And if they did so with the permission of Facebook and the people who shared their data and took the "surveys"? GDPR becomes enforceable in May 2018, doesn't it? What you and others on this thread just don't seem to understand is that if you are not paying for a product or service on Internet, then generally you are the product.I agree with the proposition that Cambridge Analytica, Facebook and any other companies and individuals involved in this harvesting of data from Facebook should face prosecution on the grounds of either illegally harvesting users' details if they used techniques without the permission of Facebook or alternatively if they had the go-ahead from Facebook executives to prosecute on the grounds of a data breach and breach of GDPR and Data Protection legislation.
I understand that well enough. Believe me I and colleagues have been through a year and a half of intense concentration on the implications of GDPR and data protection legislation.And if they did so with the permission of Facebook and the people who shared their data and took the "surveys"? GDPR becomes enforceable in May 2018, doesn't it? What you and others on this thread just don't seem to understand is that if you are not paying for a product or service on Internet, then generally you are the product.
Your name is irrelevant, data analysis in this case doesn't give a flying f*** what your name is, they are building a profile on that account, what you like, what you react to, what you post, what you link to, then they are categorising you based on that data, and then directing ads to your profile based on that, companies are doing this everyday, it is just targeted advertising based on where you fit and what is likely to push your buttons. It doesn't matter if it is delivered to as Lumpy Talbot or Paddy Murphy, it gets delivered to the profile they have identified which is you, no matter what name you are using on FB or any other platform.I'm on Facebook but under a false name. I recommend that approach. If Cambridge Analytica were harvesting details off that account they are definitely going to end up with a lot weird data somewhere in the pile.
And no I don't give a **** about Facebook's desire for everyone to be on their database under their real name.
Seems to be a situation where people took a survey and that survey was leveraged to include others in that person's social network (gave access to the person's friends). Analysing data obtained via an API is far easier than analysing data from webpages. The data from the API is generally well formatted and can easily be imported to a database or other program. The data from webpages is far more problematic in that it is generally not well formatted and has to be extracted from the HTML code and the wonderful variations that people dream up for their own little websites.I imagine that what they did was scrape the data from the web pages or Facebook api.
Things that make me laugh: people like Zuckerberg who invest billions in a panopticon and then claim they had no idea what was happening on their platform.
"I am shocked to see people getting drunk in here" - Pub Owner.
It is another brainfart from the pondscum intelllected gobshítes who gave us the EU Cookie Law.I understand that well enough. Believe me I and colleagues have been through a year and a half of intense concentration on the implications of GDPR and data protection legislation.
It is a powergrab by Brussels. Because the Internet evolves faster than they can comprehend, there will be ways around this legislation and these protections. Companies are probably working on solutions to bypass GDPR and have been doing so for a few years now.This is what makes a mockery of such laws and regulations. There seems to be different laws for corporations and private companies than there is for the average joe.
I do not think anyone,individual or company, should be allowed to scrape data from social media sites.
I would be in favour of making it illegal and prosecutable offence with major fines and sanctions including imprisonment of executives for the offence.
I work with data and I work under restrictions and compliant with GDPR and data protection regulations and there are no circumstances under which I would comply with any such operation.
Anyone who thinks that Cambridge Analytica has only 50 million people in its data set, needs to get out more. That company has been monitoring every facebook, linked in, twitter, etc account it can in America's, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, Central Asia, Japan, Korea, etc. I would be very surprised if the number off accounts assessed by Cambridge Analytica across the various social media, is not around the billion range. The sheer level of funding that company has, may have given it access to an even higher number.CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA TOOK 50M FACEBOOK USERS' DATAAND BOTH COMPANIES OWE ANSWERS
Facebook suspends data firm Cambridge Analytica which has Trump ties
Steve Bannon was a former VP of CA. And somewhere in there the Mercers are involved apparently.
Channel 4 are doing an expose on it for the next while.
Whistleblower reveals to Channel 4 News data grab of 50 million Facebook profiles by Cambridge Analytica data firm linked to Trump win
It is also being connected with RUSSIA and TRUMP and all that. And with BREXIT ..
So BIG DATA under the spot light ...
Chris Olson @topherolsonDont worry, Mark Zuckerberg: Just because youre paranoid doesnt mean they arent after you. And as the richest millennial in the world, you can probably be confident that someone, somewhere, is after you.
Which is why it makes perfect sense that youve joined the growing number of people doing a little DIY hardware hacking, and disabling their computers webcam and microphone. Even if a sneaky hacker does manage to penetrate your security, theyre not going to be seeing you in your tighty whities.
Yes folks, Zuckerberg tapes over his webcam. The billionaire made the (accidental?) revelation in a Facebook post intended to promote Instagram reaching its latest milestone of half a billion monthly active users.
There's a difference (albeit a small one) between analysing data to assit in marketing one's candidate, and engaging in outright information warfare designed to trick people into voting for your candidate by lying to them.Very unlikely that there would be any difference at all. Obama's crowd used detailed analytics as well to mobilise a young vote via social media that may not have otherwise turned up to vote.
There is no party divide in this.