Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Is Zuckerberg Really To Blame For Cambridge Analytica's Data Breach?
19 Answers
Yes, Mark Zuckerberg has a responsibility to keep data safe on Facebook... but in the case of data being sold to Cambridge Analytica, people's agreed to share their data with a third party app... so is he actually responsible?
Personally, I don't think so. The senators are asking Zuckerberg to do more to protect people... but he's protecting people against other people... is that really his role? can we really ask that from any business? Isn't it the responsibility of the user to understand what it means to opt in to share their data?
From an anthropological point of view, this is all rather confusing / interesting / mind boggling.
You can see what I'm talking about in more detail using this link, but I warn you, it's very long.
https:/
Personally, I don't think so. The senators are asking Zuckerberg to do more to protect people... but he's protecting people against other people... is that really his role? can we really ask that from any business? Isn't it the responsibility of the user to understand what it means to opt in to share their data?
From an anthropological point of view, this is all rather confusing / interesting / mind boggling.
You can see what I'm talking about in more detail using this link, but I warn you, it's very long.
https:/
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anthro-nerd. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
It's complicated and I think this is more of a grey area than people are willing to realise. Certainly, users do need to give permission for their data to be shared. Whether or not they are actually informed about what that means is another question, and muddies the waters a little with regards culpability.
Furthermore, lots of people started facebook accounts more than a decade ago when the site was extremely different, only to have it change piecemeal under their feet. Now, sure, the user probably has some culpability here. But just how perfect is it reasonable to expect people to be in cases like this? Bear in mind that unless you browse Answerbank on a VPN , then everything you post here is almost certainly being harvested for marketing purposes - and is very likely to be linked to anything else the e-mail you signed up with is used for. How many of us were really thinking of that back when we signed up? Is it really fair to expect that of ourselves in hindsight? I was 16 at the time, and didn't know a thing about anything.
Facebook has done this on the sly. It has technically stayed within terms of use, but has used just about every other manipulation in the book to knowingly harvest data from people and sell it on to third parties.
Furthermore, lots of people started facebook accounts more than a decade ago when the site was extremely different, only to have it change piecemeal under their feet. Now, sure, the user probably has some culpability here. But just how perfect is it reasonable to expect people to be in cases like this? Bear in mind that unless you browse Answerbank on a VPN , then everything you post here is almost certainly being harvested for marketing purposes - and is very likely to be linked to anything else the e-mail you signed up with is used for. How many of us were really thinking of that back when we signed up? Is it really fair to expect that of ourselves in hindsight? I was 16 at the time, and didn't know a thing about anything.
Facebook has done this on the sly. It has technically stayed within terms of use, but has used just about every other manipulation in the book to knowingly harvest data from people and sell it on to third parties.
"For example, if someone hacked The Answerbank and my email address got taken, that would be fault of The Answerbank and the hackers,..."
It's not quite that simple, spathi.
Imagine this: I am looking after £1,000 for somebody and I have it locked in my safe. If burglars break in, force the safe open and steal the money, is that my fault? However, if I'd placed it on the kitchen table and left the back door open, that would be a different matter.
Personal data should be held as securely as possible but if hackers are determined to hack and data holders have taken all reasonable precautions, they cannot be held responsible.
On a wider note, anybody who places personal data on something like Facebook cannot be surprised if that data goes walkies.
It's not quite that simple, spathi.
Imagine this: I am looking after £1,000 for somebody and I have it locked in my safe. If burglars break in, force the safe open and steal the money, is that my fault? However, if I'd placed it on the kitchen table and left the back door open, that would be a different matter.
Personal data should be held as securely as possible but if hackers are determined to hack and data holders have taken all reasonable precautions, they cannot be held responsible.
On a wider note, anybody who places personal data on something like Facebook cannot be surprised if that data goes walkies.
Kromo has succinctly explained just how Facebook (firmly controlled by Zuckerberg) has moved the goalposts over the years.
Reluctantly agreeing to let FB infest your Homepage with targeted advertising (which is what I thought I was doing when I agreed to the T&Cs) is several steps removed from allowing my personal information (not much, since you ask) to be harvested and manipulated for the benefit of those waving large wads of cash at Mr Zuckerberg.
Reluctantly agreeing to let FB infest your Homepage with targeted advertising (which is what I thought I was doing when I agreed to the T&Cs) is several steps removed from allowing my personal information (not much, since you ask) to be harvested and manipulated for the benefit of those waving large wads of cash at Mr Zuckerberg.
// How is it Zuckerberg's fault?//
because he is obliged to obey the LaW as we all are
or as the americans say - some right and duties are inalienable ( can't be ceded ) - you cant say 'yeah it is OK if you murder me or poison me'
and anyway - if Facebook has privacy settings (for the dumb fracks as The Zuck referred to us) - then he knows we DON'T want information traded willy nilly
because he is obliged to obey the LaW as we all are
or as the americans say - some right and duties are inalienable ( can't be ceded ) - you cant say 'yeah it is OK if you murder me or poison me'
and anyway - if Facebook has privacy settings (for the dumb fracks as The Zuck referred to us) - then he knows we DON'T want information traded willy nilly
He is falling foul of a new era. People expect one thing but the way the World is now turning then you will get another.
One thing that does have to be wondered at is Does anyone know of a real free lunch? And thus should they be surprised?
Another thought that strike me is the actual use of this data. I know of quite of few people who have multiple fake FB accounts -most leading back to "dodgy" email accounts too. They have bee doing this for years usually for "nefarious" reasons. Any analysis of these would be totally useless so why do people pay to get such data?
One thing that does have to be wondered at is Does anyone know of a real free lunch? And thus should they be surprised?
Another thought that strike me is the actual use of this data. I know of quite of few people who have multiple fake FB accounts -most leading back to "dodgy" email accounts too. They have bee doing this for years usually for "nefarious" reasons. Any analysis of these would be totally useless so why do people pay to get such data?
It highlights the issue of allowing the inclusion of unreasonable conditions, often in a block of small print few normal folk can cope with reading and analysing in detail. Allowing them to do this that and the other or alternatively barring interested individuals from joining the modern world and effectively forcing them to become a recluse, denied a service or product while they just claim it is the individual's choice not to join in, nothing to do with them. Seems to me there ought to be sensible laws on what can be imposed, and restrictions on how "permission" can unreasonably claimed to have been obtained.
// On a wider note, anybody who places personal data on Facebook cannot be surprised if that data goes walkies.//
bit of an odd way of looking at the Data protection act - where you can require your data be used for the purpose for which you give it - and selling on to a third party may NOT be implied
and a very odd way of looking at the new GDPR -a euro-creature that NJ hates so much and would afford much wider protection
if the average data victim on FB had know that the Zuck had referred to the "privacy of those dumb frack-heads" the frackheads may have behaved differently - so why wasnt THAT data made available to the frackheads in this wonderful republic of free and uncontrolled data ?
bit of an odd way of looking at the Data protection act - where you can require your data be used for the purpose for which you give it - and selling on to a third party may NOT be implied
and a very odd way of looking at the new GDPR -a euro-creature that NJ hates so much and would afford much wider protection
if the average data victim on FB had know that the Zuck had referred to the "privacy of those dumb frack-heads" the frackheads may have behaved differently - so why wasnt THAT data made available to the frackheads in this wonderful republic of free and uncontrolled data ?
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.