
Facebook Sued by Investors Over Voter-Profile Harvesting - juststeve
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-20/facebook-sued-by-investors-over-voter-profile-harvesting
======
downandout
_"...defendants made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose
that Facebook violated its own data privacy policies by allowing third parties
access to personal data of millions of Facebook users without their
consent..."_

The "without their consent" part is BS, as is this lawsuit. When you use
Facebook platform apps, you have to consent to the disclosure of your
information to the developer, and have to agree to allow whatever special
permissions the developer is asking for. As for friend data that apps may have
access to, when you sign up for and use Facebook, you agree to the terms and
conditions, which allow this behavior.

Investors had the opportunity to view both the developer platform policies and
Facebook TOS long before they ever bought shares. If they didn't like the
possible implications of them, they should not have invested. My guess is that
this case will go nowhere.

~~~
kaeawc
I am a developer of an app that makes use of Facebook friend permissions and
have seen the various API changes they have made since 2014.

Applications using Facebook Graph 2.+ (which is the only option since Spring
2015 or so) who access friend data may only access data of friends who have
also given consent to your app. So if A and C log into a Facebook app, and A
is friends with B and C, the app can only be aware that A and C exist. This is
true of legacy and new Facebook applications. It used to be possible to get
basically everything about B (name, age, gender, photo, etc), but that all got
shut down when Graph API 1.0 was discontinued. If this is somehow not the case
for some Facebook apps that got special permission or there is a hack to get
at the data, that would be a huge breach of trust.

~~~
IshKebab
They haven't got around that, it's just that this data "breach" happened
before 2015 when the old API was removed.

~~~
manuelflara
Is this correct? Because all this time I was wondering about this scandal:
apparently, this all started because someone had some app or website which got
downloaded by a few hundred thousand FB users (who gave access to their info),
and somehow they turned that into data of 50M users. And I also am well aware
the current FB API doesn't allow you to get info about your friends if only
you give permissions to an app. That this "breach" happened some time ago,
when API permissions were different, would make a lot of sense to me.

~~~
IshKebab
TL;DR (which someone _never_ gets reported):

Before 2015 Facebook apps could access the data of your friends if you gave it
permission. Your friends didn't need to give explicit permission (though there
were never-used settings to block access).

Some academic dude made a personality test app that harvested the data from
all of the friends of people who used it. He paid lots of people (almost all
American) on Amazon's Mechanical Turk to use it and harvested their data _and
the data of their friends_.

He sold that data to Cambridge Analytica. This was in 2012 I think. Facebook
removed that version of the Friends API in 2015 so this is no longer possible.

------
throwaway84742
I find it remarkable that when Obama did something similar in 2012, it was
hailed as a major strength of his campaign and nobody had any problems with
FB.

~~~
LukaAl
I find it remarkable that people don't understand there's a non-subtle
difference between signing up voluntarily on the Obama website using Facebook
and consenting to the information collection vs. signing up for a quiz from an
unrelated company and having that data used by the Trump campaign.

If you don't understand the difference, it is the same difference between
having consensual sex with your girlfriend and raping your neighbor girlfriend
because she consented to have sex with him...

Now, this metaphor is imperfect, but from what we could see the Obama campaign
was within the boundary allowed by Facebook TOS and what disclosed to the
user. Did they push this to the limit? Yes. To the point that FB didn't think
it was feasible. But legit according to the rule. Maybe having consensual
extreme BSDM sex with your girlfriend vs. raping your neighbor's GF? Quiz,
which one is legal and which one is not?

~~~
mistermann
The world would be a much better place if people weren't so utterly ignorant
of their personal bias.

~~~
vanilla_nut
I fail to see how this comment is at all constructive to the situation at
hand. What personal bias are you talking about here? Would it really be that
hard to elaborate? Instead of acting like you're better than the grandparent
poster, it would be far better to either a) engage him in a conversation or b)
not comment at all.

~~~
mistermann
Constructive conversation on certain topics is sometimes not possible when in
a forum that leans too far to the right or the left. There is a common
mentality among many people where they _know_ they are right, such that no
response to differing opinions is even necessary, a downvote will do (which is
doubly useful, because it censors the downvoted person for some period of
time). And if you do not support the narrative, you _will_ be downvoted.
Respect is a two way street, or at least it used to be.

I'm happy to engage in a debate any time, finding someone else willing to
participate is a problem when everyone is only interested in discussing the
nuances of how they agree with each other.

I'll also disagree that it's not better to comment at all - voices of dissent
are valuable in a democracy, silencing them is the actually dangerous path to
take, but that seems to be the path that's been chosen, so we'll see how it
works out.

~~~
vanilla_nut
I agree that constructive conversation is sometimes very very difficult
depending on biases in participants. You make a good point that people
sometimes simply dismiss differing ideas because "they're wrong" with little
basis -- these kind of shortcuts are generally necessary in life (you'd never
get anything done if you didn't sometimes use heuristics to assess the value
of an argument) but also reinforce biases since your heuristics tend to favor
arguments with which you agree.

However, I'd just like to say that your previous comment didn't give me much
of an impression that you're happy to engage in a debate -- how on earth can I
participate in a conversation with you when your comment is 18 words, and I
have no clue what you're trying to express? That is why I responded: because I
had no clue what you were trying to say, but I was curious.

My point about "not commenting at all" wasn't so much in regard to democracy
(on a political platform, most discussion is good, because you need to
consider the needs of many different people), but rather just a guide to good
behaviour, a la "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at
all." I think HN is made a better place by dissenting opinions (I dislike echo
chambers in general) but one-off dismissive comments do not a constructive
conversation make. You need to give reasoning and explain your arguments.

I also noticed that you seem a little preoccupied with downvotes. Personally,
I don't think you should sweat them too much, as long as you feel like you're
having constructive conversations and behaving civilly (in this comment
thread, I'm happy to report that you made a lot of good points, and did a lot
better than that first comment I responded to). If somebody downvotes you
simply for having a different opinion, they're breaking HN rules. Downvotes,
as far as I know, are supposed to be used for limiting the visibility of off-
topic/poor quality comments. So if you get downvoted, your comments might be
poor quality... or you might just be off topic. This thread is awfully off-
topic, but I personally believe it's good quality discussion, so if it gets
downvoted, I don't mind much: I still benefited, but it might get hidden from
general readers. That's OK.

Anyway, thank you for responding to my (probably slightly-too-critical)
comment in a reasonable way where you explained your thoughts. I apologize for
misjudging you based on your previous comment.

~~~
mistermann
> You make a good point that people sometimes simply dismiss differing ideas
> because "they're wrong" with little basis -- these kind of shortcuts are
> generally necessary in life (you'd never get anything done if you didn't
> sometimes use heuristics to assess the value of an argument)

YES! The problem is, who besides you and I realize this, nowadays? As far as I
can tell, and believe me I'm sincerely looking for it, I feel like people are
falling into some sort of a zombie state. Reddit has been like this for quite
some time now, I honestly think it is spreading to HN now, at least on any
topic that has a non-technical, non-purely-objective component.

> However, I'd just like to say that your previous comment didn't give me much
> of an impression that you're happy to engage in a debate -- how on earth can
> I participate in a conversation with you when your comment is 18 words, and
> I have no clue what you're trying to express? That is why I responded:
> because I had no clue what you were trying to say, but I was curious.

That's me lashing out at you due to my frustration with the new culture of
close-mindedness around here. 100% wrong on my part no doubt, but being
reasonable doesn't do shit so might as well join the party and get an
adrenalin shot I guess is my thinking.

> If somebody downvotes you simply for having a different opinion, they're
> breaking HN rules

That didn't used to be true, because there have been discussions about just
that. Currently, it's not even mentioned in Guidelines or FAQ afaict. (I've
been breaking a few of these lately tbh.)

> So if you get downvoted, your comments might be poor quality

My main frustration is, you can post a substantive, reasoned comment, and
rather than a reasoned disagreement, just downvotes. And _fast_. That by
itself is not so big a deal, it's the intellectual swagger (my interpretation,
of course) that so many people carry, but can't piece together a decent
argument. Again, this is pretty much what reddit has become, but it's sad to
see even HN isn't immune.

> I apologize for misjudging you based on your previous comment.

I can be a jerk from time to time.

Thanks for replying by the way, encountering someone who actually thinks, even
if it's differently than me (not that it's the case here), helps restore my
faith in humanity.

------
jjxw
This happens any time a public company's stock goes down because of unexpected
news. Investors sue for breach of fiduciary duty in an attempt to recover
losses in the share price as a result of alleged negative, material
information being withheld from the public by the company's management.

That being said - this should be particularly interesting given the topic.
Securities fraud cases are usually boring, but this lawsuit may bring to light
more details on exactly what FB didn't disclose.

------
null000
Remember, you can do pretty much whatever you want just as long as you don't
screw over rich people.

Probably wouldn't be seeing this headline if it weren't the investors that
were upset.

------
beedogs
I'll truly never understand the people who defend Facebook to the death on
here.

~~~
bdcravens
It's part of the startup mythos: lone wolf (nerdy dev in a hoodie no less),
builds a CRUD app, becomes stupidly rich via nothing but the hustle. Attacks
on that weaken the foundation of belief.

------
an4rchy
Can any lawyers summarize the actual lawsuit?

What do these investors want exactly, more money?

The stock price went up by any measure, from Feb 3, 2017 to Mar 19, 2018, so
it can't be compensation for that. Unless they are willing to give those gains
back?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Facebook has lost almost $60 billion in value since the CA story broke. If
you’re an investor, and this information wasn’t publicly available to you, you
might feel aggrieved and want to seek compensation.

~~~
734786710934
Should investors be able to sue a company anytime its stock goes down?

~~~
nabla9
Facebook is a public company. They have strict rules related to informing
stock owners and insider trading.

Investors should be able to win a lawsuit if they can prove that company did
not immediately disclsee important information, falsified information or that
some owners were privy to insider information when they traded (Zuk sold his
shares in suspicious time).

~~~
TAForObvReasons
> (Zuk sold his shares in suspicious time).

It's more interesting than that:

> Zuckerberg has sold more Facebook stock in the last 3 months than any
> insider at any other company

Given that there were indications that he knew well before today, there may be
a case.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/zuckerbergs-facebook-
stock-s...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/zuckerbergs-facebook-stock-
selling-dwarfs-all-other-insiders.html)

~~~
danabramov
If you read the article a bit further, you might find the explanation:

 _> Zuckerberg's sales accounted for the most, by far. He announced plans in
September to sell 35 million to 75 million shares over the next 18 months to
fund philanthropic efforts._

It's not new and was announced in September 2017.

From the same article:

 _> CEO Mark Zuckerberg sold 1.14 million shares as part of regularly
scheduled programs._

~~~
wu-ikkyu
If I were insider trading thats what I would say too. It is tax deductible.

~~~
imglorp
I think you have to give it away before you declare it on your taxes.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
It's a convenient loophole to "give it away" to your own organization.

------
jayess
...and here come the lawyer vultures (full disclosure, I'm a lawyer).

~~~
toomuchtodo
Lying to your investors is securities fraud.

Enthusiastic about what the discovery process uncovers.

~~~
Pilfer
What material fact did Facebook lie to their investors about?

~~~
cryptoz
From the article,

> “defendants made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose that
> Facebook violated its own data privacy policies by allowing third parties
> access to personal data of millions of Facebook users without their
> consent,” according to the complaint.

~~~
734786710934
Users did consent when they approved CA's app. The only argument that can be
made is that they didn't fully know what they were consenting to.

~~~
madeofpalk
Users that used the ‘CA’ mydigitallife app did consent, but the millions of
other profiles that they were able to scrape in definitely didn’t consent.

~~~
734786710934
This gets to the debate around if you can consent when giving up information
about your friends. For example, is it OK for someone to give a company access
to their phone's address book when the people in it haven't consented
themselves?

~~~
vuln
Reminds me of Facebook and LinkedIn shadow profiles.

~~~
madeofpalk
(which have been deemed illegal in some countries)

------
ppbutt
So when is everybody going to band together to bury Facebook and all these
other insidious tech companies?

~~~
johnwalker
Dunno. I just deleted mine, was sort of annoying not being able to find mobile
phone numbers or emails for people I'd like to stay in touch with. I think
that it'd be good to have a script that scrapes facebook id's, names, mobile
numbers etc from your friends list, or some automation to prepare for deleting
your account.

~~~
Tempest1981
This?

How can I download a copy of my Facebook data?

[https://www.facebook.com/help/302796099745838](https://www.facebook.com/help/302796099745838)

~~~
johnwalker
I clicked that yesterday and got a notification telling me that it would take
a while to get the copy of the data. Still waiting. In the meantime, a user
who clicks that button has to guess whether it's safe to delete their facebook
while facebook is getting the data.

However, the facebook data isn't good enough because I found that most of my
friends didn't put in their contact information. So whether you download a
copy of the facebook data or not, you're going to lose contacts (you decide
whether it matters) and the rest you're going to need to call friends of
friends and find the contact info you need, or ask people directly on facebook
for their information.

------
wu-ikkyu
Does anyone know the percentage of Zuck's total FB stock that he has sold in
the past year? It looks like a lot but have not been able to find a precise
percentage change.

------
sAbakumoff
There should be also the class action lawsuit filled by owners of harvested
profiles. Hope to see that soon and celebrate the beginning of the end of
Facebook.

------
DyslexicAtheist
The media discusses voter-profile harvesting mostly in a past context of
Brexit and US elections. These countries are politically stable. A far more
dangerous picture paints itself in emerging and poor economies.

For example FB recently announced it would roll out job-posts[1] for low-
income workers.

In poor parts of Europe like Croatia, Serbia, BiH & Balkans (where I chose to
live and work as a foreigner), many people use Facebook to find work and
network w/ colleagues. In these locations facebook _is_ the Internet. Often
you usually accept a friend request before you are able to discuss a job.

FB job market will lock in users from those regions even further. These
economies don't stand a chance and are already bled dry thanks to facebook &
Co not paying their taxes. These locations already suffering a huge braindrain
of local talent.

Their local society / governments are becoming increasingly corrupt[2] because
and honest work opportunities are so scarce some people (like nurses or
occupational therapists helping the elderly and disabled) even work for
free[3] (I know several people who have the choice of working for free or not
be able to graduate).

So many people just leave to the North where they find themselves in slave-
labor like conditions in Germany[4]. (sorry for switching focus to Germany for
a second I'm trying to show some causality). It's not limited to healthcare.
Literally any industry has setups where shady middle-man benefit from Germanys
"Arbeitnehmerüberlassungsgesetz" (yes that's a word) which is Germany's
outsourcing law (a law criticized for creating a dual class workforce) and
they are making a killing thanks to the many loopholes present to exploit
foreigners/minorities.

When facebook rolls out it's job postings for low-skilled and low-paid jobs
it's targeting the most vulnerable minorities in politically volatile regions.

One takeaway from the facebook/CA election meddling is that because majority
of people in Balkans are already depending on facebook, it's even easier to
spread disinformation and rig elections. And it's giving powers to local crime
gangs which usually influence 100% of the electorate[5]. Ask yourself what
data harvesting means in these regions, who benefits and what effects this
might have 3-5 years from now.

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/28/facebook-job-
posts/](https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/28/facebook-job-posts/)

[2]
[https://euobserver.com/political/136664](https://euobserver.com/political/136664)

[3]
[http://www.etf.europa.eu/pubmgmt.nsf/%28getAttachment%29/760...](http://www.etf.europa.eu/pubmgmt.nsf/%28getAttachment%29/760B6259DCF4BE41C125766600572DC8/$File/NOTE7XJLM2.pdf)

[4] [http://www.dw.com/en/foreign-nurses-exploited-by-unfair-
priv...](http://www.dw.com/en/foreign-nurses-exploited-by-unfair-private-
contracts/a-17728464)

[5] [https://www.amazon.com/McMafia-Journey-Through-Criminal-
Unde...](https://www.amazon.com/McMafia-Journey-Through-Criminal-
Underworld/dp/1400095123)

------
colony
facebook and other giant sites, they have more information about us then our
friends.

