
Both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Threatened to Sue Journalists - Analemma_
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180318/00111439443/both-facebook-cambridge-analytica-threatened-to-sue-journalists-over-stories-cas-use-facebook-data.shtml
======
dvt
Not sure why people are so hung up on the "breach" vs "not a breach" debate.
The issue is this: taking a random personality quiz online is old news. We've
been doing these since the 90s. The _problem_ is that when you log in with FB,
your real name, and all of your metadata is attached to that quiz.

It's not just "IP 12.342.32.1 is chaotic neutral" but "'Bob Smith, with a
degree in X from Y, that likes A, B, and C and is newlywed' is chaotic
neutral." The issue isn't really the quiz (and it's not even CA tbh), it's
Facebook giving out real names, real pictures, etc. every time you "Log in
with Facebook" on any random website or app.

~~~
darawk
But this is how these sorts of OAuth schemes have always worked. It's always
been explicit, too. You grant these apps access to this information. What
exactly is the issue here? That this time it was used in a way people don't
like? There's a reasonable debate to be had about how to deal with all this
data, but to blame Facebook as if they made some error or leaked some data in
an unauthorized way, or did _anything that we didn 't all know was possible
this whole time_ is just totally disingenuous on the part of journalists and
regulators.

~~~
dvt
Yeah I agree. There's a price for the convenience of one-button logins, and
we're paying it right now.

~~~
netsharc
Well, fwiw, these quizzes weren't even on a separate website where you need to
login using OAuth, but they were part of Facebook's "apps" ecosystem. And they
were popular, so everyone was doing it, however harmful (and as has been said,
even if you're not doing it, if your friend is doing it, the app can also see
your information as your friend's connection). Add to that the tragic
permission scheme where Facebook does say "This app can see this
information..." without offering an option to allow/deny sharing of some
things (I think they've changed it so you can give granular permissions).

Granular permissions are also a pain point for me on Android phones. They were
possible with apps on BlackBerry phones in the late 200x's, but on Androids
before version 5 or 6? No, it's either give the app permission for all of
requested functionality, or don't install it...

------
kreetx
Sincere question: this article in the last paragraph says "Facebook
threatening defamation against the Guardian for calling this a data breach is
ludicrous and Facebook should be ashamed and apologize"

\-- does this conclusion hinge on the fact that Facebook should have realized
earlier that the app is harvesting data? If the creator of the app said that
he is doing it for academic purposes only then how should have Facebook known?
Not trying to defend Facebook, but calling this a breach is at least a little
bit gray area, no?

EDIT: concise wording

~~~
DCF
How would that not be a breach? Their system allowed a malicious entity acting
in bad faith to gain large amounts of data under false pretenses. If they got
the data by pretending to be an employee and social engineering their way into
the data that way facebook would 100% call that a breach. Is this that
different?

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I don't think it's so clear. Two things happened:

(a) Users were duped into giving up their data under a false pretense. This
alone cannot be called a breach.

Also, one of the following occurred:

(b.1) Facebook was duped into letting a fraudster install an app on their
platform. If this happened, it was a breach.

or

(b.2) Facebook knew all along that the academic research was only a cover for
duping users into giving up their data. If this happened then it was not a
breach, because Facebook themselves effectively sold the data.

So what Facebook appears to be saying is: There was no breach. We sold the
data!

[Edit] Judging by what this man says, it was probably b.2:
[https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/20/facebook-
data-c...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/20/facebook-data-
cambridge-analytica-sandy-parakilas)

My conclusion is that there was no breach.

~~~
danso
A small point, but one that FB uses in its defense: it does not charge for API
usage

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Because they know that apps make money through Facebook ads and they do charge
for those. If Facebook knew about the true purpose of this sort of app, then
they also knew that they were going to make a lot of money off of it.

------
logicallee
This is a really weak-sauce dictatorship, come on! In a real autocracy,
Facebook would simply suspend all involved journalists' and editors' Facebook
accounts for 6 hours with a message that Big Brother is watching and the
suspensions will be formalized if they don't drop their story.

Any editors or journalists that don't cooperate should have their Facebook,
Whatsapp, or any other service suspended. (If any other service starts gaining
network effects, Facebook can just buy it when it has < 100k users - this is
how a monopoly works under network effect)

Anyway Mark Zuckerberg, my message to you is if you want to be remembered as
one of the worst autocrats who ever lived, you are really going to have to
step up the retaliation. Maybe introduce targeted executions of journalists?

Just some thoughts.

------
jstalin
This is fun to watch. The most evil company I can think of is being exposed
for its core purpose. Are people going to realize what a monster Facebook is?

~~~
paulcole
> The most evil company I can think of is being exposed for its core purpose.

• Nestle

• Every cigarette maker

• Gun companies

• Mosanto

• Pharma companies who charge astronomical prices

• Private prison companies

~~~
viridian
I downvoted you due to the doublethink of providing an out for good pharma
companies to exist, while calling all firearms companies evil. I can see
having a problem with IMI or other state funded companies that are a part of a
Nation's greater military industrial complex, but on what grounds do you
consider Glock or Remington evil?

~~~
wpietri
A pretty obvious distinction is that pharma companies make tools for saving
lives, while consumer gun companies make tools for taking lives.

(And yes, I'm aware of the theory that consumer guns are for taking lives in
self defense. But in 2012, there were 33,563 gun deaths in the US, only 259 of
which were justifiable homicides, so it's at least reasonable to think think
that whatever the intent of gun companies, it's not working out like one might
hope.)

~~~
drak0n1c
The main reason for the second amendment is deterring authoritarianism. It
works, regardless of force proportion. Occupying Afghanistan was a pain that
was ultimately not worthwhile for anyone who tried it.

Regarding self-defense, there is also a benefit in deterrence - look at
relative crime rates in the most heavily armed per-capita states.

~~~
mschuster91
> The main reason for the second amendment is deterring authoritarianism. It
> works, regardless of force proportion.

No. It's delusion. In doubt, feds will fuck you over and shoot your corpse
when they're done. There is no such thing as stopping the police, short of
welding yourself shut in a tank, but you're bound to run out of gas, air or
food/water. Or being blown up with an RPG, if you do enough damage.

The only thing that works as a deterrence to authoritarianism is masses - but
you really need MASSES, as in hundreds of thousands of people, not a couple
hundred neckbeards with guns. Hell, G20 Hamburg was in the upper 5-digit range
of protesters with a decent amount of experienced and willing rioters and it
got royally screwed. I don't nearly see any protest coming near that range of
numbers soon... except, maybe and hopefully, if Trump decides to be a totally
ignorant idiot and fires Mueller.

~~~
wanderer2323
The case for deterring authoritarianism is not G20 protests, it's

(a) groups like Deacons for Defence
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice))
where the presence of weapons serves as a deterrence, or if you want to turn
to more grim times, (b) events like Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising))
where the concentration of weapons counts for forcing an oppressor to suffer
casualties instead of just rolling over the unarmed opposition. That is what
the quote you are responding to alludes to.

Finally, weapons also serve as deterrent for the out-of-control forces, e.g.
(c) 1992 Los Angeles Riots
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots))
when the government is not acting directly or indirectly against a group but
is simply not acting at all during critical time

All of these has happened before, and all of these will happen again, during
our lifetime.

------
matt_s
Anyone else thinking these are very similar behaviors coming from Facebook
execs and the White House?

Threaten lawsuits, fire/demote people that don't agree with you, etc.

~~~
bogomipz
You left out "espouse noble ideals" \- "connecting people" or "making America
great again." It's behind these public "facades" that the litigating into
submission and threatening into silence is done.

------
pasbesoin
There needs to be serious discussion in society and the legal community, about
the deliberate "weaponization" of legal actions. Where the purpose is not to
pursue a legitimate and balanced complaint, but rather to cow another party
into compliance/cooperation by threat to destroy them through legal actions
rather than the outcome of a legal process.

The threat of forcing the other person to spend themselves into bankruptcy,
for example.

Standards need to be defined and enforced, where such activity is grounds for
punishment up to and including disbarment.

To the extent such already exists, it is clearly proving insufficient.

Law should be about justice, first. Not just another field of unfettered
warfare.

Also, to that end, sealed records and confidentiality should be more severely
constrained. The judicial system is a public system; everyone should be able
to see what you're up to in it, for better and for worse.

Protecting clearly threatened victims, sure. Defined legitimate, critical
secrets, for defined limited periods of time, ok (real national security,
trade secrets). Beyond that, not so much. Not at all, maybe.

------
sol_remmy
Ongoing discussion at:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16626318](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16626318)

~~~
pacala
The NYTimes article you link to doesn't contain the word "threat". This piece
appears to contain a new bit of information about the ethically challenged
behavior of FB and CA. It deserves a separate conversation.

------
mithoon
One thing I don't understand, at one hand you are supposed to keep digital
data for X amount of years ( I think 7), and on the other hand the company
cannot make use of it, why would it be sitting on servers, might as well make
use of it.

------
cryoshon
so, this is effectively two solid admissions of guilt, in hand. why bother
suing journalists if there isn't a truth that you don't want to get out?

needless to say the idea that they want to suppress journalists is egregiously
illiberal and warrants our unanimous excoriation of these businesses.

zuck's silence (terror? or destroying more evidence, as they have already
done?) is very telling. if we organize, the bell will toll for facebook. it is
long overdue.

as a bonus, zuck's presidential run is ruined, hopefully.

~~~
mieseratte
> why bother suing journalists if there isn't a truth that you don't want to
> get out?

Defamation, per TFA.

~~~
pjc50
Defamation/libel is interesting; since only the already wealthy can afford it,
more often than not a defamation lawsuit is a sign that someone is trying to
suppress true facts.

There have been several high profile cases when politicians sued for libel,
won, the facts were established as true, and the politician jailed for
perjuring themselves during the trial.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1424501.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1424501.stm)

[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/jun/08/uk](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/jun/08/uk)

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-
west-12059037](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12059037)
(but see [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-
west-17909946](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17909946) )

~~~
the_watcher
Since truth is an absolute defense to libel, defamation lawsuits are a
particularly poor method to suppress provably true facts.

~~~
pjc50
No, they're extremely effective in the "SLAPP" sense, because you have to be
able to prove the truth in court against perjuring witnesses, and you have to
be able to _pay_ for it.

To take a justified example where a ""journalist"" really did defame someone:
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/katie-
hopkin...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/katie-hopkins-
libel-case-appeal-lose-jack-monroe-food-blogger-daily-mail-sun-a8155661.html)

"This includes £24,000 in damages to Monroe and £107,000 to her lawyers to
cover court costs." Hopkins is now selling her house to cover costs.

Most people fold immediately when threatened with a convincing libel suit,
because apologising (even for the truth) is a lot cheaper than a settlement
which is in turn a lot cheaper than losing your house.

Another high profile example of effectively suppressing true facts: Trafigura
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/s...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/sep/17/trafigura-
libel-laws)

Note that a litigant doesn't necessarily have to suppress facts _forever_ , a
few years while the case proceeds is often enough to turn the original issue
into a historical curiosity.

~~~
darkarmani
That's because libel/slander law is very broken in the UK (in my opinion --
not to libel the UK!).

When you look to silence someone, you venue shop for the best place to silence
them. The UK is a decent place to stop them.

------
usmsid
Information and data are good as long as the right people have access to it.

------
harry8
delete your facebook account. It feels sooooo good!

~~~
harry8
Downvote the above hard to confront your withrdawal symptoms then make your
posts with your contact details announcing you are going to leave facebook, a
few reminders then do it.

Life is better without them. They really haven't got you, you can break free
just by deciding to do it.

(Apologies for mentioning up/down voting)

------
decacorn
might be time for Zuckerberg to consider resigning. house of cards is falling.

~~~
wongarsu
This will blow over, Facebook is far too entrenched and without serious
competition. Some people will use Facebook less and replace it with Whatsapp
and Instagram, but Zuckerberg has that base covered

~~~
tzakrajs
Facebook is entrenched because the culture allows it, but I sense a major
kumbaya moment for Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Millenials that could upend this
culture. Finally, the younger generations can see in practice why many of
their elders were intuitively resistant to social media.

~~~
RickS
> younger generations can see in practice why many of their elders were
> intuitively resistant to social media.

The idea that "their elders" were "intuitively resistant" because they
understood the decade-later implication of algorithmic user profiling being
weaponized to undermine public thought and democracy is.... generous.

They didn't understand computers or why anyone would give a shit about seeing
your lunch. Both fair. But let's not repaint them as wise prophets of some
future data apocalypse.

The real kumbaya moment you're talking about is both self-deprecating and
metacognitive: "I am not so much an individual as one of fewer-than-
you'd-think archetypes, and my beliefs about the world are malleable based on
cute pictures placed in front of me for pennies. I should take time out of
every day of my life and spend it working to double check that the things i
think are true, and the people I hate are the thing I think they are. Whole
organizations of much smarter people than I will abuse me at every chance they
get to take as much money from me as they possibly can. Most things that feel
good on the internet are designed to turn me, somehow, into money."

This is a painful, stark realization that lots of people never get to. Whole
industries rely on people never coming to the realization that all of us are
"basic bitches" and not anomalously unique or intelligent.

I'd love to believe you that there is a multi-generational awakening to the
idea that people are herdable animals, but don't bet the farm.

~~~
monktastic1
> The idea that "their elders" were "intuitively resistant" because they
> understood the decade-later implication of algorithmic user profiling being
> weaponized to undermine public thought and democracy is.... generous.

Intuition doesn't require explicit understanding. Many of my elders certainly
had the instinctive sense that we're oversharing and that it will, somehow or
another, bite us in the behind. And many of my peers assumed they were
paranoid.

------
mankash666
The next step is for Facebook to go after individual dissenters, and train
their AI to do so.

