—should be to increase our personal awareness about who we share our personal data with, which companies we trust, and the companies that deserve to use our personal data. Data mining is a dirty but hugely-profitable business, and we should be more protective of our own privacy instead of relying on companies like Facebook to do the right thing.
Tagged with
Conversation 111 comments
-
skane2600
<p>The correct answer is "yes".</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#255784"><em>In reply to tommybeck:</em></a></blockquote><p>The title was changed. It used to be something like "Is Cambridge Analytica really Facebook's fault?" I guess Mehedi has reached a final conclusion in the last hour. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#255785"><em>In reply to markbyrn:</em></a></blockquote><p>Brought to you be the same reliable source (investors.com).</p><p><br></p><p>In July 2009, an editorial in Investor's Business Daily claimed that physicist Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the [British] National Health Service (NHS) would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#256068"><em>In reply to Greg Green:</em></a></blockquote><p>In order for the two situations to be the same the Obama campaign would have to obtain the information under false pretenses. The fact that the Guardian article exists illustrates that it wasn't the case. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#255785"><em>In reply to markbyrn:</em></a></blockquote><p>usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/20/obama-2012-team-we-didnt-break-facebook-rules-our-campaign/442130002/</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#255887"><em>In reply to Payton:</em></a></blockquote><p>So, did USA Today also fail to realize that Stephen Hawking lived in the UK? This is just more false equivalency. Sources like Fox News aren't bad because nobody is reliable, right?</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#256067"><em>In reply to Greg Green:</em></a></blockquote><p>False equivalence. There's a difference between agreeing to give up some private information that you explicitly recognize is used for political purposes vs. agreeing to give up some privacy to use an app or game and have that information used politically without your knowledge or consent.</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#256105"><em>In reply to Waethorn:</em></a></blockquote><p>"Obama's campaign used Cambridge Analytica also."</p><p><br></p><p>Source?</p>
-
Stooks
<p>How does Facebook, a Free product, pay for its 25,000 employees (wiki), data centers around the world full of servers using lost of power, and all the bandwidth it must purchase to support its Billion plus users?</p><p><br></p><p>Your information monetized.</p><p><br></p><p>Seriously do I have to say more? They knew and DID NOT CARE because the money is rolling in. If you are Facebook user in 2018 you are either stupid (don't know they are selling your info) or weak.</p><p><br></p><p>SSDD for Twitter, SnapChat, Instagram (owned by Facebook), Google Search, Gmail, Youtube and all other Free services that sell no real tangible products otherwise. YOU ARE THE PRODUCT.</p><p><br></p><p>Are we clear?</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#255910"><em>In reply to davidblouin:</em></a></blockquote><p>If Facebook supported that capability through the implementation of their service, sure. It's not as if Cambridge Analytica just sent an email to random people asking for their Facebook password. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#256074"><em>In reply to davidblouin:</em></a></blockquote><p>Your last two posts aren't about the same thing. Which are we talking about, handing your Facebook password to a stranger or agreeing to app permissions? There's a big difference. </p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#255902"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>You're right, of course, but there's a bit more to the story. Just as a TV network can collapse if not enough people ("products") are watching to justify advertisement revenue, the same holds true for social networks. So a social network has to consider the users, not just the advertisers to stay viable.</p>
-
Pargon
Premium Member<p>So saying that Paul, who runs this website is a huge lib and I was waiting for an article exonerating Facebook is worth deleting my comment? And yet we should be afraid of trump….instead of the thought police of liberal tech bloggers?</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#255944"><em>In reply to Pargon:</em></a></blockquote><p>I don't recall Paul declaring himself a liberal on this site (I assume that's what you meant by "lib"). I have to laugh when people assume that tech companies are bastions of liberal thought. For the most part they aren't left-leaning or right-leaning, they're profit-leaning. However since many conservatives tend to believe in "anything goes" in business, profit-leaning often is in alignment with right-leaning. In any case, Paul isn't the author of the article and I doubt he stands over his co-contributors dictating what they can write.</p>
-
Pargon
Premium Member<blockquote><a href="#256044"><em>In reply to skane2600:</em></a></blockquote><p>For months after and running up to the election he took a shot at the president in almost every article he wrote or just cried about it. The tech companies are bastions of liberal thought, why else would they pay massive amounts to try to keep the borders open or champion gun control. They all do it, but go ahead and pretend otherwise. I know Paul is liberal, I still like his site for the news. </p><p><br></p><p>What I find ridiculous is my simple comment got deleted. Someone said that the real crime cambridge committed was being on the wrong team and I said "I was waiting for the exoneration of facebook from this site". </p><p><br></p><p>That's heresy to have a different opinion apparently and it must be purged from tech blog comments lol. The original comment I replied to was deleted as well. We welcome our technological overlords!</p>
-
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#256046"><em>In reply to Pargon:</em></a></blockquote><p>A lot of people, even some conservatives weren't happy about Trump. I don't think Trump truly embodies the conservative POV but I'll let that judgement lie with them.</p><p><br></p><p>"open borders" is just a talking point. Name one tech executive who has called for open borders. A lot of tech companies do like H-1B visas, not because they're liberal, but because it helps hold down labor costs. Of course Trump had no problem with his wife getting an EB-1 "genius" Visa yet I don't think he's for open borders either.</p><p><br></p><p>Given the wide popularity among the US population for some limits on rapid-fire weapons, it's not credible that favoring gun control is strictly a liberal idea.</p><p><br></p><p>Finally, it's worth remembering that the tech world consists of a lot more than the big names everybody knows and Silicon Valley isn't the only place where the tech business resides. I started as a developer in 1981 and I've never worked there.</p><p><br></p>