Is the facebook data privacy issue overhyped?

No, the Facebook data privacy issue not overhyped.

They went through EVERYTHING you did, including the supposedly encrypted/secured messaging, then sold it off for pennies to companies who then used it to psychologically manipulate you.

If this doesn't trouble you, please send me passwords to all your online accounts, so I can sell off information I find, then I'll follow you around 24-7 telling you how dumb you are.

Gotcha. So back to my question, is there some data beyond my Facebook usage and list of phone contacts that Facebook keeps in its data set?

I am nearly certain that Facebook did not allow you to download everything they know about you. Considering they use Facebook "like" trackers across the internet to follow people who do not even have Facebook accounts, it's reasonable to assume that they have mountains more data than they're willing to disclose.

Am I missing something?

10 years or so ago Mark Zuckerburg said, quite openly, in a public forum, that privacy was dead.

it was pretty obvious to me that this was not his opinion, it was something he was intent on making true. he was going to personally end the very concept of privacy online.

anyone who believes anything that the folks at Twatbook tell you is naive beyond belief.

cheers.

I assumed everything was capable of being monitored long before Snowden confirmed it. Things like the Patriot act had made it legally possible. And anyone with a sense of data storage knew it was definitely possible to hack/access the data. And anyone with a sense of business could predict the data would be sold. And now when you download an app it even tells you what it's going to access. Who is the idiot that is surprised when their data gets shared around the world?

If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at companies like Equifax who have information like your social security number, birthday, and banking accounts even though you never authorized them to have it. And then they (predictably) can't keep it secure.

Facebook? Give me a break. People voluntarily give their lives to Facebook. You knew the risk.

Shoebacca wrote:

I assumed everything was capable of being monitored long before Snowden confirmed it. Things like the Patriot act had made it legally possible. And anyone with a sense of data storage knew it was definitely possible to hack/access the data. And anyone with a sense of business could predict the data would be sold. And now when you download an app it even tells you what it's going to access. Who is the idiot that is surprised when their data gets shared around the world?

If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at companies like Equifax who have information like your social security number, birthday, and banking accounts even though you never authorized them to have it. And then they (predictably) can't keep it secure.

Facebook? Give me a break. People voluntarily give their lives to Facebook. You knew the risk.

Yeah, but a LOT of the issue here is that Facebook has terms & conditions you agree to when creating an account, and they didn't adhere to them. Pretty simple, actually.

And you know what? The worst data breach in history isn't terribly well-known. Everything about ME is, though, since I'm among those who had their data stolen. And the fed response to me? One year of credit monitoring.

I guess it is one thing what one chooses to share, but I figured out a long time ago that being online means giving up some privacy unless you want to take some extraordinary measures.

Also, I wonder if there were any actual manipulation going on. Did anyone really get influenced to change a vote? Seems like a pretty bogus claim but a good one since there is no way to prove it did not occur (or that it occurred) unless someone comes forward and says "Yes, I was stupid enough to think Hillary was really arm wrestling the Devil".

What happened with Cambridge Analytica is almost certainly illegal under European Data Protection law.

They created an app which took your data. That's totally legal because they told you they were going to take your data and in bland terms told you how they're going to use it.

But when you agreed to use the app, they also took all your friends' data as well. You consented on behalf of your friends for CA to have their data. I'm sure that is not legal.

Think about that for a moment. Your friend decides to play a Facebook app and suddenly all YOUR data is being hived off to some company behind your back. And then having done that they produce fake news backed up by fake websites and blogs to try and influence your voting. And you didn't even get the joy of finding out which celeb you're most like.

And bear in mind that when I say your friend, it could just be one of those acquaintances you added when they sent you a Friend Request five years ago. You might never have met that person or even talked to them or even look at their newsfeed. But they've just given all your data away to some company without you even knowing about it. Of course that's partly your own fault for wanting to have 487 friends but even so.

But going back to the original point. It's almost certain illegal for CA to harvest the data of people who didn't consent for themselves.

As someone with no friends, I think it's totally overhyped.

Were you also SHOCKED that the government couldn't break i-phone encryption and went public with that information during the San Bernadino case? Then when they found a company that would break the encryption they had to go public with that, too.

The way I understand it, the data was stolen. If Cambridge Analytica paid Facebook to analyse the data, would nobody care? Is that the issue

This made me think of something else. The news media got slammed for giving Trump too much free publicity, and that helped him win. Maybe the news media is going all in on this Facebook stuff because they can blame someone else for Trump. I've given up trying to explain it and just acknowledge we are a hairsbreadth away from Idiocracy[/i}.

YFB wrote:

No, the Facebook data privacy issue not overhyped.

They went through EVERYTHING you did, including the supposedly encrypted/secured messaging, then sold it off for pennies to companies who then used it to psychologically manipulate you.

The key words are "sold it." FB is interested in maximizing profit for the owner and his top minions.

‘Malicious actors’ used Facebook’s tools to collect data on most users. These actors took advantage of the social network’s search tools, enabling them match anonymous email addresses or phone numbers to faces and names on Facebook, the company said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/04/04/facebook-said-the-personal-data-of-most-its-2-billion-users-has-been-collected-and-shared-with-outsiders/

The presidential election was decided on 40k votes. They had the data of 87 million people.

You do the math and decide if this was a factor in electing our great President.

Depends what you mean by overhyped.

Does Facebook have subpar data protection and did plenty of people take advantage to use primarily for advertising purposes? Sure.

Did it really impact you life in a substantial way? Probably not.

Privacy is dead wrote:

But when you agreed to use the app, they also took all your friends' data as well. You consented on behalf of your friends for CA to have their data. I'm sure that is not legal.

You contact list is not the private information of the people on it, it's yours, and you have the right to tell others who is on it if you choose. There is no legal safeguard for someone to demand that you not tell anyone they're on your list.

Getting names off your contact list doesn't give someone access to your contacts' data beyond what their names are and the fact that they know you. They still have to get their permission to see their non-public information.

But this is way more overblown than that. If you only knew how many lists your name was on already, before Facebook data mining was possible... and when it comes to elections, that starts with the voter rolls, which every member of the public has the right to obtain. Registration records are the most valuable thing for a campaign deciding whom to target: name, street address, party affiliation, and how long affiliated. The major parties go well beyond that and record every bit of contact with their support base they've ever had, building up a long and detailed history. Social media data is like looking for a needle in a haystack by comparison, and a waste of time and precious resources.

Closer to scandalous would be the Sanders campaign turning its email list over to Clinton.

Woke wrote:

Depends what you mean by overhyped.

Does Facebook have subpar data protection and did plenty of people take advantage to use primarily for advertising purposes? Sure.

Did it really impact you life in a substantial way? Probably not.

Keep drinking the Facebook kool-aid. You missed--intentionally--why the data was made available at all. To make money for FB. Data protection doesn't work when the data protector is selling the data to make a profit. They hope you never find out.

Luv2Run wrote:[/b

Also, I wonder if there were any actual manipulation going on. Did anyone really get influenced to change a vote? Seems like a pretty bogus claim but a good one since there is no way to prove it did not occur (or that it occurred) unless someone comes forward and says "Yes, I was stupid enough to think Hillary was really arm wrestling the Devil".

Of course it influenced voting. To say it didn't would be like saying that advertising doesn't work. It probably didn't change many votes of informed voters, but millions of people vote from their gut. If the overall sentiment in the news, online, on Facebook prior to the election is "drain the swamp" (even though Trump is awash in the swamp) and "Crooked Hilary" and other phrases that might have been tested by C.A., that's going to influence a lot of voters to vote for Trump, or decide to sit out the vote. Advertising works. That's why companies pay a lot of money to do it. Companies like Google make bank on advertising.

YFB wrote:

Yeah, but a LOT of the issue here is that Facebook has terms & conditions you agree to when creating an account, and they didn't adhere to them. Pretty simple, actually.

Uhhh, no. The EULA doesn't do what you think it does. It does just the opposite, in fact.

Some might find this article interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/26/tinder-personal-data-dating-app-messages-hacked-sold