(03-25-2018 11:49 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-24-2018 10:18 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 12:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Opinion piece
References tweet by Sen Klobuchar
Facebook breach: This is a major breach that must be investigated. It’s clear these platforms can’t police themselves. I've called for more transparency & accountability for online political ads. They say “trust us.” Mark Zuckerberg needs to testify before Senate Judiciary.
— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) March 17, 2018

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu...71224211d9

There is no fundamental difference between the Obama campaign's harvesting and scraping of Facebook data and CA's harvesting and scraping of the same types of. Except one.

I find it odd that it is such a big scandal today. (and I'm debating putting the [sarcasm on] and [/sarcasm] delimiters around the previous sentence....)

No.

Obama's campaign absolutely did collect data BUT it was when the user logged into the Obama site AND clicked an OK for sharing their OWN Facebook data.

The user if they cared, knew Obama's campaign was the one getting the data.

If you will recall. The Obama campaign and Democratic Party were at odds in 2008 and 2012 over the Obama campaign's refusal to give that data to the Party and when they finally turned over data in 2012 the party was outraged because it was heavily redacted removing much of the identifiable personal data.

Cambridge Analytica set up a Facebook personality test. It not only gathered your data as a part of the test, it used your friends list to extract information about people who did not take the personality quiz and did not consent to their data being gathered. So my dumb*** friends who take every quiz that pops up gave some data about me to Cambridge.

No one involved in taking the tests had any idea they were giving up data for political purposes, everyone who went to the Obama site, should have been aware they were doing just that when they clicked OK.

Cambridge got access to the data by claiming to be doing academic research rather than building a sophisticated commercial data set. Cambridge retained the data in violation of their research agreement.

The two are NOT the same.

They are the same. One friend giving ok meant all of their friends got their data scrounged without their approval.

The *only* difference was that the Obama program got a users approval, but then (without consent or knowledge) harvested deep data on all of their friends. The only consent given by the user was to enable the user to 'contact' their friends using the user's name and introduction. Nothing was ever said about harvesting far deeper data on the friends list.

Cambridge used subterfuge on the original user to gain access to any user data. Further, Cambridge did keep the data in violation of the commercial agreement. But, with regards to keeping the data, the only reason there was a violation was that Facebook changed their terms in 2015. When you read any comments from Team Obama, their comments are scripted to say "We did everything within the rules."


The only difference in the two can be summarized is in this example:

In the first case I invite someone into my house and give them permission to use the restroom. That person then rifles through my desk and steals jewelry.

In the second case, someone says they are a meter reader, and I give them permission to read the meter. The meter reader enters the house through a window and proceeds to rifle through my desk and steals jewelry.

I see absolutely no major moral or ethical distinction between the two. But those people who support Obama (and who presumably are part of the 'Resistance') apparently see that moral or ethical distinction quite clearly.

Turning back to the present day comments of Team Obama of "we did everything within the rules", one portion is patently false:

a) they mined deep data on user's friends without any consent from the user (the only consent was to 'send' friends messages, not co-opt data on 'location, likes, etc.'), not even to mention any consent whatsoever from the friends.

Another portion is that the comments only say "they were within the 'rules' ", rules that were expressly changed in 2015 to preclude much of the rest of Team Obama's activities. Just saying there is some very good word parsing from Team Obama on this subject at the present time; almost worthy of a Bill Clinton 'what is the meaning of 'is' ' award.