Table of Contents 64q43
One of the companies responsible for the success of the electoral campaign of Donald Trump is being accused of having violated the privacy of millions of US s of the Facebook. 43s6i
According to an extensive investigation carried out by newspapers The New York Times e The Guardian, Cambridge Analytica, a British data analysis company, had improper access to the personal information of more than 50 million of American s of the social network. The purpose of the practice, in turn, would be to boost Donald Trump's election campaign, in 2016.
Although much is already said about this specific election, all the information on the subject pointed to the Russians, who would have had a strong influence in the victory of the Republican party over the Democrats.
In these accusations, the Democratic party alleges that Russia is behind leaks that undermined Hillary Clinton's election. However, the Cambridge Analytica it's an entirely different issue — and one that may have had an even greater impact on Trump's victory.
This is because, according to information from these two newspapers, the company violated the Facebook and used loopholes in the social network to build behavioral profiles of s. With this information, the company was then able to create targeted ads that were used in favor of Trump's election and Brexit, also in 2016.
In both cases, the company managed not only to collect e treat information, but also forecast the political direction of Internet s.
But what's 'new' about that? 6n3j5
Although the Cambridge Analytica is at the center of a privacy violation controversy, the company's attitudes, at least at first, may even seem compatible with what the Facebook already does. After all, it is nothing new that the social network also collects (and sells) almost all possible information from its s.
This certainly makes us ask what is so different about the attitudes of such a smaller company; Why did this case shock so many people?
First, what stands out most is the way in which the Cambridge Analytica had access to such data: according to Facebook itself, the company “took advantage” of the “naivety” of s, collecting the information in disguised tests – like those to know 'what would you look like if you were the opposite gender'.
By accessing these pages with their social network s, s voluntarily gave away their locations, photos, likes and even information about their friends. The big difference, however, is that none of them knew that this data would be manipulated by other company and for political ends.
In fact, it is precisely the purpose given to the information that scares Internet s the most. For the first time in the history of the internet, we could see that apparently 'innocent' information can be used not only to boost the sale of a product, but also to influence an entire presidential election.
Even without control of any of these s, having only access to such information, the Cambridge Analytica was able to trace behavioral profiles and create precisely targeted ads.
The different versions of the case 2u2w52
Although the matter led by the The New York Times highlights the case as the responsibility of Facebook, the company defends itself by saying that, although it has failed to comply with the privacy policies of the social network, what the application that provided information to the Cambridge Analytica it only did so because the s themselves allowed it.
O Facebook, however, did not like being 'cheated' at all. So much so that it banned Cambridge Analytica from its platforms. But don't you think that all this outrage is just ethical:
Information also gathered by the The New York Times near to The Guardian reveal that the giant was aware that the information collected in the tests was stored and sold by its creators. However, instead of taking effective action against the action, it only requested that the Cambridge Analytica delete the stored data.
Which, apparently, the company did not do.
Facebook could face severe fines 6v4p2n
To David Vladec, former director of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) consumer protection office, if found responsible for violating the privacy of its s, Facebook could be fined up to U.S. $ one thousand 40 for each affected . In total, this value could exceed the $2 trillion.
“It is clear that there were reports about the existence and purchase of this information in 2015. Part of the explanation that Facebook will have to give people is why they were so ineffective in curbing these attitudes and in ensuring that the data was, in fact, destroyed. ” Vladeck said in an interview with the Financial Times
With this, it is clear that the social network's interest in disassociating itself from the incident is not only due to the negative impact on its image, but also to the possible legal sanctions who can suffer in both the US and the UK.
In addition, the repercussion of the headlines had an immediate effect on the company's shares, which fell 6,8%. In of market value, in turn, the giant lost almost US $ 37 billion.
“Someone needs to be held able for this. It’s time for Mark Zuckerberg to stop hiding behind his Facebook page.” said Damian Collins, head of the British Parliament's Digital Oversight Commission
Now, the fear of investors is that, because of the controversy, the company, in addition to the entire sector of the technological giants, will suffer from greater pressure from the State. So much so that the actions of A, owner of Google and which was not even mentioned in the theme, also fell into 3,2%.
Steve Bannon and the Trump Campaign 6u536m
Finally, one more chapter to add weirdness to this whole plot is the link between the Cambridge Analytica e Steve Bannon – name that, in 2016, became the main strategist of Donald Trump's campaign.
Bannon is appointed vice president of Cambridge Analytica. The company, in turn, belongs to the Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL Group), a company specialized in data mining and which, according to its own website, has been active in the analysis of behavioral data for over 25 years.
The Republican party saw Cambridge Analytica as a way to stand up to the Democrats, who had broad on the web until 2016. The company was also involved in the campaigns of Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, both of the party.
According to Facebook, the data collection application was commissioned by SCL itself to Alexander Kogan, professor in the neuroscience department at Cambridge University. Aleksandr would be primarily responsible for create the app and on the information to Cambridge Analytica.
Although Aleksandr's app had access to 'only' 270 thousand profiles, more than 50 million of people had their information collected indirectly. After all, whoever logged in to the app also gave them access to the data of their entire friends list.
How s can protect themselves 52b3q
First, it is necessary to make it clear that no profile (or Facebook itself) was hacked by the Cambridge Analytica. The 'loophole' that is so much talked about is the irresponsibility of the social network in allowing data collected by an application to be ed on to another institution.
Cambridge Analytica never had to hide, nor did it hide its great intimacy with data analysis for political purposes. What the company tried to hide was the fact that it had Facebook as its main source of research.
However, even so, You don't have to completely abandon Facebook. For those who want to keep their s active on the social network, even though many vehicles and experts recommend the opposite, just be more careful with how you use your - perhaps, it contains much more valuable information than your number. RG ou Tax ID (F), for example.
Read also 5z2f6f
With information from: CNET
