Of course. I’ve slacked off on late Friday night checks to see what kind of turf Facebook has dropped. Digging in shortly to read.
OK, here we go. First the premise the Like button tracking users in passive state is a basic function of the internet is misdirection garbage from Facebook. They should ask FB what their KIDS attribute does differently then and why it's necessary? developers.facebook.com/docs/plugins/r… 
FB tried to kill the tracking protection for minors in 2012 (bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/fac…) for a reason. they knew showing they can protect <13 years old privacy means they could do it for everyone.
The reality is Facebook provided evidence recently to @CommonsCMS @DamianCollins that they have Like buttons on 8.4mm websites. This is a massive data collection scheme to serve their advertising dominance (Google is worse here). See my 2014 WSJ op-ed. blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2014/06/20…
things that may have happened 2-3 years ago if Facebook wouldn't have hid its problems away.
this section is near comical where Facebook brags to @repgregwalden about its new, clearer privacy controls. Read what they wrote and then read this new research last week, "Deceived by Design" and understand their is big $ in those controls. fil.forbrukerradet.no/wp-content/upl…
one more thing on Like button, I've pressed for years going back to early contracts for Facebook to not collect data off publishers sites from passive Like buttons. The word choice to suggest "publishers send us information' is entirely BS and it takes $$$ away from publishers.
Um. Like with @CommonsCMS and @SenKamalaHarris, Facebook dodges who was responsible for not informing users of what they call a "breach." It's also an established fact FB hired Kogan's "equal partner" in Nov 2015. And has kept him employed for 18 months after press reports on it.
Something to consider: it's likely Facebook lawyers worked harder to stop and more senior executives were worried about @guardian @carolecadwalla's March 2018 report than they did in Dec 11, 2015 when they claim to have found out 30 million records were harvested and sold to SCL.
it's remarkable these audits were done and this statement was made AFTER it was reported in global press in 2015 that a developer had harvested 30+ mm records and then then sold those records to a third party. PWC looks bad here, too, although we've only seen the redacted audits.
I know it's just a few weeks but Facebook originally provided written evidence to @CommonsCMS that Kogan signed on June 24, 2016. It was only after it was pointed out by @DamianCollins this was the result date of the brexit referendum that it changed to June 11, 2016.
I believe Facebook's entire statement (US only) here is based on evidence provided by @chrisinsilico - agreement between Kogan, Chancellor and Nix/SCL. I wouldn't think a written agreement between these people would be anywhere sufficient to trust FB on this one. cc @CommonsCMS
I don't think this is factually accurate. It was reported Facebook plans to be accredited by MRC for SIVT (sophisticated invalid traffic detection) in early 2017 but they haven't been approved as far as I know.
Trivia time! # of times each name is mentioned in 748 pages of responses. don't think for a second this isn't intentional.
Facebook top execs: Sandberg: 0, Zuckerberg 59
GSR top execs: Chancellor 8, Kogan 465
Cambridge Analytica: Nix 5
Facebook top execs: Sandberg: 0, Zuckerberg 59
GSR top execs: Chancellor 8, Kogan 465
Cambridge Analytica: Nix 5
privacy wonks: enjoy how Facebook argues the importance of putting privacy controls in the context of how they're used (while collecting data completely outside of the context and user expectations).
Wikipedia. Not allowed to be cited in school book reports but it's a reliable source for more information on news publishers. Facebook still hasn't made publisher brands more evident in feed last time I checked.
Facebook has not provided any data in response to requests from Russia. (sort of unnecessary anyway since all they needed to do was partner with Kogan/Chancellor's app)
OK, first real item that's grabbed my attention. Facebook has branded throughout the scandal: "Kogan's app" and "IRA" are the bad actors.
I would want to follow up on this IRA answer to the Russia question. ht @donie
I would want to follow up on this IRA answer to the Russia question. ht @donie
Pretty straightforward yes/no question from @FrankPallone: in cleaning up your mess, has Facebook implemented any "new limitations on the amount or type of data Facebook collects and uses?" Response is anything but clear.
More and more arguments in here that Facebook's Like button that mine's users' browsing history and vacuums up data across the web is built into the design of the net. Of course, Firefox, Brave and Safari browser teams putting a stop to it.
hate to break it to you, @RepBobbyRush, but this math is off by one digit. It's 1 Facebook "content reviewer" for every 100,000 users. Only helps more in making your smart point.
OK, this is interesting, too. @RepAnnaEshoo trying to get a straight answer on whether Facebook spoke directly to Nix about the issue. It's a good question if anything to build on getting Facebook to disclose who on its end was involved.
also from @RepAnnaEshoo. Smart. This indeed should connect the dots Facebook knew in Dec 2015 that Cambridge Analytica had "breached its data" and Facebook also knew in 2016 it was collaborating with Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign as it purchased advertising.
OK, I'm back at it, 500 pages to go. Here is the classic argument Facebook needs to be one of the most aggressive data collection companies in the history of mankind in order to be free, hoping you don't consider $45 billion in revenue at 45% net margin.
Side note: Facebook mentioned 55 times in this document that going forward they will "tell people about data misuse."
Silicon Valley geniuses at work.
Silicon Valley geniuses at work.
Again, this "we didn't have any reason to believe"...begs the question why Facebook had SCL/Nix re-certify in April 2017 nearly sixteen months after the original "breach" and 14 months after Cambridge Analytica "provided written documentation" it deleted the data.
Ridiculous. This is Facebook saying: "We own the US government so please enjoy this intern copy and paste effort."
Fun fact: 119
# of times the statement, "We believe everyone deserves good privacy controls" appears in Facebook's written answers to @HouseCommerce @repgregwalden.
# of times the statement, "We believe everyone deserves good privacy controls" appears in Facebook's written answers to @HouseCommerce @repgregwalden.
I like that @RepAnnaEshoo still passed this constituent letter along to Facebook. Note Facebook's answer.
This matters. "Facebook employees did interact with Cambridge Analytica employees." Does anyone think for a minute that Facebook's lack of follow-through on CA and then SCL wasn't impacted by this? 2 months later, 16 months later, 27 months later Facebook was still following up.
It's worth commending @RepAnnaEshoo aggregated and passed along 515 questions that her constituents had for Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook answered with what I count to be 11 template answers. That's 1 answer per ~47 questions. Think about that.
I thought we learned from @60Minutes plus interviews with the campaigns that the HRC campaign turned down the Facebook embeds? How is this statement accurate? Or are they using "provided" to mean "offered up?"
and Palantir finally shows up on page #644 of Facebook's answers to @HouseCommerce. This answer is wholly unsatisfactory considering @nickconfessore @AllMattNYT @carolecadwalla report on Palantir connections to Cambridge Analytica (nytimes.com/2018/03/27/us/…).
So two things need to be explored further in this section (p647): (1) Kogan's June '18 Senate testimony said app named in the certifications wasn't even the one which took the data and (2) was the Apr '17 Nix certification the first which critically included "derivative data?"
on page 703, this question and answer from Facebook has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese.
@carolecadwalla, on page 704. they just wanted "to correct some facts."
whew, page 746. @RepAnnaEshoo gets to the heart of the matter. So far, the answer has been "no, not a single bit" as they hold on to $45 billion per year run-rate and 45%+ net margins for arguably the greatest 21st century data broker business on the planet. Or Google.
Adding this additional tweet since it didn’t make it into the @HouseCommerce 740 pages of answers related to @ChrisM4Chester @CommonsCMS line of questions and Facebook’s vague purging of millions of fake accounts in April 2017.
And the full thread of Facebook answers to @CommonsCMS @DamianCollins since they posted same day as @HouseCommerce 700 pages of answers. Parliament much further along for a variety of reasons. Facebook hopes lost in weekend news cycle. Don’t let it happen.
