"The Facebook spokesman said the social media company *was not confident it had full visibility on which users would need to be notified*."
@Facebook here you go: https://haveibeenpwned.com
@Facebook here you go: https://haveibeenpwned.com
According to that site, my personal email has been leaked by Adobe, and by a bunch of shady database firms I've never heard of.
(On further reflection, I probably used my Google account to log into Adobe, which leaks my personal email to the site I'm logging into.)
Ex: You might see joe@mycompany.com in the report for those db, even though Joe Smith only ever had joe.smith@mycompany.com.
And sometimes its legit scum collection. Some of the spam you get is just verify what email addresses work and what don't. If it doesn't bounce, you know you got a valid email address. Works for a lot of businesses (but not if you've got a personal catchall)
They can’t assume that, or trolls or unscrupulous competitors would start creating ‘Facebook’ data dumps left and right.
I do wonder what EU regulators will say about their viewpoint that they do not have to inform their users, though.
Mark Zuckerbergs phone number was in the dataset. It came from Facebook.
The GDPR in Europe would require them to delete that data in a bunch of circumstances.
Think about it... If you asked a company to delete your data, are you giving them permission to go refind that data on the dark web, cross reference it with records they should have deleted, and use it to send you email? Clearly not.
Unfortunately there's a lot a misinformation around GDPR spreading online.
Source? Nothing prevents Facebook from making a public announcement that anyone that had an account on Facebook between dates X and Y might have been affected.
I mean, GDPR is a joke but that would be absolutely nonsensical.
That would totally defy logic.
I don't think that Facebook deletes anything ever.
> They could (and must) notify the ones they still have data about.
I agree strongly. For what it's worth, this is absolutely not what I took away from your other comment.
The sentence structure is a strong indicator that this is something other than a question.
This could easily be interpreted as:
"They no longer have an obligation to notify the rest, because they might have deleted some of the accounts...duh"
The commenter's clarification removed the ambiguity, but let's not pretend the original statement was crystal clear. I think the difficulty interpreting the comment is also partially a result of just how passive-aggressive many comment threads have become. After clarification, I understand the original intent. Without that clarification, there are two interpretations.
A different way to say this would be:
> "Are you saying they no longer have an obligation to notify the rest just because some of the accounts might have been deleted?"