Cambridge Analytica has made it clear that just because Facebook made partners sign agreements declaring they could not use data for their own projects, companies probably do it anyways. I feel...
These partners signed agreements that prevented people’s Facebook information from being used for any other purpose than to recreate Facebook-like experiences. Partners could not integrate the user’s Facebook features with their devices without the user’s permission.
Cambridge Analytica has made it clear that just because Facebook made partners sign agreements declaring they could not use data for their own projects, companies probably do it anyways.
I feel like this the key difference between the NYT position and the FB position. NYT is looking at what can be done, whereas FB is saying what ought to have been done.
Just like the researcher who signed an agreement that said he wouldn't share the data with any third parties, then handed the data to CA? I mean, I guess Facebook is of the opinion that opt-out is...
These partners signed agreements that prevented people’s Facebook information from being used for any other purpose than to recreate Facebook-like experiences.
Just like the researcher who signed an agreement that said he wouldn't share the data with any third parties, then handed the data to CA?
Partners could not integrate the user’s Facebook features with their devices without the user’s permission.
I mean, I guess Facebook is of the opinion that opt-out is a sufficient permission model, but still...
We are not aware of any abuse by these companies.
"Nobody has blown a whistle yet so we don't have to acknowledge anything"
(I accidentally posted this as a top-level comment and have since deleted it)
Facebook has posted a response to the article as well: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/06/why-we-disagree-with-the-nyt/
Cambridge Analytica has made it clear that just because Facebook made partners sign agreements declaring they could not use data for their own projects, companies probably do it anyways.
I feel like this the key difference between the NYT position and the FB position. NYT is looking at what can be done, whereas FB is saying what ought to have been done.
Just like the researcher who signed an agreement that said he wouldn't share the data with any third parties, then handed the data to CA?
I mean, I guess Facebook is of the opinion that opt-out is a sufficient permission model, but still...
"Nobody has blown a whistle yet so we don't have to acknowledge anything"
(I accidentally posted this as a top-level comment and have since deleted it)