This wasn't a data breach, it was a misuse of data by a third party.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/17/facebook-...
It was extremely attractive. It could also be deemed illicit, primarily because Kogan did not have permission to collect or use data for commercial purposes. His permission from Facebook to harvest profiles in large quantities was specifically restricted to academic use. And although the company at the time allowed apps to collect friend data, it was only for use in the context of Facebook itself, to encourage interaction. Selling data on, or putting it to other purposes, – including Cambridge Analytica’s political marketing – was strictly barred.
It also appears likely the project was breaking British data protection laws, which ban sale or use of personal data without consent. That includes cases where consent is given for one purpose but data is used for another.
Yeah
So I, like, need to collect some data, lol
Sorry, can't do that
But I'm like, uh, an academic, this is for great science, see my Cambridge page here, lol
Ah, ok, just don't share it, k?
Yeah, yeah, no prb
kthxby
In a data breach, someone would have used a technical vulnerability or some other (e.g. social engineering) vulnerability of Facebook to get illegitimate access to the data.
In this case Facebook simply gave them access to the data and took their word that they won't misuse it.
Now maybe the latter situation might not be a data breach in the classical sense, but I don't see how it makes it any better for the victims. If anything it seems worse -- Facebook didn't even try to protect their data.
I mean, in the case of traditional phishing the user is tricked to provide the password by impersonating a banking site, getting their funds stolen and in the case in question, the users are tricked to provide personal information by being promised some kind of personality analysis but their data is used for political propaganda that they didn't asked for resulting in life-changing consequences du to politics.
It totally breaks the CNNs for face detection.
I worry that "not tagging" is somehow adding sparse data which can later on be filled in.
The fact that 90% of your friends upload contacts/emails is plenty of information about you.
Many apps didn't get updated to work with the new API though (most hilariously, the NYT refused to let me create an account without my friend list in early 2015).
(not sure if you meant /s)
> A data breach is a security incident in which sensitive, protected or confidential data is copied, transmitted, viewed, stolen or used by an individual unauthorized to do so.
If you redefine a concept and use it against your political enemies don't be all that surprised when they turn around and use it against your political allies.
I'm imagining the crux of the CA issue is that they saved stuff.
> This wasn't a data breach
Yes it was.
> it was a misuse of data by a third party.
So a bank robber who gets into the vault just misused the locks? Or the security guard misused his eyes? This was a data breach. Your language makes it sound less serious than it is, and you are wrong. This was a data breach.
Edit: Less than 30 seconds in, this post is already downvoted. I won't complain about downvotes of course, but it's insane that no conversation is actually allowed to happen on this site without burying one side. I spoke with a neutral tone, didn't do any name calling, I'm not looking for a fight. But downvotes within seconds! You can't silence me HN. I'll keep commenting my opinions and facts no matter how much you don't like what I'm saying. Nitpicking breach or misuse is silly and distracts from the actual substance of the article. It was a breach, by the way.
The case is more like the bank manager allowing the robber into the vault, with full knowledge that the robber wants to and could easily make off with all the valuables, then asking the robber to please not do that before heading back to work, leaving the thief unattended in the vault.
Edit: it's a breach of contract, maybe; but not a "data breach" which I think everyone understands to be more like the case where the vault is forcibly broken into.
I'm definitely not disputing the fact that FB is an evil entity that only cares about making profits off your personal information. But, they haven't suffered a data breach in the same way as, say, Equifax; and it seems to me that choosing to use the word "breach" here must be in an effort to get more clicks; because "breach in the Equifax sense" is what the author knows most people will assume is meant.
The democracy we are concerned about protecting presupposes rule of law, and precision when discussing laws and crimes.
> A data breach is a security incident in which sensitive, protected or confidential data is copied, transmitted, viewed, stolen or used by an individual unauthorized to do so.
Facebook was authorized to have the data. CA was not authorized, at least not to retain the data. Therefor, it is a data breach. Facebook was the breachee, CA was the breacher. And Billy-Ray was a preacher's son.
Seriously?
I'm no fan of any politician (or really of "tyranny of the majority") but I was kind of impressed at how well it all worked out last time. An "unpopular" candidate won and the ruling elite turned over the reigns just like they're supposed to do trusting the checks and balances in the system to work.
The quickest way to get a dictatorship is to go against the legal results of an election because the unpopular candidate won based on some metric of "unpopular" like "kids rioting in the streets".
If you are impressed with the level of functional elections and government in the US since the last election, I'm shocked. It is not a functional system. It is clearly disfunctional.
Indeed, it was the only election since I've been alive that the losing side rioted in the streets calling for the overturning of the election results.
> He called on gun owners to shoot and kill his political opponents who he has also been trying to jail for the past many years.
Fake news much?