Strongly suggest @SenateCommerce have ICO Commissioner Elizabeth Denham provide testimony next opportunity. The American public needs to pay more attention and better understand these findings many of which were lost in the marathon of Facebook's obfuscation going back to 2015.
For anyone who has inquired or reported on the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica breach in any form, I strongly suggest reading the UK regulator's actual findings. It lays out many of the facts as clearly as we've seen them. I'll highlight a few here. ico.org.uk/media/action-w…
#32 - #43 are important to the facts and time-line of the case. Pay attention as it confirms Facebook reviewed the Kogan/Chancellor app, rejected it for V2 of the Graph (#34), let it operate until dec 2015 (#36) and Kogan/Chancellor sold the data (#38). ico.org.uk/media/action-w…
before I get to my ongoing questions, I find #61 to be most damning (still very relevant to @SenKamalaHarris questioning of Zuck and the FTC investigation. Note that paragraph covers at minimum 2.5 years of which facts have still been obfuscated by FB. @DamianCollins @CommonsCMS 
In US hearings, Zuck made what can only be considered very misleading to false timeline claims to @SenWhitehouse @SenBillNelson @SenJohnThune. Again, look at the UK regulator's description in #61. and again @CommonsCMS evidence hearings also showed consistent obfuscation.
ICO findings state clearly that Facebook users' personal data was available all the way back to 2007. Reminder, Facebook commissioned its own audits to see who else could have violated the data policies and harvested data for whatever violating purposes during this period.
I don't honestly see how anyone can trust Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp for messaging after reading this section stating evidence that messages including content were available. This would be a clear example of Facebook's data surveillance business model causing risk and harm.
It's fascinating to read this section about Facebook's responsibility to ensure reliability of employees while keeping in mind they hired and employed Joseph Chancellor for years one of the co-founders who took the 87 million data records and sold them to Cambridge Analytica.
This may be a question for @DamianCollins, others but I don't understand how Facebook was found to have broken law but GSR (both Kogan and Chancellor) have escaped any liability. What did I miss? They did the commercial deal on both sides. Chancellor didn't even give evidence?
And finally this exchange of evidence between Facebook's CTO and @IanCLucas was one of the clearest demonstrations of Facebook's obfuscation over the hearings.
Lucas: "It ["the buck"] stops with Mark. Will Mark answer these questions?"
Schroepfer: "I don’t know."
Kint: I do.
Lucas: "It ["the buck"] stops with Mark. Will Mark answer these questions?"
Schroepfer: "I don’t know."
Kint: I do.
aaah, I left out @RepAnnaEshoo, too. Compare what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified to her under oath to what actually happened according to this morning's @ICOnews report. And how Facebook described it in March.
Mark Zuckerberg told @LaurieSegallCNN (11:15) that the goal of Congressional testimony is "to get Congress all of the information they need to do their extremely important job." They failed, obfuscated and got away with it. cnn.com/videos/cnnmone…
