Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scandal. Do we get what we deserve?

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • The UK's data protection watchdog intends to fine Facebook £500,000 for data breaches - the maximum allowed.

    The Information Commissioner's Office said Facebook had failed to ensure another company - Cambridge Analytica - had deleted users' data.

    The ICO will also bring a criminal action against Cambridge Analytica's defunct parent company SCL Elections.

    So, with this news that Facebook is getting fined, the multi billionaire Zuckerberg must be in a cold sweat over this.:rolleyes: Why did the ICO even bother with his fine?

  • So, with this news that Facebook is getting fined, the multi billionaire Zuckerberg must be in a cold sweat over this.:rolleyes: Why did the ICO even bother with his fine?

    How does the regulator determine the fine for a breach of data protection or privacy? Is it according to ........

    - Whether it was an error or deliberate?

    - The extent of damage or distress of those affected?

    - Whether there can be damage or distress when these "victims" want to reveal rather than conceal their lifestyle

    - Whether those whose data or privacy was breached had given permission or acquiescence?

    - Whether those whose data or privacy was breached believed they could get something for nothing

    - Whether the laws on data protection or privacy were defined well enough to encompass what happened?

    - How wealthy the person or company who committed the failure of data protection or breach of privacy?

    - Whether the person or company in breach of data protection or privacy is taking steps to avoid this happening again


    I would't be at all surprised if Facebook refuses to pay the fine. Give regulators an inch and they'll take a yard

  • I think you might be right on that.

    The ICO hasn't stipulated what rules have been broken, as far as I can see. So, how can they issue a fine to Facebook?

    On your point 4, obviously those people filling in that quiz hadn't given permission for a third party to use the data, but I'm not sure current data privacy rules apply here as the rules were set up long before Facebook ever existed.

  • I would't be at all surprised if Facebook refuses to pay the fine. Give regulators an inch and they'll take a yard

    Facebook is outside the regulators jurisdiction so it has no need to pay the fine and can thumb it's nose at the UK regulator.

    An analogy would be like the UK courts trying to fine the New York Times for a defamatory article on the UK.

    It's a different world to when we had one black and white TV channel, one state radio broadcaster and most news was in papers in the cornershops.

    Then the government could control what you knew, now they can't. The genie is out of the bottle but some people refuse to accept it.

  • Some of their income is derived from the UK, so our law should apply to them.

    IANAL but I don't think that making money in a foreign country necessarilly makes you subject to their laws.

    There's also the subject of enforcement, unless facebook have some tangible assets in the UK there's no lever than can be applied. Even then they could decide to forfeit them to maintain their independence.

    I also remeber a recent case where an English court placed an injuction on English newspapers not to print a scandal story, yet Scottish and international newspapers were free to run the story and also on their websites and the English court had no power to stop them.

  • But that's just libel, this is far more wide ranging. A third party app that Facebook denies having any control over (arguable in itself) , harvested data from one thing, a quiz, and used it for something else. It wasn't even the data itself or the users participating in the quiz, but the contacts of the quiz participants that got data mined.

    I tend to agree with Rob, that I don't think any current UK law has been broken. It's wrong and an invasion of privacy, but not illegal - yet.

    But where I'm not sure is over the money. Facebook make millions of pounds from British users and perhaps the ICO might make some sort of argument in court over breach of contract. But as you've said before Heero, Facebook users willingly hand over all their personal data to Facebook and they don't pay Facebook for the service, so I'm not sure what the legal arguments would be.

    On tangible assets, I suspect one way that UK regulators might bash Facebook, if they choose to do so, is not over privacy issues, but over the issue of tax. More firmer ground there.

  • but over the issue of tax. More firmer ground there.

    The only tax they might apply is some kind of sales tax. This has been mooted for the likes of ebay and Amazon as their profits are posted in a foreign country and thus not subject to UK Corporation tax

  • MPs are stepping up their campaign to get Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg to appear before them to answer questions on data privacy and disinformation.

    The Commons Digital Culture is joining forces with its Canadian counterpart to hold a joint hearing on 27 November.

    Its chair Damian Collins has urged Mr Zuckerberg to appear, saying his "evidence is now overdue and urgent".

    Well, several months on and this story is not going away.

    Zuckerberg refused to come to London before and answer MP's questions, so even with their Canadian counterparts, I wonder why they think he will come this time round?

    Does there need to be a law which says that if a CEO of a foreign company which has operations in the UK, refuses parliament's request to be questioned, then some form of action needs to be taken on that company's operations in the UK?

  • Maybe they will send their new recruit Nick Clegg, who is a blatant liar, or so stupid he will make firm statements of things he knows nothing about (take your pick) ...

    ... as in ... 'an EU army is a dangerous fantasy'. ;)

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • Does there need to be a law which says that if a CEO of a foreign company which has operations in the UK, refuses parliament's request to be questioned, then some form of action needs to be taken on that company's operations in the UK?

    The short answer to your question is NO.

    For reasons I gave months ago

    I reckon Mark Zuckenberg looked at a couple of these Parliamentry Committee investigations and decided quite rightly that the questions were pedantic, trivial or irrelevant and that the committee were just enjoying their self-importance in front of a TV camera. Why would MZ want to waste his time with the usual bunch of dumb poseurs?

    Everyone with an iota of intelligence knows that no crime has been committed and that there are no victims, that the real issue is whether a new law needs to go on the books or an existing law amended. But no one can figure out what it should be. Meanwhile Facebook is examining some some operational issues related to morality rather than legality. So far there has been little or no thoughtful discussion on those issues. It is meaningless to say that the golden rule must be transparency and,at the same time recognise that business operates in a world of competition. Besides, no one has made it clear what it is that must be made transparent and who it is that needs to be a recipient of whatever it is that must be made transparent.


    .

  • I reckon Mark Zuckenberg looked at a couple of these Parliamentry Committee investigations and decided quite rightly that the questions were pedantic, trivial or irrelevant and that the committee were just enjoying their self-importance in front of a TV camera. Why would MZ want to waste his time with the usual bunch of dumb poseurs?

    That may well be the case, but he answered the dumb poseur's questions at the American senate and EU parliament, so why not answer our MP's questions too.

    Everyone with an iota of intelligence knows that no crime has been committed and that there are no victims, that the real issue is whether a new law needs to go on the books or an existing law amended. But no one can figure out what it should be. Meanwhile Facebook is examining some some operational issues related to morality rather than legality. So far there has been little or no thoughtful discussion on those issues. It is meaningless to say that the golden rule must be transparency and,at the same time recognise that business operates in a world of competition. Besides, no one has made it clear what it is that must be made transparent and who it is that needs to be a recipient of whatever it is that must be made transparent.

    I think there are lots of questions that need to be asked about what information can a organisation hold on a individual and what they can do with that information, so I agree that until those questions are asked, it would be difficult to legislate until then.

  • 1) That may well be the case, but he answered the dumb poseur's questions at the American senate and EU parliament, so why not answer our MP's questions too.

    2) I think there are lots of questions that need to be asked about what information can a organisation hold on a individual and what they can do with that information, so I agree that until those questions are asked, it would be difficult to legislate until then.

    1) Because (a) as we're in the EU in theory 27 member states could ask him to turn up and answer their questions, (b) the EU adds up to a big market, (c) the EU serves nicer food & wine, (d) MZ was just passing by on his way to somewhere else and thought it would fun to drop in, (e) the EU officials are more impressive poseurs than their UK counterparts, (f) MZ noticed that the UK's hue & cry over Cambridge Analytica was based on irrational and superficial factors, with little or no intelligent analysis of the real problem, and he decided he's be wasting his valuable time with those deadbeats. Seriously though, there are big questions that need answering, for which the Parliamentary Committee would be totally out of their depth

    2) It's not as complicated and profound as you make out. There is a pact or agreement or quid pro quo which most Facebook users either knew or assumed or were unconcerned about, that in return for using Facebook in so many ways for "communicating" with their "friends", they would be "interrupted" by advertising or promotion or PR. If they didn't know this before (on the grounds that they were ignoramuses) they sure know it now. They also know - or should have known because it's bloody obvious - that the ads/promotions/PR are targeted to different types of audience on the basis of information which the Facebook user has provided. If the Government wants to "educate" Facebook users on the implications of their indifference or narcissism, that's for the Government to decide. This is not Facebook's responsibility other than ensuring that it's terms & conditions are fully accessible, understandable and with further webpages to click on for those who suffer from OCD or want to bore the themselves to death.

    As for Facebook being a vehicle for advertising or promotional or PR or news media which is exploited by persuaders or deceivers or liars or people or companies who want to persuade or misinform while maintaining anonymity, gee, there's a surprise! How is any of that different from much of print or broadcast media? Or indeed, the typical forever-campaigning politician?

  • Parliament threatens American businessman over Facebook

    A cache of Facebook documents has been seized by MPs investigating the Cambridge Analytica data scandal.

    Rarely used parliamentary powers were used to demand that the boss of a US software firm hand over the details.

    The Observer, which first reported the story, said the documents included data about Facebook's privacy controls.

    What do folks think of this?

    An American businessman was frogmarched to parliament and threatened with arrest unless he surrendered his Facebook related documents.

    I suppose if parliament are going to go on a fishing expedition, they should do it properly!

    I don't think I have ever heard of such a incident occurring before.

  • Parliament threatens American businessman over Facebook

    What do folks think of this?

    An American businessman was frogmarched to parliament and threatened with arrest unless he surrendered his Facebook related documents.

    I suppose if parliament are going to go on a fishing expedition, they should do it properly!

    I don't think I have ever heard of such a incident occurring before.

    What do I think of this?

    What do YOU think of this? I think it's what happens if handing too much power to a dimwitted creep like Damian Collins

    American businessman frogmarched to parliament, threatened with arrest unless surrendered Facebook related documents.

    What a brilliant idea if we're trying to be not only independent from the EU but also from the US. I'm sure there are rip roaring trade possibilities in places like New Zealand.Gambia, Fiji, Tonga etc? Message to all investors: think twice about investing in Britain

    I suppose if parliament are going to go on a fishing expedition, they should do it properly!

    is what happened your idea of doing it properly?

    I don't think I have ever heard of such a incident occurring before.

  • Facebook needs regulation as Zuckerberg 'fails' - UK MPs

    Facebook needs far stricter regulation, with tough and urgent action necessary to end the spread of disinformation on its platform, MPs have said.

    A Commons committee has concluded that the firm's founder Mark Zuckerberg failed to show "leadership or personal responsibility" over fake news.

    Untrue stories from foreign powers were risking the UK's democracy, they said.

    Looks like the MPs are going for it and some form of regulation of Facebook is going to happen. Be interested how they force this American tech company to do what they want.

  • Be interested how they force this American tech company to do what they want.

    It's what I say all along when the ignorant talk about regulation of the internet: A foriegn company in a foriegn country beyond UK jurisdiction and access to whose servers you cannot prevent no matter how many laws and injuctions are passed.

    They're still living in the corner newsagents age.

  • Facebook needs far stricter regulation, with tough and urgent action necessary to end the spread of disinformation on its platform, MPs have said.

    I am more concerned about who decides what is disinformation and what is true ... but inconvenient for the public to be aware of! It puts a great deal of power into the hands of unknowns.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!