UK authorities raid Cambridge Analytica

[psionl0]

As I understand it, the rabbit hole goes even deeper. Cambridge Analytica not only used the profiles of users who had clicked on such an "I agree" button, which only numbered in the tens of thousands, but through a loophole in Facebook's permissions, also got hold on profiles of others who hadn't (their friends?), totaling some 50 million people.

That should never have been legal in the first place.

Gosh darn. I can't believe all their odium directed at two people reaching their own agreement.

There is something said to tightening up the "meeting of the minds" which is an essential aspect of any contract.

Of course, the government wants to go much farther than that. They believe that they are rulers and all of their subjects are children who need to be told what they are allowed to agree to.

 

[BobTheCoward]

There are very good reasons why states that care about the "little people" make laws that restrict what you can agree to in contracts between two legal persons with a clear power imbalance.

There are very good reasons slave owners take measures to ensure their property is protected. The sensibleness of those safety precautions is not my objection.

 

[fuelair]

Bob wants us to have all the democracy you can buy.

Sounds like him!!!

 

[Information Analyst]

Why?

cf. The United States of America.

 

[Information Analyst]

Given the reams of legalese that you click "I AGREE" to when you do these activities, I am surprised that the people who participated in this quiz hadn't agreed that the information could be sold to the devil if facebook wanted to.

Quite. The quiz was apparently set by an academic for their own use and there was no declaration that it would be used for political purposes, which be illegal under UK law. There's also the issue of whether people completing the quiz actually understood that they were agreeing not only to sharing their own data, but also all their Facebook friends' data. I would assume that in itself that was also illegal under UK law, and Facebook itself is in the firing line for allowing such proxy access.

 

[Information Analyst]

That was my thought as well, but people here are confident that UK law makes an exception.

UK data law is very clear on what you can and can't do with personal data, and there's no opting out just because.... Facebook. TOS that allow illegal practices are not binding.

 

[Information Analyst]

Their sympathy manifests as some extremely anti consumer law.

Explain how protecting the consumer's data and the consumer's friends' data is "anti consumer."

 

[Information Analyst]

Of course, the government wants to go much farther than that. They believe that they are rulers and all of their subjects are children who need to be told what they are allowed to agree to.

There seems to be a massive disconnect between UK/EU personal data law, and you saying the above. It would be like you saying that a confidence trickster didn't do anything illegal, because their victim truly believed that while they were scamming their money. Isn't it terrible that the "rulers" can dictate that when "children" are tricked into something, it's their own choice and the tricksters shouldn't be punished?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Explain how protecting the consumer's data and the consumer's friends' data is "anti consumer."

It must be. It says so on page 7 of the Ladybird Book of Libertarianism.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Channel 4's topical comedy show "The Last Leg" downloaded and printed out all of FB's t&cs including everything contained in links, it totalled 87,000 words, assuming 250 words per minute as the reading speed that's just under six hours uninterrupted reading.

The show's avaliable on All4 and their explaination of the issues involved in this story is very good (and funny).

 

[BobTheCoward]

Explain how protecting the consumer's data and the consumer's friends' data is "anti consumer."

That's a different thread. No one wants me to get into that here.

 

[psionl0]

There seems to be a massive disconnect between UK/EU personal data law, and you saying the above. It would be like you saying that a confidence trickster didn't do anything illegal, because their victim truly believed that while they were scamming their money. Isn't it terrible that the "rulers" can dictate that when "children" are tricked into something, it's their own choice and the tricksters shouldn't be punished?

Did you delete the part of my post that said, "There is something said to tightening up the "meeting of the minds" which is an essential aspect of any contract" just so that you could come up with this strawman?

 

[Information Analyst]

Did you delete the part of my post that said, "There is something said to tightening up the "meeting of the minds" which is an essential aspect of any contract" just so that you could come up with this strawman?

No, I quoted the bit where you suggest "the government" was exceeding a mere "tightening up." As has been noted, this was an instance where people were tricked not only into giving access to their own data, but also other people's data, something they could not legally agree to. But sure, it's all about controlling tentacly slippy-slope sliding governments, eh?

 

[psionl0]

No, I quoted the bit where you suggest "the government" was exceeding a mere "tightening up." As has been noted, this was an instance where people were tricked not only into giving access to their own data, but also other people's data, something they could not legally agree to. But sure, it's all about controlling tentacly slippy-slope sliding governments, eh?

Ah! So you deleted the part of the post that said, "That should never have been legal in the first place" so that you could construct this strawman.

 

[dudalb]

I think requiring internet companies to provide a certain amount of security to the date of their clients is a perfectly reasonable law which violates nobodies' rights.
So now you can officially declare I am not a Libertarian...

 

[Information Analyst]

Ah! So you deleted the part of the post that said, "That should never have been legal in the first place" so that you could construct this strawman.

No, I would have said exactly the same thing whether I'd included the bit you seem to think makes a difference, or not.

 

[BillC]

It would be really interesting to know how much data CA have managed to destroy in the last week, given the fact that this court order and raid has been trailed publicly for at least that long. Here's a regulator that certainly needs more powers.

Yes, they have come across as pretty toothless.

 

[psionl0]

No, I would have said exactly the same thing whether I'd included the bit you seem to think makes a difference, or not.

Obviously!

According to you, I am not only arguing that the government wants to do more than just clarify "meeting of the minds" in contract but that I am arguing that the government should not clarify "meeting of the minds".

This is the exact opposite of what I posted but that is why people make strawman arguments in the first place.

 

[Information Analyst]

Obviously!

According to you, I am not only arguing that the government wants to do more than just clarify "meeting of the minds" in contract but that I am arguing that the government should not clarify "meeting of the minds".

This is the exact opposite of what I posted but that is why people make strawman arguments in the first place.

OK, let's just pretend this never happened...

 

[Information Analyst]

Watching some of Zuckerberg's grilling by US senators yesterday, I was struck by how uneasy - bordering on panic - he seemed to be. It seemed like he had no idea he was going to get the type of questioning he did. It would now appear that his refusing to attend the UK Parliament to face questions about Cambridge Analytica was not down to hubris, but rather fear. He's clearly out of his depth.