Jack–This law suit is claiming damages on behalf of every Facebook user whose personal information was taken and sold without their consent. This is not about Hillary or the election, except that the end users of the personal data used it to totally screw the United States by manipulating jagoffs like you into voting for an idiot serial prevaricator and sexual predator. You think Hillary is arrogant? Pray for wisdom and forgiveness.
Oh, please. This is ONLY a story because it can be tied to Trump. Anyone can see that. Had Hillary won, nobody would have given a damn. We ALL know that.
Obama was a recognized “genius” for using Social Media so shrewdly to get elected in 2008. Nobody whined about mining personal data back then.
Had Hillary won, lots of people would have gave a damn. That vein in Hannity’s forehead would have burst. The tin foil hattage surrounding her and all of the baked up controversy would be in full force. Full space force.
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Enough.
(This is exhausting, trying to educate you.)
Perhaps the subject personal data was stored on Hillary’s email server and Anthony “Carlos Danger” Weiner’s laptop? Oh, wait! That was different ‘data’ that the Liberal Mainstream Media, IJ, and Libitterals couldn’t care less about. What’s important to them is the type of data that they think could have swayed an election…. like the data mined by Obama’s campaign staff in 2012. Uh, wait…. Oopsy!
You do realize that Hillary was grilled time and time again for her handling of emails, Benghazi, and other manufactured controversy by House and Senate Republican-led sub committees and came away with…nothing?
Are hardline right-wingers all of a sudden part of a leftist conspiracy, too? lol
You do realize that only in the last month was it revealed that the FBI knew back in mid-2016 that Hillary’s server had been hacked by foreign entities, likely Russians.
You do realize that the FBI hid this information because it was a clear felony on the part of Ms. Deplorable, and it would have made it impossible to recommend anything other than indictment if the public knew.
You do realize no one has EVER come up with a logical reason why Hillary was not prosecuted, based on the facts.
But “principles” left the Left a LONG time ago. All “My Team, Right or Wrong” for you guys now. (That’s how Tyrants get elected.)
why does everything have to be left vs right, Craig? A lot of us harbor both conservative AND progressive ideas. that doesn’t make us enemies, not even close. If anything, it adds to the discussion.
You seem to be very well-read, but the second you start insulting people you’re not going to convince anyone you’re right.
What I said is true, undeniably so. What “Cut the Bias” said was not true. The server scandal was not a “manufactured” controversy.
She committed a felony and members of the Justice Department and the FBI actively covered for her. They hid relevant information from the American public.
If you don’t know the facts, I can’t help you. But General Petraeus was convicted with one piece of paper with Confidential information read by one other person. Hillary had dozens or hundreds or thousands of Classified docs. read by foriegn powers – and nothing.
You fashion yourself a fair-minded person. Then tell the truth.
March 23, 2018 at 3:12 pm
sal says:
Like or Dislike:
10
1
Craig–
I actually didn’t bring up Hillary at all in any of my comments, nor Petraeus. how did I not tell the truth? If anything, I extended an olive branch to you, yet you slap it away.
I don’t get that mentality. Life’s way too short as it is. You. Are. Not. My. Enemy.
March 23, 2018 at 3:13 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
9
Also, Trump didn’t “steal” the information.
Your bias is showing.
April 3, 2018 at 10:41 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Craig that is 100% false. Stop lying or(and) get informed. Either way, stop posting, you aren’t credible. Petraeus did not have 1 piece of paper. He gave classified information to his mistress who was also writing a book about him. He also stole a notebook of highly classified information, lied about it under oath, and then stored it in his study unsecured. You are doing nothing but spreading dishonest propaganda, big shock.
March 23, 2018 at 3:08 pm
??? says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15
3
What felony would she be prosecuted for? There’s a felony for having your computer hacked? If so, i cant wait to tell our insureds that, we’re going to be selling cyber policies at an alarming rate.
Man, you don’t even know what the server story was about?
You don’t really know that government employees commit a felony when classified information is accessed by ANYONE else, let alone a foreign power?
You don’t know that every government employee goes through hours of training on this issue and they sign documents acknowledging the seriousness of protecting classified information, including acknowledging it is a felony to let it out?
Seriously?
March 23, 2018 at 5:14 pm
Captain Planet says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11
1
???,
I am sure Craig is equally upset at those using private servers in Tramp’s administration:
The FBI told them in 2015 information was being sent to Russia. We now know Trump and his campaign were illegally conspiring with Russia to coordinate use of these emails. What you state about Clinton being guilty because she was hacked is simply false – a lie, or brutal ignorance based on a diet of full-blown propaganda on sources like Fox. People before Clinton have had private servers and the Trump administration has them, as well as illegally using sources of communication that shield and destroy communications.
The FBI made their idiotic announcement about Clinton right before the election largely because the NY field office was out of control and they feared more lies masked as leaks, while not mentioning Trump was under an active counterintelligence investigation, which we now know he was actually doing specifically related to Clinton’s emails. This won the election for Trump. The most skewed people on the far right, like you, just cannot operate on reality. Stick to climate change denialism, it’s surprisingly less stupid than this nonsense.
Are you saying that Facebook was justified in selling the personal data of 50 million users without their consent? No, you aren’t, because that would be relevant to the article, and your comment has no relevance whatsoever. That would be a good reason to keep your comment to yourself.
Pray for wisdom and forgiveness.
MARCH 14, 2018 AT 9:32 AM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
…keep the discussion on-topic. Your compliance will be appreciated… by IJ comment board readers.
If the only argument you can make to justify a behavior is “the other side does it” then you’ve already lost the argument. Wrong is wrong, regardless of which side does it.
Nice comeuppance for Zuckerberg, who stole the idea of Facebook from the Winklevoss twins, who then successfully sued him, and finally invested their winnings into Bitcoin. There is justice, and there will be more justice, since Steve Bannon already admitted that the Trump Campaign paid Cambridge Analytica $59,600,000 for the data on 50,000,000 Facebook users who were duped into taking a fake “personality” test; who do you think wrote that check – not Bannon – probably Trump – I can’t wait for all of ’em to be behind bars where they belong
Bill — can you please cut & paste the section(s) you think prove Obama “got” Facebook, Google & Amazon data? All I could glean from the article was that Obama hired employees who had experience in the industry.
Where exactly does it say anything about stealing or buying or collecting end-user’s data and using it for political gain??
DECEMBER 14, 2017 AT 1:04 PM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Try very hard to stick to the subject in your initial replies instead of veering hard off course to an off topic comment. I thank you, and IJ staff will allow you to continue to post if you follow those simple guidelines.
Perhaps you don’t realize this, but the data itself isn’t the problem, its the data used in conjunction with nudging the population along with ideas that really stinks.
The CEO and other higher-ups in Cambridge Analytica claimed that they could shape the way potential voters reacted based on phrases and fake news stories that they could use. They used self-destructing emails to delete evidence of what they were sending, leaving no trace behind of communications used with potential clients (Trump campaign and others…all campaign and executive branch emails and communiques must be kept in compliance with record keeping laws), acting as a go-between for the Trump Campaign and SuperPACS so that donors could effectively get away with donating more and coordinating messaging which is also illegal. Steve Bannon was on CA’s board and apparently oversaw the purchase of the 40 or 50 names.
There are a dozen more examples of why this is so huge and absolutely terrible.
I’d still LOVE to learn where in that link Craig thinks it says anything about Obama “getting” customer data from Facebook and/or Google and/or Amazon.
Wah. Wah. Your candidate called all the working class people names and you STILL think she should have won.
Hell, she doubled down last week calling women who voted for Trump suckers, victims of male peer pressure, and not independent thinkers. (You know what that is called: sexism).
And every time someone calls a conservative a racist (I have been called that 4 times), I JUST LOVE IT!
You will never win if you continue to whine about the unfairness of it all without recognizing that Trump’s every move is to help the working class. Like finally punishing China for stealing every damn idea on earth, hurting our job creation. (Which Obama should have done a long time ago.) Keep calling us names and claiming Hillary deserved to win. Love it.
Do your own research. It was well-known that Facebook people helped Obama in 2008.
And it is true that Google executives visited the White House more than reps. of any other organization during Obama’s term in office.
Did you know that Facebook news filters have dropped conservative news sources an average of 30% while leaving lefty sources untouched? Of course not.
So why do you think you know everything already knowable? Look it up.
March 23, 2018 at 10:32 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
I’d rather have Google visiting The White House rather than the President living in Twitter.
March 28, 2018 at 1:38 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
The Obama campaign had legally obtained data people opted into giving on Facebook. The Trump people created a fake app and illegally stole data from people without their knowledge and illegally took data from the people connected to these people. Conservatives don’t care. They see a story and immediately search for anything remotely similar a Obama or Hillary did and immediately start skewing that.
It also appears that Cambridge Analytica coordinated with Russia on amplifying their message based on analysis showing the Trump campaign and Russian bots pushed the same messages at the same time. Just today it was revealed Trump’s senior campaign officials knew they were working with person they know was Russian intelligence. Every Republican theory has fallen apart on this topic. Eg, They didn’t know who took her emails when Trump called on Russia to release emails-actually they had met about it and a campaign official had already told Australian intelligence they knew they had them.
It’s not something people can deny anymore and remain credible.
I am cool with suing facebook over stealing private information especially if they knew about it but come on Democrats, you lost. Move on and try to get a better candidate next time around. Maybe one that wants to rebuild America, not tear it down. Word on the streets so keep it a hush. Aliens manipulated the election so Donald Trump would win.
Thanks for the tax break Donald. :)
You have to love the Left eating the Left with ANOTHER damn lawsuit.
The arrogant lack of wisdom of the Silicon Valley crowd to claim the products they created were going to make the world a better place, that people would just connect and share and oh my god, it would be glorious.
Then the same Silicon Valley crowd found out they could become billionaires by quietly selling private information to third parties, with permission agreements hidden in intentionally unreadable legaleze that no one ever read but just clicked “ok”. (and Zuckerberg and everyone else knew it).
But Facebook didn’t sell the information, Craig. CA obtained it legally from Facebook then THEY sold it against Facebook’s policy. CA didn’t pay Facebook for the data.
But Facebook didn’t protect the information, did they?
And Facebook’s “policy” is to sell it themselves.
So what’s the difference? If CA bought it, would you the media outrage be any less? Please tell me you don’t believe the Trump Hatred would make that distinction.
You are correct = Facebook did not protect the information. Totally agree there. Bad bad Facebook. They should’ve done a better job protecting the info.
You said “Silicon Valley crowd found out they could become billionaires by quietly selling private information to third parties.”
You are Incorrect = Facebook’s policy is NOT to sell the information. Again, they did not sell the info to CA — CA obtained it legally and in accordance with FB rules, then CA illegally sold it.
CA paid Facebook $0 & got the data, then CA sold the data for (arguments sake) $5M and CA gave $0 back to FB. Can you please nicely try to explain to me how you think FB “sold” the data to CA in the first place even though they didn’t get one cent for the data?
Also – I’d still LOVE to learn where in that link you posted earlier that you think it says anything about Obama “getting” customer data from Facebook and/or Google and/or Amazon.
Right ,, Facebook didn’t sell it to Obama.. the Facebook tech team just had it in hand for free.
Why not call for an FBI investigation .
( Well that won’t work. Strzok& Company are still in there.)
BP
March 23, 2018 at 4:23 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Enough.
Facebook sells information. Period. You agree to it when you post certain information on Facebook. (This is exhausting, trying to educate you.)
And it wasn’t me who said Obama was “getting” customer data. I said Obama worked with Facebook executives. Chris Hughes.
March 23, 2018 at 4:33 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
My apologies Craig – I definitely mixed up you and Bill w/ the Obama/Social Media link. I’m sorry for the confusion.
And I agree that Facebook sells information. I’m just saying Facebook did not sell it to Cambridge Analytics, and it was CA who sold it for money they kept for themselves in this situation.
March 23, 2018 at 5:15 pm
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
The data that CA used was not sold to them by Facebook. Please stop saying that Obama got information from facebook, while it is legal to form a team of experts in that field (like most do) who can help a person to win. CA has come out and said that they influence elections in illegal routes. While yes Facebook does sell data, that is geared toward advertising on Facebook (one of their main revenue streams).
March 28, 2018 at 1:42 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Craig serious question: is there any scenario where you would be against an illegal hack used to benefit Republicans? If so, what?
March 27, 2018 at 7:28 am
CL PM says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
It is very simple to control what Facebook does with your personal data – don’t have a Facebook account. I don’t have one and really don’t believe my social or professional lives have suffered one bit. In fact, I may have less stress because I feel no pressure to constantly check and update my account.
If Lauren Price was a Facebook user in 2012 then she should sue the Obama Campaign. They did it directly without a 3rd party and DID NOT PAY FOR IT WHICH IS ILLEGAL. They stole some 190 million users ID’s and information. And far less than the Trump campaign. Where is the uproar about that? At least the Trump campaign hired a 3rd party.
Michael,
You are sadly misinformed. The way they collected the data was from voluntary participation by the user. How they collected data was when the banner was clicked they had a warning that appeared and let them know that their data would be collected and they had the option to say yes or no to that unlike the Trump organization who used CA which illegally obtained the information and has again admitted to their illegal ways to influence elections.
In California, a law has been proposed requiring full transparency of any and all private data internet companies might use or sell to others.
Facebook’s response: A $200,000. donation to fight the bill.
Remember when liberals fought against big corporations that abused their power? Today, liberals defend big corporations (so long as they spout the correct Politically Correct nonsense.)
Comeuppance!
Jack–This law suit is claiming damages on behalf of every Facebook user whose personal information was taken and sold without their consent. This is not about Hillary or the election, except that the end users of the personal data used it to totally screw the United States by manipulating jagoffs like you into voting for an idiot serial prevaricator and sexual predator. You think Hillary is arrogant? Pray for wisdom and forgiveness.
Oh, please. This is ONLY a story because it can be tied to Trump. Anyone can see that. Had Hillary won, nobody would have given a damn. We ALL know that.
Obama was a recognized “genius” for using Social Media so shrewdly to get elected in 2008. Nobody whined about mining personal data back then.
Speaking of wisdom and forgiveness . . .
one thing about Obama: He never went on Twitter to call people names or insulted people who didn’t agree with him. .
Sal,
He also didn’t illegally steal personal information of 50 million Americans. So, another plus for Obama.
Had Hillary won, lots of people would have gave a damn. That vein in Hannity’s forehead would have burst. The tin foil hattage surrounding her and all of the baked up controversy would be in full force. Full space force.
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Enough.
(This is exhausting, trying to educate you.)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
What about.. What about.. What about.. What about.. What about..
Don’t you get tired?.. of course not.
What about.. What about.. What about.. What about.. What about..
ooh, a red herring and a you too fallacy in one statement. nice job. usually you only use one of those
You do realize that Hillary was grilled time and time again for her handling of emails, Benghazi, and other manufactured controversy by House and Senate Republican-led sub committees and came away with…nothing?
Are hardline right-wingers all of a sudden part of a leftist conspiracy, too? lol
You do realize that only in the last month was it revealed that the FBI knew back in mid-2016 that Hillary’s server had been hacked by foreign entities, likely Russians.
You do realize that the FBI hid this information because it was a clear felony on the part of Ms. Deplorable, and it would have made it impossible to recommend anything other than indictment if the public knew.
You do realize no one has EVER come up with a logical reason why Hillary was not prosecuted, based on the facts.
But “principles” left the Left a LONG time ago. All “My Team, Right or Wrong” for you guys now. (That’s how Tyrants get elected.)
why does everything have to be left vs right, Craig? A lot of us harbor both conservative AND progressive ideas. that doesn’t make us enemies, not even close. If anything, it adds to the discussion.
You seem to be very well-read, but the second you start insulting people you’re not going to convince anyone you’re right.
What I said is true, undeniably so. What “Cut the Bias” said was not true. The server scandal was not a “manufactured” controversy.
She committed a felony and members of the Justice Department and the FBI actively covered for her. They hid relevant information from the American public.
If you don’t know the facts, I can’t help you. But General Petraeus was convicted with one piece of paper with Confidential information read by one other person. Hillary had dozens or hundreds or thousands of Classified docs. read by foriegn powers – and nothing.
You fashion yourself a fair-minded person. Then tell the truth.
Craig–
I actually didn’t bring up Hillary at all in any of my comments, nor Petraeus. how did I not tell the truth? If anything, I extended an olive branch to you, yet you slap it away.
I don’t get that mentality. Life’s way too short as it is. You. Are. Not. My. Enemy.
Also, Trump didn’t “steal” the information.
Your bias is showing.
Craig that is 100% false. Stop lying or(and) get informed. Either way, stop posting, you aren’t credible. Petraeus did not have 1 piece of paper. He gave classified information to his mistress who was also writing a book about him. He also stole a notebook of highly classified information, lied about it under oath, and then stored it in his study unsecured. You are doing nothing but spreading dishonest propaganda, big shock.
What felony would she be prosecuted for? There’s a felony for having your computer hacked? If so, i cant wait to tell our insureds that, we’re going to be selling cyber policies at an alarming rate.
Man, you don’t even know what the server story was about?
You don’t really know that government employees commit a felony when classified information is accessed by ANYONE else, let alone a foreign power?
You don’t know that every government employee goes through hours of training on this issue and they sign documents acknowledging the seriousness of protecting classified information, including acknowledging it is a felony to let it out?
Seriously?
???,
I am sure Craig is equally upset at those using private servers in Tramp’s administration:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html
Also,
Reince Priebus, Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Gary Cohen all used private serves to conduct official government business.
The FBI told them in 2015 information was being sent to Russia. We now know Trump and his campaign were illegally conspiring with Russia to coordinate use of these emails. What you state about Clinton being guilty because she was hacked is simply false – a lie, or brutal ignorance based on a diet of full-blown propaganda on sources like Fox. People before Clinton have had private servers and the Trump administration has them, as well as illegally using sources of communication that shield and destroy communications.
The FBI made their idiotic announcement about Clinton right before the election largely because the NY field office was out of control and they feared more lies masked as leaks, while not mentioning Trump was under an active counterintelligence investigation, which we now know he was actually doing specifically related to Clinton’s emails. This won the election for Trump. The most skewed people on the far right, like you, just cannot operate on reality. Stick to climate change denialism, it’s surprisingly less stupid than this nonsense.
I don’t blame Hillary. Anyone could accidentally delete an email. She just so happened to do it 30,000 times.
Are you saying that Facebook was justified in selling the personal data of 50 million users without their consent? No, you aren’t, because that would be relevant to the article, and your comment has no relevance whatsoever. That would be a good reason to keep your comment to yourself.
Pray for wisdom and forgiveness.
MARCH 14, 2018 AT 9:32 AM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
…keep the discussion on-topic. Your compliance will be appreciated… by IJ comment board readers.
If the only argument you can make to justify a behavior is “the other side does it” then you’ve already lost the argument. Wrong is wrong, regardless of which side does it.
Nice comeuppance for Zuckerberg, who stole the idea of Facebook from the Winklevoss twins, who then successfully sued him, and finally invested their winnings into Bitcoin. There is justice, and there will be more justice, since Steve Bannon already admitted that the Trump Campaign paid Cambridge Analytica $59,600,000 for the data on 50,000,000 Facebook users who were duped into taking a fake “personality” test; who do you think wrote that check – not Bannon – probably Trump – I can’t wait for all of ’em to be behind bars where they belong
Want to see how Obama got Facebook data, ( and Google, and Amazon and etc.) https://www.fastcompany.com/3046756/obama-and-his-geeks
( Insurance Journal didn’t post my earlier comment. Biased maybe?)
Bill — can you please cut & paste the section(s) you think prove Obama “got” Facebook, Google & Amazon data? All I could glean from the article was that Obama hired employees who had experience in the industry.
Where exactly does it say anything about stealing or buying or collecting end-user’s data and using it for political gain??
DECEMBER 14, 2017 AT 1:04 PM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Try very hard to stick to the subject in your initial replies instead of veering hard off course to an off topic comment. I thank you, and IJ staff will allow you to continue to post if you follow those simple guidelines.
Perhaps you don’t realize this, but the data itself isn’t the problem, its the data used in conjunction with nudging the population along with ideas that really stinks.
The CEO and other higher-ups in Cambridge Analytica claimed that they could shape the way potential voters reacted based on phrases and fake news stories that they could use. They used self-destructing emails to delete evidence of what they were sending, leaving no trace behind of communications used with potential clients (Trump campaign and others…all campaign and executive branch emails and communiques must be kept in compliance with record keeping laws), acting as a go-between for the Trump Campaign and SuperPACS so that donors could effectively get away with donating more and coordinating messaging which is also illegal. Steve Bannon was on CA’s board and apparently oversaw the purchase of the 40 or 50 names.
There are a dozen more examples of why this is so huge and absolutely terrible.
I’d still LOVE to learn where in that link Craig thinks it says anything about Obama “getting” customer data from Facebook and/or Google and/or Amazon.
Wah. Wah. Your candidate called all the working class people names and you STILL think she should have won.
Hell, she doubled down last week calling women who voted for Trump suckers, victims of male peer pressure, and not independent thinkers. (You know what that is called: sexism).
And every time someone calls a conservative a racist (I have been called that 4 times), I JUST LOVE IT!
You will never win if you continue to whine about the unfairness of it all without recognizing that Trump’s every move is to help the working class. Like finally punishing China for stealing every damn idea on earth, hurting our job creation. (Which Obama should have done a long time ago.) Keep calling us names and claiming Hillary deserved to win. Love it.
I’d still LOVE to learn where in that link you think it says anything about Obama “getting” customer data from Facebook and/or Google and/or Amazon.
Do your own research. It was well-known that Facebook people helped Obama in 2008.
And it is true that Google executives visited the White House more than reps. of any other organization during Obama’s term in office.
Did you know that Facebook news filters have dropped conservative news sources an average of 30% while leaving lefty sources untouched? Of course not.
So why do you think you know everything already knowable? Look it up.
I’d rather have Google visiting The White House rather than the President living in Twitter.
The Obama campaign had legally obtained data people opted into giving on Facebook. The Trump people created a fake app and illegally stole data from people without their knowledge and illegally took data from the people connected to these people. Conservatives don’t care. They see a story and immediately search for anything remotely similar a Obama or Hillary did and immediately start skewing that.
It also appears that Cambridge Analytica coordinated with Russia on amplifying their message based on analysis showing the Trump campaign and Russian bots pushed the same messages at the same time. Just today it was revealed Trump’s senior campaign officials knew they were working with person they know was Russian intelligence. Every Republican theory has fallen apart on this topic. Eg, They didn’t know who took her emails when Trump called on Russia to release emails-actually they had met about it and a campaign official had already told Australian intelligence they knew they had them.
It’s not something people can deny anymore and remain credible.
Bill Price, IJ IS biased.
I am cool with suing facebook over stealing private information especially if they knew about it but come on Democrats, you lost. Move on and try to get a better candidate next time around. Maybe one that wants to rebuild America, not tear it down. Word on the streets so keep it a hush. Aliens manipulated the election so Donald Trump would win.
Thanks for the tax break Donald. :)
You have to love the Left eating the Left with ANOTHER damn lawsuit.
The arrogant lack of wisdom of the Silicon Valley crowd to claim the products they created were going to make the world a better place, that people would just connect and share and oh my god, it would be glorious.
Then the same Silicon Valley crowd found out they could become billionaires by quietly selling private information to third parties, with permission agreements hidden in intentionally unreadable legaleze that no one ever read but just clicked “ok”. (and Zuckerberg and everyone else knew it).
But Facebook didn’t sell the information, Craig. CA obtained it legally from Facebook then THEY sold it against Facebook’s policy. CA didn’t pay Facebook for the data.
But Facebook didn’t protect the information, did they?
And Facebook’s “policy” is to sell it themselves.
So what’s the difference? If CA bought it, would you the media outrage be any less? Please tell me you don’t believe the Trump Hatred would make that distinction.
Hell, even Zuckerberg admits they screwed up.
You are correct = Facebook did not protect the information. Totally agree there. Bad bad Facebook. They should’ve done a better job protecting the info.
You said “Silicon Valley crowd found out they could become billionaires by quietly selling private information to third parties.”
You are Incorrect = Facebook’s policy is NOT to sell the information. Again, they did not sell the info to CA — CA obtained it legally and in accordance with FB rules, then CA illegally sold it.
CA paid Facebook $0 & got the data, then CA sold the data for (arguments sake) $5M and CA gave $0 back to FB. Can you please nicely try to explain to me how you think FB “sold” the data to CA in the first place even though they didn’t get one cent for the data?
Also – I’d still LOVE to learn where in that link you posted earlier that you think it says anything about Obama “getting” customer data from Facebook and/or Google and/or Amazon.
Right ,, Facebook didn’t sell it to Obama.. the Facebook tech team just had it in hand for free.
Why not call for an FBI investigation .
( Well that won’t work. Strzok& Company are still in there.)
BP
Enough.
Facebook sells information. Period. You agree to it when you post certain information on Facebook. (This is exhausting, trying to educate you.)
And it wasn’t me who said Obama was “getting” customer data. I said Obama worked with Facebook executives. Chris Hughes.
My apologies Craig – I definitely mixed up you and Bill w/ the Obama/Social Media link. I’m sorry for the confusion.
And I agree that Facebook sells information. I’m just saying Facebook did not sell it to Cambridge Analytics, and it was CA who sold it for money they kept for themselves in this situation.
The data that CA used was not sold to them by Facebook. Please stop saying that Obama got information from facebook, while it is legal to form a team of experts in that field (like most do) who can help a person to win. CA has come out and said that they influence elections in illegal routes. While yes Facebook does sell data, that is geared toward advertising on Facebook (one of their main revenue streams).
Craig serious question: is there any scenario where you would be against an illegal hack used to benefit Republicans? If so, what?
It is very simple to control what Facebook does with your personal data – don’t have a Facebook account. I don’t have one and really don’t believe my social or professional lives have suffered one bit. In fact, I may have less stress because I feel no pressure to constantly check and update my account.
If Lauren Price was a Facebook user in 2012 then she should sue the Obama Campaign. They did it directly without a 3rd party and DID NOT PAY FOR IT WHICH IS ILLEGAL. They stole some 190 million users ID’s and information. And far less than the Trump campaign. Where is the uproar about that? At least the Trump campaign hired a 3rd party.
Michael,
You are sadly misinformed. The way they collected the data was from voluntary participation by the user. How they collected data was when the banner was clicked they had a warning that appeared and let them know that their data would be collected and they had the option to say yes or no to that unlike the Trump organization who used CA which illegally obtained the information and has again admitted to their illegal ways to influence elections.
In California, a law has been proposed requiring full transparency of any and all private data internet companies might use or sell to others.
Facebook’s response: A $200,000. donation to fight the bill.
Remember when liberals fought against big corporations that abused their power? Today, liberals defend big corporations (so long as they spout the correct Politically Correct nonsense.)
Bring on the full transparency not only in CA, but countrywide. We agree on that one, Craig?
So the liberals in CA proposing the bill don’t count?