The Federal Trade Commission and the House Judiciary Committee are investigating Facebook’ alleged mishandling of user data, particularly during the primary campaign of President Trump. The inquiries have inspired $50 billion decline in the company’s value.
According to Investors Daily, “…a professor at Cambridge University [Aleksandr Kogan] built a Facebook app for Cambridge Analytica around 2014 that involved a personality quiz. About 270,000 users of the app agreed to share some of their Facebook information, as well as data from people on their friends list. As a result, tens of millions ended up part of this data-mining operation…” The material was used for the Trump campaign during the primary period, but not the general election.
Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) notes “Reports that the Federal Trade Commission is investigating Facebook for the breach involving the personal data of 50 million Americans is a positive step toward determining whether the media company violated a 2011 consent decree. I urge the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a thorough investigation to assess whether Facebook violated the decree or any other applicable laws. Facebook has a legal responsibility to ensure user data is secure and that its policies are transparent. Facebook must uphold the privacy rights of its users and keep its promises when it comes to notifying them if there has been a violation.”
Facebook has been hauled before federal authorities in the past over privacy concerns.
A 2011 FTC complaint listed a number of instances in which Facebook allegedly made promises that it did not keep:
- In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public. They didn’t warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance.
- Facebook represented that third-party apps that users’ installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users’ personal data – data the apps didn’t need.
- Facebook told users they could restrict sharing of data to limited audiences – for example with “Friends Only.” In fact, selecting “Friends Only” did not prevent their information from being shared with third-party applications their friends used.
- Facebook had a “Verified Apps” program & claimed it certified the security of participating apps. It didn’t.
- Facebook promised users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers. It did.
- Facebook claimed that when users deactivated or deleted their accounts, their photos and videos would be inaccessible. But Facebook allowed access to the content, even after users had deactivated or deleted their accounts.
- Facebook claimed that it complied with the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor Framework that governs data transfer between the U.S. and the European Union. It didn’t.
Some old men do not lose interest in sex, due to anxiety and sildenafil purchase http://valsonindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/VALSON-publish-result-Jun-2016.pdf stress. The chemical after valsonindia.com cialis price brand blending in the bloodstream relaxes the muscles of the penis. This initiates purchase viagra no prescription the flow of blood to enable an erection in response to sexual stimulation. The significant role of Kamagra viagra order shop to cure ED and PE are some of its popular characteristics of the pill, men with lesser incomes could easily buy them either through online pharmacies or from a local medical shop.
In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission accepted as final a settlement with Facebook resolving charges that Facebook deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public. The settlement requires Facebook to take several steps to make sure it lives up to its promises in the future, including by giving consumers clear and prominent notice and obtaining their express consent before sharing their information beyond their privacy settings, by maintaining a comprehensive privacy program to protect consumers’ information, and by obtaining biennial privacy audits from an independent third party. A Commission statement affirmed that Facebook will be liable for a broad range of deceptive conduct.
Under the settlement, Facebook was:
- barred from making misrepresentations about the privacy or security of consumers’ personal information;
- required to obtain consumers’ affirmative express consent before enacting changes that override their privacy preferences;
- required to prevent anyone from accessing a user’s material more than 30 days after the user has deleted his or her account;
- required to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program designed to address privacy risks associated with the development and management of new and existing products and services, and to protect the privacy and confidentiality of consumers’ information; and
- required, within 180 days, and every two years after that for the next 20 years, to obtain independent, third-party audits certifying that it has a privacy program in place that meets or exceeds the requirements of the FTC order, and to ensure that the privacy of consumers’ information is protected.
The settlement did not, according to many, resolve the problems.
Tech Crunchs’ Josh Constine reports that Facebook builds tools with rosy expectations, only to negligently leave the safety off and see worst-case scenarios arise. Fox News reports that “The social media giant is facing a tough battle convincing lawmakers that users’ privacy concerns are of paramount importance to the company since it was revealed that a third party accessed and stored the data of millions of users, despite saying it deleted the information.
Perhaps part of the problem is that Facebook’s business model is based on using its users’ data.
CNN notes that “Facebook is in the data exploitation business: They make money by harvesting your data and selling it to app developers and advertisers. Indeed, the most alarming aspect of Cambridge Analytica’s “breach” of 50 million users’ data is that it wasn’t a breach at all. It happened almost entirely above board and in line with Facebook policy. The one rule that [was]…violated, according to Facebook, was passing user data to third parties, including Cambridge Analytica. But even…Facebook sources acknowledge that it is impossible for the company to completely monitor what developers and advertisers do with the data. This is why it is so hard to trust Facebook when they say ‘protecting people’s information is at the heart of everything we do.’ In fact, Facebook’s business is providing people’s information to outside parties whose ultimate goals are unknowable.
Investors Daily has an interesting take on the furor that has erupted around the Trump campaign using Facebook data. The social media giant has at times promoted itself to political parties as a new way of reaching voters. The editors note that “when Obama harvested facebook data on millions of users to win in 2012, everyone cheered…”