Jason Kint Profile picture
Feb 6, 2022 23 tweets 9 min read Read on X
Friday night court filings add to Facebook's horrible terrible week. Judge stepped in and ran over FB affirming expectations on negligent discovery:
1) production of Zuckerberg's notebooks
2) discovery of Zuckerberg/Sandberg
3) details on FB's secret whitelisting data deals
/1 Image
4) production of 9 plaintiffs' data in Facebook's possession - ALL OF IT (more on this in a second)
5) more depositions
6) production of Facebook's "secret sauce" memo (all revisions)
now some details...
/2 Image
On the plaintiffs' data ordered for discovery, Facebook's legal team has tries to argue they only have to turn over the data which is accessible or shared. Read what the Judge said about this back to Facebook confirming this is Facebook's position. Which leads naturally to... /3 Image
This entire exchange between the Court and Facebook's legal team (Ms Stein) is something, "it must be that Facebooks collects additional information which is does not want to produce to the named plaintiffs." /4 ImageImage
You can see how Facebook tried to suggest the only data they have to turn over is what is in the "social graph" and "Download Your Information" file. But clearly there is more. With backs against wall, they then argue it's "extraordinarily difficult to find all of it." 👀 /5 Image
If it's too hard ... too difficult ... to pull all of the data Facebook has on a user data protection authorities are all leaning in harder (California/Europe). Even Facebook's own employee isn't signing this section on "sharing data" during deposition... /6 Image
The plaintiff attorneys who are super good and technical jumped all over all of this reminding Court data reciprocity is included in the case and Facebook also "possesses data from data brokers" in addition to inferred data. They want it all, Court rules it's all relevant. /7 Image
"We want a response [from Facebook] admitting that, as well, and an order so that we can tell the jury they took so much data from these nine people they can't even identify it. They don't know where it is, they don't know how it was used." 👀/8 Image
Facebook was also ordered to turn over its communications and audits Zuckerberg promised Congress under oath. Court ordered none of these are privileged since Facebook told the world they would do the investigation to make sure their products were safe. /9 Image
Facebook also filed motion Friday asking to seal the names of two firms that conducted their audits. For some reason, FB really, really doesn't want the world to know who cleaned up the other potential Cambridge Analyticas who have Facebook's user data. /9 Image
These audits are all called the "ADI" (app developer investigation) and it appears there are a whole lot of communications which aren't privileged. AG in Massachusetts also pushed to get these so you've got to expect this is how they will get turned over. /10 Image
These are part of Cambridge Analytica cover-up lawsuits. Facebook successfully wrote a narrative why CA didn't matter but the reality has always been it very much did due to (1) cover-up (securities/governance) and (2) consumer protection (platform was designed to leak). /11
And I'll leave the final words to the Court from their filing last night. Facebook "is far from completing document production. Despite orders from Judge Corley and the Special Master" and the Judge writing this order... /12 Image
"At every turn, Facebook has disparaged Plaintiffs' discovery requests and their efforts to get the information they need. This is a false narrative, belied by the results of Plaintiffs' motions before Judge Corley and the Special Master." /13 Image
This is NdCal (Case No. 18-md-02843-VC-JSC). Gibson Dunn is defending Facebook - not used to being pushed around like this. There was a filing in DC Friday, too, for a parallel case where Court has also lost patience with FB's delay tactics ordering deposition of Zuckerberg. /14 Image
Adding this Order by the Court for this Thursday's NdCal hearing for Facebook's cover-up of Cambridge Analytica related matters threaded above. /15
Incoming... this also just posted. An order from Special Master for case. "MANO" stands for Make America Number One. There's long been questions on extent of Facebook's involvement working alongside Cambridge Analytica employees and campaign. Unlikely much is privileged. /16 Image
Same case, third key filing in like 72 hours. Special Master has ordered the following plaintiff data to be turned over. The question here will be whether Facebook can avoid turning over any user data it has harvested to "tune" its algorithms that's not on the "front end." /17 ImageImage
fwiw, Facebook interrupted hearing then successfully motioned to have the two firms sealed who did their "unprecedented" audits of all potential Cambridge Analyticas. But they came out in a DC lawsuit earlier this week - FTI Consulting and Stroz Friedberg - but shhhhh.... /18 Image
Adding this post as it includes the consultants who worked on the "audits" for Facebook to try to identify where else its data flowed across the universe. Some interesting backgrounds and experience. /19
Bingo. Facebook just filed answer to riddle of which Facebook executive is being sent in response to the Court's order - as the Judge said any other plans should be postponed. It's one of their senior legal execs who has been there more than a decade. /20
Gibson Dunn on behalf of Facebook names the executive but then goes on a six page rant arguing it hasn't delayed and deflected discovery. This paragraph is the most absurd failing to point out facebook covered-up the core issues until 2018 when the lawsuit was then filed. /21 Image
And this order from the Special Master just posted. Everyone/everything in yellow is in a very sensitive position related to the extent of Cambridge Analytics-like abuse of data (and the cover-up). I am telling you...it's getting hot in California. Watch this space. /22 Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jason Kint

Jason Kint Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jason_kint

May 5
Department of Justice has now posted its hundreds of great slides from closing arguments. I’ll share 13 slides that tell story imho captured by this list.
First, if search defaults don’t matter, why pay approx $30B, 40% of revenue to maintain them? 1/13 Image
DOJ cleverly took this sentence from the DC circuit opinion in U.S. vs Microsoft and replaced it with Google’s search defaults story in red. “Fits like a glove” as they said to Court on Friday. Hard to argue. 2/13 Image
The story on importance of Google’s data harvesting to monopoly maintenance was crystal clear so let’s move on to how DOJ alleges Google was able to use its market power to impact ad prices which drive much of their revenues. 3/13 Image
Read 14 tweets
May 1
There is a report going around Apple is going to facilitate blocking of ads in Safari - it deserves your attention. Meanwhile, I want to connect dots w/ a number of redactions lifted (yellow) late last night in the post-trial docs of US v Google - closing arguments are tmw. /1 Image
It's critical to understand the importance of Safari to their Google deal under microscope. It's reasonable to say Safari delivers nearly 20% of Apple's Income from Ops almost entirely subsidized by Google. Without Safari, there is no Google deal. /2 Image
As the expert witness in the trial pointed out, there isn't a rational explanation for a 40% revenue share on traffic that Google's proxies argue would happen without Apple. But hey, maybe that cash also pays for special influence into Safari's roadmap, too? /3 Image
Read 5 tweets
Apr 11
!!!!! just unsealed, and higher than prior news reports. /1 Image
we learned last Fall in a different G lawsuit (NdCal) during widely reported testimony the number 36% as the share Google paid Apple to be locked in as default search across Apple's surfaces.
But now this was just unsealed from the two key contracts (here is 2014 which even then was 37.5%) /2Image
Here are the various Google and Apple contracts where those screen caps originate. /3 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Read 4 tweets
Mar 26
Whoa. Facebook had a secret "Project Ghostbusters" (get it?) which allegedly was to decrypt "man-in-the-middle" style Snapchat traffic to copy it. Yellow highlight indicates redactions just lifted in nine unsealed plaintiffs briefs in private antitrust lawsuit. Wild stuff. /1 Image
A lot of new stuff. There was lots of reporting (including Apple threats to boot Facebook) at the time on Facebook's software and Onavo acquisition allowing it to "spy" on competitive apps but I recall the decryption was written as a hypothetical. CEO email kickstarting it. /2 Image
You can read the press back in Jan 2019 spoon fed by Facebook PR to friendlies with no mentions of decrypting SSL then compare to this internal email below sent to Facebook's most senior executives - "currently includes SSL decryption"... /3 Image
Read 16 tweets
Mar 14
TikTok? Y’all are crazy. Yes, it’s a huge problem but hypocrisy. Last year after Facebook worked years to keep it sealed, a court unsealed its secret app audit. It showed 86,961 developers in China had access to all of our personal data…yet crickets. /1 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
This is the same app audit Zuckerberg promised Congress after concerns American’s personal data had been readily mined in Russia. Throw in Iran, North Korea, you name it. Press didn’t dig in. A good source told me DOJ and Congress hadn’t ever even seen this forensic audit. /2
Yet Facebook had spent four years trying very hard to keep even the names of the forensic auditing / clean-up firms confidential. Senate Intel Chairs did send a letter, no word on whether Facebook even responded to them. /3
Read 4 tweets
Mar 14
ok, I've now read the NYT response this week to attempts by OpenAI to dismiss NYT's landmark lawsuit against the high-flying AI company.
Put simply, NYT makes it brutally clear on page one how you can tell the difference between the two companies.
Oomph. /1 Image
A few other observations from me. Like NYT's original complaint, it's smart and future-focused on fair value. Where OpenAI made frankly bizarre claims NYT was hacking the platform as it detected OpenAI had its content, NYT is right. OpenAI isn't and can't dispute it copied it. /2 Image
Um, 2022 > 2020 = TRUE. Where OpenAI tried to inject a statute-of-limitations argument that OpenAI's lifting of content was "common knowledge" in 2020, NYT points out that ChatGPT and OpenAI didn't go viral until Nov 2022. /3 Image
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(