Cambridge Analytica

But isn't that what advertising does in general?

Most advertising is very broad. Targeted advertising is highly specific.

I really can't understand what this whole upheaval is about

* they gained unauthorised access to users' information
* they promised the data would be deleted (but secretly kept it)
* they covered their tracks by destroying the paper trail
* in an interview with undercover reporters, they boasted about disguised their employees as researchers, and using sex workers to entrap political opponents

 
not true - your (ex)friend setting his profile to friends only, does not mean he agreed to you sharing his data publicly via an app

Surely some of the responsibility has to lie with the user here though. First and foremost is setting things like profiles to private, and not randomly adding people, or even divulging information that you do not want in the public domain. Afterall if there's no information there to mine, then these companies would cease to exist.

I'm not condoning what CA did, but this goes on at a much grander scale, and has been going on for decades to a certain degree. Why kick up a fuss about it all now.
 
Surely some of the responsibility has to lie with the user here though. First and foremost is setting things like profiles to private, and not randomly adding people, or even divulging information that you do not want in the public domain. Afterall if there's no information there to mine, then these companies would cease to exist.

I'm not condoning what CA did, but this goes on at a much grander scale, and has been going on for decades to a certain degree. Why kick up a fuss about it all now.
The issue is in part that even if you had settings on for privacy or were careful who you added to your friends lists, the way they got the data appears to have meant all it took was for a friend of a friend to have had lax settings and downloaded the app.

With that sort of loophole there is no way to protect your information on the system short of not using it, or entering so little that it defeats the purported purpose of Facebook as an easy to use social network (not forgetting that Facebook tend to make privacy settings very obscure and unclear in what does what, with at times quite frequent changes in both the settings that are visible and what they do behind the scenes).

Facebook has been a privacy nightmare pretty much since day 1, with it only being a matter of time until a big enough misuse of it's data came to light to result in questions about the DPA and regulation (as opposed to just the odd murmur or tech press being interested), it's been used for years on smaller/more manpower intensive scale for scams and fraudsters, CA look like they've made use (misuse) of Facebooks toolset to gather far more in an automated fashion that let them make use of it for their ends.

I remember the old 3 dead trolls in a baggie "Privacy song" (I can't link as it's got naughty words), and it's so very true.
 
Most advertising is very broad. Targeted advertising is highly specific.

I actually disagree with that.

Sure there's plenty of advertising on TV/Radio and on billboards alongside roads that are very broad.

But the advertising you'll likely find on peoples phones and computers is very targeted, which is what most people will observe.

* they gained unauthorised access to users' information
* they promised the data would be deleted (but secretly kept it)
* they covered their tracks by destroying the paper trail
* in an interview with undercover reporters, they boasted about disguised their employees as researchers, and using sex workers to entrap political opponents

From the articles i read it just said they gained access to friends data that was publicly available.

Keeping data that's supposed to be deleted, the information commissioner can slap them with a fine.

And for the final two points, yes not ethical etc, i'm not disputing that CA have no morals, just that this sort of thing has been going on for years and by many thousands of media companies.
 
The issue is in part that even if you had settings on for privacy or were careful who you added to your friends lists, the way they got the data appears to have meant all it took was for a friend of a friend to have had lax settings and downloaded the app.

With that sort of loophole there is no way to protect your information on the system short of not using it, or entering so little that it defeats the purported purpose of Facebook as an easy to use social network (not forgetting that Facebook tend to make privacy settings very obscure and unclear in what does what, with at times quite frequent changes in both the settings that are visible and what they do behind the scenes).

Facebook has been a privacy nightmare pretty much since day 1, with it only being a matter of time until a big enough misuse of it's data came to light to result in questions about the DPA and regulation (as opposed to just the odd murmur or tech press being interested), it's been used for years on smaller/more manpower intensive scale for scams and fraudsters, CA look like they've made use (misuse) of Facebooks toolset to gather far more in an automated fashion that let them make use of it for their ends.

I remember the old 3 dead trolls in a baggie "Privacy song" (I can't link as it's got naughty words), and it's so very true.

Not disagreeing with any of those things either.

Two phrases spring to mind, "you don't get something for nothing", and "no such thing as a free lunch".

These companies don't charge users to use these platforms, which means the only way these companies can make money is by having a large user base that they can either data mine or target specific adverts at.

The problem is people haven't been educated enough to understand just how valuable their personal data is. There was a TV advert i saw a few months back from either a Bank/Government anti-fraud campaign, and they were essentially pointing out that thieves used to traditionally target things like your wallet/purse, mobile phone, car/jewellery etc, but there's a new thief that's after something that most people wouldn't even notice had been stolen - your identity.

Companies like CA are just the tip of a very large iceberg.
 
Ah OK. And this leads to the whole fake news thing, i.e. Targeted Adversting = smear campaign.
Yes. But the word "advertising" makes it sound like an innocent/untargeted thing. Think of it as targeted mind control propaganda based on deep level autonomous psychological evaluation. If you can identify peoples deep rooted/implanted fears then you can exploit their behaviour and thus their vote. I mean at least 98% of the population is controlled and enslaved through the wielding of fear.

Think about brexit, people were fed propaganda by main stream media that eu should be feared, anyone remember the huge media campaigns full of lies that Romanians and bulgarians have stolen all our jobs etc.

In fact its more like that episode of Derren Brown where he hacks into a guys phone and feeds fake stories to him and makes him believe zombies are coming.

Its all neurolingustic programming, brainwashing, mind control, mkultra, etc, not plain simple "advertising". Psychological warfare must be distinguished from simple advertising.
Think of the NLP mind control process they used to get women to start smoking, they called cigarettes "torches of freedom", this wasnt simple advertising.
 
I actually disagree with that.

Sure there's plenty of advertising on TV/Radio and on billboards alongside roads that are very broad.

But the advertising you'll likely find on peoples phones and computers is very targeted, which is what most people will observe.

Actually, TV advertising has been targeted at a high level for some time. And it is about to get even more focussed: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ces-for-targeted-tv-advertising-idUSKBN1960I3

Better not log in to Sky using your Facebook credentials...!
 
Adverts and dodgy articles don’t work on me so they can mine my data all they want.

They will find out I like cats and occasionally leave the house..
Based on what’s been said, isn’t that the whole point? Everyone thinks they’re immune but the reality is opinions can be swayed in such a way we don’t even realise it’s happening. I mean, something has to shape our view on anything, and it’s that information which is subject to manipulation.

Edit. Not well articulated but I think I’ve expressed my point :)
 
Targeted adverts in the bigger picture isn't a bad thing, you will get adverts for products that you may actually have some interest in buying, as opposed to mostly complete rubbish. Companies need to advertise to make revenue, that revenue goes towards the services we actually use. If companies make more money from advertising because customers actually click the adverts because they have a genuine interest in them, then that money can be invested back into the service. I don't find it scary that Facebook knows I like computer parts, airsoft and MMA, I don't mind seeing adverts for those things, I may actually click them and find something useful I didn't know existed.
 
Targeted adverts in the bigger picture isn't a bad thing, you will get adverts for products that you may actually have some interest in buying, as opposed to mostly complete rubbish.

I don't believe the fact that you may be interested in a particular product is justification for the implementation of a mechanism which enables targeted and bespoke propagandising. I would rather have general audience advertisements than have a mechanism for mind control.

Companies need to advertise to make revenue, that revenue goes towards the services we actually use.


I personally believe the main goal of a capitalist society is accumulation of personal wealth, not improving services you are making money from - services are minimised and profits are maximised that is the mantra. For example, why is Richard Branson so rich, yet Virgin Media broadband is running on the brink of failure and 1 more sign up can break the internet in an entire neighbourhood. So the revenue does not go towards the services, only a minimal proportion of it does, the rest goes in someone's back pocket never to be seen again.

If companies make more money from advertising because customers actually click the adverts because they have a genuine interest in them, then that money can be invested back into the service. I don't find it scary that Facebook knows I like computer parts, airsoft and MMA, I don't mind seeing adverts for those things, I may actually click them and find something useful I didn't know existed.

If you are into airsofting then you will be able to get the same info from a community, and as a bonus it's more social than FB. As I said earlier the fact that there may be a product out there which you may buy is not justification for the collection of EPSIS data.
 
Not all targeted advertising is equal.

At one end of the scale you have adverts for products based on your browsing history. Been looking at trainers? Here's some adverts for Sports Direct.

At the other end of the scale, you have a casino looking to drum up more business. They identify groups who are more prone to gambling addiction (e.g. those with Bipolar disorder) and employ an analytics specialist to identify and target those users.

There's nothing wrong with the first scenario. There's everything wrong with the second. The accusations here are much closer to the latter than the former.
 
Surely the only problem with the latter scenario is the specific use of the data. If the same scenario was replayed to target people who are sporty and into fitness and training, and then used to push positive reviews of a certain type of trainer or other relevant sports equipment, then that would be acceptable? In this scenario there's no problem with how the data's being used, rather with what it is being used for.
 
Is it ironic that the thing Russia was blamed on for the US Election comes to light in the same week they are being blamed for the poisoning.

Surely they will just turn round and say "see it wasn't us it was them, and it's probably them that did the poisoning too".

I suppose they already have to an extent.
 
Not all targeted advertising is equal...
unfortunately there is currently no legislation to differentiate your trainers and gambling examples, if both are using legally obtained data.

Surely the only problem with the latter scenario is the specific use of the data. If the same scenario was replayed to target people who are sporty and into fitness and training, and then used to push positive reviews of a certain type of trainer or other relevant sports equipment, then that would be acceptable? In this scenario there's no problem with how the data's being used, rather with what it is being used for.
I'm not sure I understand - the latter is amoral by normal standards.

Surely they will just turn round and say "see it wasn't us it was them, and it's probably them that did the poisoning too".
I suppose they already have to an extent.
you can add the sport drugging to that duo too, with the Wiggins/Coe reports.
 
So Zuckerbergs reply https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64gqptrr3bs
seems to immediately try and transfer blame onto just Cambridge Phd/coogan as though this is a one off, when data appropriated by other apps is documented.
partisan interviewer from CNN, if he appears before common select commitee they should be a bit more probing.

better was Steve Cox from facebook UK interviewed on R4 today 7:50 - when asked but your business is selling data - had audacity to say no - lol
 
Not all targeted advertising is equal.

At one end of the scale you have adverts for products based on your browsing history. Been looking at trainers? Here's some adverts for Sports Direct.

At the other end of the scale, you have a casino looking to drum up more business. They identify groups who are more prone to gambling addiction (e.g. those with Bipolar disorder) and employ an analytics specialist to identify and target those users.

There's nothing wrong with the first scenario. There's everything wrong with the second. The accusations here are much closer to the latter than the former.

Whilst i'd agree your second scenario is morally/ethically wrong, in hindsight all gambling adverts are wrong - if someone wishes to gamble they will go do so, those who wouldn't intend to gamble, don't need adverts to coerce them into doing something they wouldn't naturally think about going to do.

In this case it was more targeted advertising towards potential swing voters. Basically telling potential trump voters what they wanted to hear about how he'd make America great again. Which frankly how is that any different to attending one of his rallies with him waffling a speech about making America great again.
 
Back
Top Bottom