Terms and Conditions are a set of rules and guidelines that a user must agree to in order to use your website or mobile app. It acts as a legal contract between you (the company) who has the website or mobile app and the user who access your website and mobile app.
According to the entry by Facebook's General Council Paul Grewal, there was nothing untoward about the usage of Cambridge Analytica.
Update on March 17, 2018, 9:50 AM PT: The claim that this is a data breach is completely false. Aleksandr Kogan requested and gained access to information from users who chose to sign up to his app, and everyone involved gave their consent. People knowingly provided their information, no systems were infiltrated, and no passwords or sensitive pieces of information were stolen or hacked.
Originally published on March 16, 2018:We are suspending Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL), including their political data analytics firm, Cambridge Analytica, from Facebook. Given the public prominence of this organization, we want to take a moment to explain how we came to this decision and why....
When someone signs on to social media to participate with family, friends and perfect strangers there are terms and conditions required to participate. The Terms and Conditions on Facebook requires the member to give absolute power to Facebook of any or all the information posted to it's platform.
"Anything that has been digitized is not private and that is terrifying." Welcome to Facebook's ability to generate a profit. Did anyone thing for one minute their most intimate secrets, conversations and images would be confidential? NOT, LOL, LOL, LOL.
The question really is, "Did Facebook give permission to Cambridge Analytica to HARVEST every aspect of facts without the members knowing?" The issue is not Cambridge Analytica per se; it is Facebook and the understood relationship with members it normally treats as a MARKETABLE COMMODITY were sold for a political machine.
The difference between Facebook marketing their DEMOGRAPHICS of their membership to Wall Street for attempts to sell people stuff they would not otherwise think of buying and the sale of information to Cambridge Analytica; is the politics and potential hostile outcomes to elections where those politics are at play.
The issue is FAIRNESS and elections. If Facebook wants to market their membership demographics, should that demographic information be free and given to those that qualify as candidates and political parities?
The thing is this: Media MUST provide EQUAL TIME to all political parties. That is usually restricted to interviews or segments where one candidate has been able to communicate through media to the voters. This information in possession by Facebook, I believe, when used for political purposes should be DISCLOSED upon the use of the information, ie: Cambridge Analytica, when it becomes available to actual candidates and their parties.
Facebook is media. It just is. It collects and sells demographic information and who knows what else information for profit. Do the rights agreed to, because members have to in order to have access; provide complete and exclusive rights to Facebook to do absolutely anything it wishes including INFLUENCING the outcomes of elections.
I think not. The laws have always stated EQUAL access to media used for political purposes. The media is the media and Facebook is no different. So, when Facebook moved from providing demographics to Wall Street for marketing to politics the rules and ethnics are different.
Where Facebook LOSES the argument they own the rights to all the information to do with as it pleases ENDS where Facebook provides a CHOICE in showing information on their front page or restricting CERTAIN people from viewing it. If a Democrat's identity is limited to "Friends Only" doesn't that mean their politics have restrictions as well? I think the ACTUAL APPLICATION of the way members use Facebook creates a CLEAR UNDERSTANDING, the relationship is LIMITED.
Selling demographics for marketing purposes of goods and services can be done so by generalizing known data. But, marketing to Cambridge Analytica is very different. Cambridge was provided information to influence elections and Facebook was paid for it. I believe, Facebook's SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY in a democracy is to do everything possible to provide a fair and equal opportunity for any candidates when demographics are released FOR SALE or otherwise. I also believe if Facebook provided this service openly and equally to valid candidates and parties, it could deduct the value of VOLUNTEERISM. Assign a value to the parties and candidates and tax it off their taxes. They still pay taxes right?
In providing free information to candidates and parties, Facebook could demand limited use of the information from those receiving it to protect it's ability to turn a profit.
But, that is my take on this mess and it is always a mess. It is never clear because no one in a Wall Street company will do the ETHICAL thing so much as the GREEDY thing. It is the way it is. It is called Capitalism. In fact, it is not Capitalism at all, it is pure exploitation when ethics are disregarded. This didn't have to happen if Facebook practiced ethics in profit taking and placed the country before their profits.
"Anything that has been digitized is not private and that is terrifying." Welcome to Facebook's ability to generate a profit. Did anyone thing for one minute their most intimate secrets, conversations and images would be confidential? NOT, LOL, LOL, LOL.
The question really is, "Did Facebook give permission to Cambridge Analytica to HARVEST every aspect of facts without the members knowing?" The issue is not Cambridge Analytica per se; it is Facebook and the understood relationship with members it normally treats as a MARKETABLE COMMODITY were sold for a political machine.
The difference between Facebook marketing their DEMOGRAPHICS of their membership to Wall Street for attempts to sell people stuff they would not otherwise think of buying and the sale of information to Cambridge Analytica; is the politics and potential hostile outcomes to elections where those politics are at play.
The issue is FAIRNESS and elections. If Facebook wants to market their membership demographics, should that demographic information be free and given to those that qualify as candidates and political parities?
The thing is this: Media MUST provide EQUAL TIME to all political parties. That is usually restricted to interviews or segments where one candidate has been able to communicate through media to the voters. This information in possession by Facebook, I believe, when used for political purposes should be DISCLOSED upon the use of the information, ie: Cambridge Analytica, when it becomes available to actual candidates and their parties.
Facebook is media. It just is. It collects and sells demographic information and who knows what else information for profit. Do the rights agreed to, because members have to in order to have access; provide complete and exclusive rights to Facebook to do absolutely anything it wishes including INFLUENCING the outcomes of elections.
I think not. The laws have always stated EQUAL access to media used for political purposes. The media is the media and Facebook is no different. So, when Facebook moved from providing demographics to Wall Street for marketing to politics the rules and ethnics are different.
Where Facebook LOSES the argument they own the rights to all the information to do with as it pleases ENDS where Facebook provides a CHOICE in showing information on their front page or restricting CERTAIN people from viewing it. If a Democrat's identity is limited to "Friends Only" doesn't that mean their politics have restrictions as well? I think the ACTUAL APPLICATION of the way members use Facebook creates a CLEAR UNDERSTANDING, the relationship is LIMITED.
Selling demographics for marketing purposes of goods and services can be done so by generalizing known data. But, marketing to Cambridge Analytica is very different. Cambridge was provided information to influence elections and Facebook was paid for it. I believe, Facebook's SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY in a democracy is to do everything possible to provide a fair and equal opportunity for any candidates when demographics are released FOR SALE or otherwise. I also believe if Facebook provided this service openly and equally to valid candidates and parties, it could deduct the value of VOLUNTEERISM. Assign a value to the parties and candidates and tax it off their taxes. They still pay taxes right?
In providing free information to candidates and parties, Facebook could demand limited use of the information from those receiving it to protect it's ability to turn a profit.
But, that is my take on this mess and it is always a mess. It is never clear because no one in a Wall Street company will do the ETHICAL thing so much as the GREEDY thing. It is the way it is. It is called Capitalism. In fact, it is not Capitalism at all, it is pure exploitation when ethics are disregarded. This didn't have to happen if Facebook practiced ethics in profit taking and placed the country before their profits.
