Social media and privacy - what Facebook failed to do

An interesting political battle is unfolding before our eyes between two influential groups in the United States. Moreover, it would seem that the small-town event has already led to a whole series of seemingly unrelated scandals, resignations and new appointments. It is impossible to consider the scandal around the personal data of Facebook users, which has been blazing all week, without reference to the political component. Since we remain out of politics, I will simply outline what is happening without going into details, if you wish, you can find them yourself and delve into this topic.

The last presidential elections in the United States were, at the very least, very emotional; this has not been observed in American politics for a long time. The society split into two equal parts, and Trump lost in absentia to Hillary Clinton, but unexpectedly pulled ahead and became the winner. Trump's personnel policy as president looks chaotic, but media scandals, for example, around Harvey Weinstein in Hollywood and other actors, producers, film industry workers, have become a sign of his rule. There is no point in whitewashing Weinstein and many others, they probably really did what they are credited with. But it is interesting what was the trigger and why the consciousness of the humiliated and offended woke up in a single harmonious impulse. The American press has repeatedly suggested that Weinstein flew in because he supported the wrong side in the US presidential election. Trite, but the version with the settling of scores on the political Olympus looks at least sensible. Looking at what is happening with Facebook from this point of view, we will find very interesting intersections that lead directly to the story of Trump's election.

Election hype on social media – Cambridge Analytica

The average American spends a couple of hours a day on social networks, they have become no less, if not more powerful information tool than television. It is no coincidence that Russia is accused of meddling in the US presidential election on social networks, the losing side needs a clear image of a strong enemy who did not allow their dream to come true. Unfortunately, the large-scale investigation that has been going on in the United States for more than a year has not been able to prove that Russia had anything to do with Trump's election campaign or somehow influenced it, invested resources in it. In November 2017, hearings were held in the US Senate Intelligence Committee, where representatives of Google, Facebook, Twitter spoke, and the senators chastised them and demanded to provide evidence of the Russian trace. Social media couldn't do it, but the persistence of the questioners was amazing. For example, Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein said: “We are telling you that there is a cyber war going on. Don't think we won't give up on you. You are responsible because these are your platforms.” To me, this sounds more like intimidation than a real desire to find out what exactly is going on.

Given that the hearings in the Senate could be watched and listened to, I had a double impression. Representatives of the industry sluggishly fought back, sometimes inappropriately saying figures that refuted the main plot of the proceedings. For example, a Twitter spokesperson said that the political ads from the "Russians" were worth $50,000, which looked pathetic compared to the billions spent by the two applicants. Either Russians are SMM geniuses, or something is wrong here.

I will not assume that after these hearings, the companies were explained how to count correctly, but in fact, all bots and trolls after that began to be attributed to "Russian hackers" by default, and the latter became a kind of meme. No evidence of Russian interference in the US elections has ever been presented, but here everyone believes in what is closer to him. It's just a matter of faith, as no facts are given. “Trust us, and we will get the evidence later,” said one well-known politician who ended his career badly in the last century.

In 2017, the idea was hammered into the minds of American audiences that social media had influenced the elections, they had become a magic key that opened the doors of the White House for Trump. And against this background, the company that worked with Trump's headquarters, namely Cambridge Analytics from Britain, decided to grab its piece of PR.

What is Cambridge Analytics and how did it come about? This is a very interesting question, since it is a subsidiary of the British SCL Group, which is engaged in a wide range of issues in Britain - security research in any form, support for the fight against terrorism, drugs, political campaigns. And a few years ago, a daughter appeared with the catchy name of Cambridge Analytics. The New York Times dug a lot and in detail under what kind of company it is and why it appeared. According to them, in 2013 the company was created to accompany the US elections, the first $15 million was invested by the sponsor of the Republicans Robert Mercer (Robert Mercer). The first job was supporting Ted Cruz in the elections, and only then was the Trump campaign. The company positions itself as a researcher of social networks, user behavior and provides services to both political players and corporations, allowing you to increase the effectiveness of advertising on social networks. While it sounds like an ordinary data broker, of which there are dozens in the world, the largest ones work in the USA, and they are not well known. It is noteworthy that the small company Cambridge Analytics has offices in five locations - New York, Washington, London, as well as in Malaysia and Brazil.For a startup, a fairly large field of activity and clients scattered all over the world. I think that if you dig into the contracts of the SCL Group, you can find the roots of where the clients of this company come from. And it is difficult to assume that Trump's campaign headquarters trusted someone without a family and a tribe. I would cautiously say that the SCL Group created a private data broker, which also performs the functions of an intelligence and analytical agency. The methods and results of work are painfully similar.

The first major scandal was the public appearance of Cambridge Analytics CEO Alexander Nix after Trump's victory. In several interviews, he said that Trump's victory was largely based on how his company processed user profiles and allowed them to be addressed correctly. He called it the "secret ingredient" of the presidential race, much to the displeasure of the Trump team, which denied using any data provided by Cambridge Analytics. Colleagues in the market ridiculed Alexander, saying that his story was more like fantasy than reality. I perceived this as part of a PR campaign for Cambridge Analytics to attract new customers, they wanted to make a lot of noise in the business press, present themselves as some kind of arbiter of fate. And as a result, they attracted unwanted attention. It doesn’t matter who intelligence officers/analysts work for (there are more of the latter in intelligence, although any intelligence officer is an analyst, but the opposite is not always true), it is important that they do not attract attention, this is a key condition for fruitful work. And Alexander Nix broke that unwritten rule. And then came the second act of the Cambridge Analytics tragedy.

Act 2 - the same and Cambridge Analytics under a magnifying glass

When the story of Cambridge Analytics began to be promoted in the United States, they wondered what exactly the company was doing for Trump and what data it had. In a short time, we found out that the company had data from social networks, which it somehow analyzed and made recommendations on “advertising”. Then everything calmed down, but not so long ago, in two publications at the same time (!) There are notes that, since 2014, Cambridge Analytics has been collecting data from Facebook users and, in general, they have collected them in the amount of 50 million accounts. Curiously, the notes appear in the New York Times and the London's Observer. It is possible that this is an accident and a coincidence, but it looks more like a planned preparation of public opinion.

So, the notes say that British researcher Alexander Kogan created an application in 2014 in which you could enter your Facebook login details. Approximately 270,000 people downloaded this application, and what followed was a matter of technology - the program collected all their records, as well as the records of their friends that were visible to them. Alexander Kogan passed all this data to Cambridge Analytics, and they believed that they were obtained legally (naivete that knows no bounds! This is the company's line of defense today).

In comments to the press, Cambridge Analytics claims that all data received from Kogan was deleted in 2015, Facebook demands to verify this claim, but does not have any tools for this. At the London office of the company, local investigators have already carried out some activities to find out what data is on its computers. That is, the state intervened in the situation, in the United States this story is also unwinding.

The first thing that raises my doubts is that all the data is stored in one office and is not hosted in the cloud. It's cheaper, more logical, and the data itself isn't particularly valuable. Therefore, there are doubts that investigators will find anything other than Cambridge Analytics reports and business correspondence. And if the company really was a private research project, to which people from the intelligence service were even remotely related, then the organization is such that nothing will be found there.

But the issue is not finding clues, but that Facebook is so vulnerable to external attacks and access to user data. For example, no one can prevent the collection of data from public profiles in any social network, be it Facebook or some other. The openness of a social network is a necessary quality within which it exists. And the user already determines which data he opens for everyone, and which - only for friends. However, every social network uses its anonymized data in order to create social profiles and sell them to the side, this is a significant part of the companies' income. And the buyers are the same data brokers. And that suits everyone. In the case of Cambridge Analytics, Facebook's annoyance is understandable, the company fraudulently collected the data and did not pay Facebook a dime, all by the cash register. Facebook's actual interest in this is clear and understandable, they are protecting their business model.

But Cambridge Analytics, apparently, are becoming the same scapegoats as Hollywood artists, they have become a bargaining chip in the political struggle. The language of their CEO brought the situation to the point of seizing documents, studying the company's activities under a magnifying glass. Usually in such cases, the lit up company is quietly taken away from the radar, and instead they open a new one that does exactly the same thing. I am sure that the SCL Group will do just that, but a little later, when all the perpetrators will be publicly punished.

Scandal in the public field - consequences for Facebook

The stock market reacted very sharply to the situation with the “hacking” of Facebook, although it can be a stretch to consider what happened as a data leak, there was practically no way to prevent what happened on Facebook (in theory they could, but no one thought about it). Look how the company's shares fell on the anticipation that the US will tighten the regulation of social networks.

And also the hysteria from ordinary and not very people began to gain momentum. For example, one of the co-owners of WhatsApp, who made billions of dollars selling the Facebook application, wrote that it was time to leave the social network, hashtag #deletefacebook.

The problem is that deleting your account does not mean that all your data will also be deleted, it just won't be visible. This means that Facebook will still have access to them and the ability to use them in the analysis, as well as sell them indirectly to data brokers. This is the risk of any social network, it is almost impossible to delete data from there, and there are still search engines with saved copies of pages, third-party resources.

Any scandal of this kind attracts the violent, the crowd is easily hysterical, but few dare to act. Remember how many people in the United States during Trump's presidential campaign promised to leave to live in Canada, as a result, we do not observe any migration wave, mundane things took over, rationality prevailed.

Facebook hysteria is fueled by the fact that many people sincerely believe that the data they posted on the social network still belongs to them. But this is not so, this is already information, the rights to which they gave to that same network. At your leisure, re-read the user agreements of most social networks, you will find a lot of interesting things.

It is likely that all the hype around Facebook will lead to the fact that governments will tighten laws on the storage of information, protect user data, and introduce the necessary minimum. There is nothing wrong with this, and this is to be welcomed. For example, supporters of such an approach in Russia received an additional trump card from the state. But their logic is often lame, for some reason, by default, it is believed that storage in Russia means no copies of data in other countries, no access to this data from the territory of other countries. Truth? What makes you think so? All major services store data in several places, and the appearance of local copies in Russia does not mean that some service somewhere near Washington will not contain a copy of it. The old logic no longer applies, but exactly the same can be said about social networks, which are quite young by the standards of human history. And we do not have a clear approach to them. Because social networks can and should be used to assess the state of society, both one's own and someone else's. You need to be able to separate useful data and information noise. But it is impossible to close the social network from the collection of information by third parties, this is contrary to the nature of these services.

And here the question arises, what damage was done to Facebook users, whose data was allegedly collected in Cambridge Analytics. The answer is obvious - none. Large corporations and states do not operate on the lives of individuals, the game is built on an attempt to influence society. And if society reacts, then the problem is in society, but not in such a tool as social networks, there is no need to confuse cause and effect.

Today, Facebook users who are hysterical under the influence of the media forget that they, as adults, are no less responsible for what they tell the world about themselves. And if they posted in their accounts information about where they hid the key to the house in which the money is, then this is a problem with their sanity. I'm exaggerating, but I think you get the point.

And now the important questions for discussion in the comments. How serious do you think the situation with Facebook is, and not far-fetched? Has there been a data leak? Has your relationship with Facebook and social media changed because of this story? And most importantly, what do you consider it possible to post on your social accounts, Hair Pro Shampoo Liss Extreme 1 L and what is taboo for you personally and you will never share it with others? Let's discuss these questions.

Social media and privacy - what Facebook failed to do

An interesting political battle is unfolding before our eyes between two influential groups in the United States. Moreover, it would seem that the small-town event has already led to a whole series of seemingly unrelated scandals, resignations and new appointments. It is impossible to consider the scandal around the personal data of Facebook users, which has been blazing all week, without reference to the political component. Since we remain out of politics, I will simply outline what is happening without going into details, if you wish, you can find them yourself and delve into this topic.

The last presidential elections in the United States were, at the very least, very emotional; this has not been observed in American politics for a long time. The society split into two equal parts, and Trump lost in absentia to Hillary Clinton, but unexpectedly pulled ahead and became the winner. Trump's personnel policy as president looks chaotic, but media scandals have become a sign of his rule, for example, around Harvey Weinstein in Hollywood and other actors, producers, film industry workers. There is no point in whitewashing Weinstein and many others, they probably really did what they are credited with. But it is interesting what was the trigger and why the consciousness of the humiliated and offended woke up in a single harmonious impulse. The American press has repeatedly suggested that Weinstein flew in because he supported the wrong side in the US presidential election. Trite, but the version with the settling of scores on the political Olympus looks at least sensible. Looking at what is happening with Facebook from this point of view, we will find very interesting intersections that lead directly to the story of Trump's election.

Election hype on social media – Cambridge Analytica

The average American spends a couple of hours a day on social networks, they have become no less, if not more powerful information tool than television. It is no coincidence that Russia is accused of meddling in the US presidential election on social networks, the losing side needs a clear image of a strong enemy who did not allow their dream to come true. Unfortunately, the large-scale investigation that has been going on in the United States for more than a year has not been able to prove that Russia had anything to do with Trump's election campaign or somehow influenced it, invested resources in it. In November 2017, hearings were held in the US Senate Intelligence Committee, where representatives of Google, Facebook, Twitter spoke, and the senators chastised them and demanded to provide evidence of the Russian trace. Social media couldn't do it, but the persistence of the questioners was amazing. For example, Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein said: “We are telling you that there is a cyber war going on. Don't think we won't give up on you. You are responsible because these are your platforms.” To me, this sounds more like intimidation than a real desire to find out what exactly is going on.

Given that the hearings in the Senate could be watched and listened to, I had a double impression. Representatives of the industry sluggishly fought back, sometimes inappropriately saying figures that refuted the main plot of the proceedings. For example, a Twitter spokesperson said that the political ads from the "Russians" were worth $50,000, which looked pathetic compared to the billions spent by the two applicants. Either Russians are SMM geniuses, or something is wrong here.

I will not assume that after these hearings, the companies were explained how to count correctly, but in fact, all bots and trolls after that began to be attributed to "Russian hackers" by default, and the latter became a kind of meme. No evidence of Russian interference in the US elections has ever been presented, but here everyone believes in what is closer to him. It's just a matter of faith, as no facts are given. “Trust us, and we will get the evidence later,” said one well-known politician who ended his career badly in the last century.

In 2017, the idea was hammered into the minds of American audiences that social media had influenced the elections, they had become a magic key that opened the doors of the White House for Trump. And against this background, the company that worked with Trump's headquarters, namely Cambridge Analytics from Britain, decided to grab its piece of PR.

What is Cambridge Analytics and how did it come about? This is a very interesting question, since it is a subsidiary of the British SCL Group, which is engaged in a wide range of issues in Britain - security research in any form, support for the fight against terrorism, drugs, political campaigns. And a few years ago, a daughter appeared with the catchy name of Cambridge Analytics. The New York Times dug a lot and in detail under what kind of company it is and why it appeared. According to them, in 2013 the company was created to support the US elections, the first $15 million was invested by the sponsor of the Republicans Robert Mercer (Robert Mercer). The first job was supporting Ted Cruz in the elections, and only then was the Trump campaign. The company positions itself as a researcher of social networks, user behavior and provides services to both political players and corporations, allowing you to increase the effectiveness of advertising on social networks. While it sounds like an ordinary data broker, of which there are dozens in the world, the largest ones work in the USA, and they are not well known. It is noteworthy that the small company Cambridge Analytics has offices in five locations - New York, Washington, London, as well as in Malaysia and Brazil.For a startup, a fairly large field of activity and clients scattered all over the world. I think that if you dig into the contracts of the SCL Group, you can find the roots of where the clients of this company come from. And it is difficult to assume that Trump's campaign headquarters trusted someone without a family and a tribe. I would cautiously say that the SCL Group created a private data broker, which also performs the functions of an intelligence and analytical agency. The methods and results of work are painfully similar.

The first major scandal was the public appearance of Cambridge Analytics CEO Alexander Nix after Trump's victory. In several interviews, he said that Trump's victory was largely based on how his company processed user profiles and allowed them to be addressed correctly. He called it the "secret ingredient" of the presidential race, much to the displeasure of the Trump team, which denied using any data provided by Cambridge Analytics. Colleagues in the market ridiculed Alexander, saying that his story was more like fantasy than reality. I perceived this as part of a PR campaign for Cambridge Analytics to attract new customers, they wanted to make a lot of noise in the business press, present themselves as some kind of arbiter of fate. And as a result, they attracted unwanted attention. It doesn’t matter who intelligence officers/analysts work for (there are more of the latter in intelligence, although any intelligence officer is an analyst, but the opposite is not always true), it is important that they do not attract attention, this is a key condition for fruitful work. And Alexander Nix broke that unwritten rule. And then came the second act of the Cambridge Analytics tragedy.

Act 2 - the same and Cambridge Analytics under a magnifying glass

When the story of Cambridge Analytics began to be promoted in the United States, they wondered what exactly the company was doing for Trump and what data it had. In a short time, we found out that the company had data from social networks, which it somehow analyzed and made recommendations on “advertising”. Then everything calmed down, but not so long ago, in two publications at the same time (!) There are notes that, since 2014, Cambridge Analytics has been collecting data from Facebook users and, in general, they have collected them in the amount of 50 million accounts. Curiously, the notes appear in the New York Times and the London's Observer. It is possible that this is an accident and a coincidence, but it looks more like a planned preparation of public opinion.

So, the notes say that British researcher Alexander Kogan created an application in 2014 in which you could enter your Facebook login details. Approximately 270,000 people downloaded the app, and what followed was a matter of technology - the program collected all their entries, as well as the entries of their friends that were visible to them. Alexander Kogan passed all this data to Cambridge Analytics, and they believed that they were obtained legally (naivete that knows no bounds! This is the company's line of defense today).

In comments to the press, Cambridge Analytics claims that all data received from Kogan was deleted in 2015, Facebook demands to verify this claim, but does not have any tools for this. At the London office of the company, local investigators have already carried out some activities to find out what data is on its computers. That is, the state intervened in the situation, in the United States this story is also being untwisted.

The first thing that raises my doubts is that all the data is stored in one office and is not hosted in the cloud. It's cheaper, more logical, and the data itself isn't particularly valuable. Therefore, there are doubts that investigators will find anything other than Cambridge Analytics reports and business correspondence. And if the company really was a private research project, to which people from the intelligence service were even remotely related, then the organization is such that nothing will be found there.

But the issue is not finding clues, but that Facebook is so vulnerable to external attacks and access to user data. For example, no one can prevent the collection of data from public profiles in any social network, be it Facebook or some other. The openness of a social network is a necessary quality within which it exists. And the user already determines which data he opens for everyone, and which - only for friends. However, every social network uses its anonymized data in order to create social profiles and sell them to the side, this is a significant part of the companies' income. And the buyers are the same data brokers. And that suits everyone. In the case of Cambridge Analytics, Facebook's annoyance is understandable, the company fraudulently collected the data and did not pay Facebook a dime, all by the cash register. Facebook's actual interest in this is clear and understandable, they are protecting their business model.

But Cambridge Analytics, apparently, are becoming the same scapegoats as Hollywood artists, they have become a bargaining chip in the political struggle. The language of their CEO brought the situation to the point of seizing documents, studying the company's activities under a magnifying glass. Usually in such cases, the lit up company is quietly taken away from the radar, and instead they open a new one that does exactly the same thing. I am sure that the SCL Group will do just that, but a little later, when all the perpetrators will be publicly punished.

Scandal in the public field - consequences for Facebook

The stock market reacted very sharply to the situation with the “hacking” of Facebook, although it can be a stretch to consider what happened as a data leak, it was practically impossible to prevent what happened in Facebook (in theory they could, but no one thought about it). Look how the company's shares fell on the anticipation that the US will tighten the regulation of social networks.

And also the hysteria from ordinary and not very people began to gain momentum. For example, one of the co-owners of WhatsApp, who made billions of dollars selling the Facebook application, wrote that it was time to leave the social network, hashtag #deletefacebook.

The problem is that deleting your account does not mean that all your data will also be deleted, it just won't be visible. This means that Facebook will still have access to them and the ability to use them in the analysis, as well as sell them indirectly to data brokers. This is the risk of any social network, it is almost impossible to delete data from there, and there are still search engines with saved copies of pages, third-party resources.

Any scandal of this kind attracts the violent, the crowd is easily hysterical, but few dare to act. Remember how many people in the United States during Trump's presidential campaign promised to leave to live in Canada, as a result, we do not observe any migration wave, mundane things took over, rationality prevailed.

Facebook hysteria is fueled by the fact that many people sincerely believe that the data they posted on the social network still belongs to them. But this is not so, this is already information, the rights to which they gave to that same network. At your leisure, re-read the user agreements of most social networks, you will find a lot of interesting things.

It is likely that all the hype around Facebook will lead to the fact that governments will tighten laws on the storage of information, protect user data, and introduce the necessary minimum. There is nothing wrong with this, and this is to be welcomed. For example, supporters of such an approach in Russia received an additional trump card from the state. But their logic is often lame, for some reason, by default, it is believed that storage in Russia means no copies of data in other countries, no access to this data from the territory of other countries. Truth? What makes you think so? All major services store data in several places, and the appearance of local copies in Russia does not mean that some service somewhere near Washington will not contain a copy of it. The old logic no longer applies, but exactly the same can be said about social networks, which are quite young by the standards of human history. And we do not have a clear approach to them. Because social networks can and should be used to assess the state of society, both one's own and someone else's. You need to be able to separate useful data and information noise. But it is impossible to close the social network from the collection of information by third parties, this is contrary to the nature of these services.

And here the question arises, what damage was done to Facebook users, whose data was allegedly collected in Cambridge Analytics. The answer is obvious - none. Large corporations and states do not operate on the lives of individuals, the game is built on an attempt to influence society. And if society reacts, then the problem is in society, but not in such a tool as social networks, there is no need to confuse cause and effect.

Today, Facebook users who are hysterical under the influence of the media forget that they, as adults, are no less responsible for what they tell the world about themselves. And if they posted in their accounts information about where they hid the key to the house in which the money is, then this is a problem with their sanity. I'm exaggerating, but I think you get the point.

And now the important questions for discussion in the comments. How serious do you think the situation with Facebook is, and not far-fetched? Has there been a data leak? Has your relationship with Facebook and social media changed because of this story? And most importantly, what do you consider it possible to post on your social accounts, Hair Pro Shampoo Liss Extreme 1 L and what is taboo for you personally and you will never share it with others? Let's discuss these questions.

Social media and privacy - what Facebook failed to do

An interesting political battle is unfolding before our eyes between two influential groups in the United States. Moreover, it would seem that the small-town event has already led to a whole series of seemingly unrelated scandals, resignations and new appointments. It is impossible to consider the scandal around the personal data of Facebook users, which has been blazing all week, without reference to the political component. Since we remain out of politics, I will simply outline what is happening without going into details, if you wish, you can find them yourself and delve into this topic.

The last presidential elections in the United States were, at the very least, very emotional; this has not been observed in American politics for a long time. The society split into two equal parts, and Trump lost in absentia to Hillary Clinton, but unexpectedly pulled ahead and became the winner. Trump's personnel policy as president looks chaotic, but media scandals have become a sign of his rule, for example, around Harvey Weinstein in Hollywood and other actors, producers, film industry workers. There is no point in whitewashing Weinstein and many others, they probably really did what they are credited with. But it is interesting what was the trigger and why the consciousness of the humiliated and offended woke up in a single harmonious impulse. The American press has repeatedly suggested that Weinstein flew in because he supported the wrong side in the US presidential election. Trite, but the version with the settling of scores on the political Olympus looks at least sensible. Looking at what is happening with Facebook from this point of view, we will find very interesting intersections that lead directly to the story of Trump's election.

Election hype on social media – Cambridge Analytica

The average American spends a couple of hours a day on social networks, they have become no less, if not more powerful information tool than television. It is no coincidence that Russia is accused of meddling in the US presidential election on social networks, the losing side needs a clear image of a strong enemy who did not allow their dream to come true. Unfortunately, the large-scale investigation that has been going on in the United States for more than a year has not been able to prove that Russia had anything to do with Trump's election campaign or somehow influenced it, invested resources in it. In November 2017, hearings were held in the US Senate Intelligence Committee, where representatives of Google, Facebook, Twitter spoke, and the senators chastised them and demanded to provide evidence of the Russian trace. Social media couldn't do it, but the persistence of the questioners was amazing. For example, Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein said: “We are telling you that there is a cyber war going on. Don't think we won't give up on you. You are responsible because these are your platforms.” To me, this sounds more like intimidation than a real desire to find out what exactly is going on.

Given that the hearings in the Senate could be watched and listened to, I had a double impression. Representatives of the industry sluggishly fought back, sometimes inappropriately saying figures that refuted the main plot of the proceedings. For example, a Twitter spokesperson said that the political ads from the "Russians" were worth $50,000, which looked pathetic compared to the billions spent by the two applicants. Either Russians are SMM geniuses, or something is wrong here.

I will not assume that after these hearings, the companies were explained how to count correctly, but in fact, all bots and trolls after that began to be attributed to "Russian hackers" by default, and the latter became a kind of meme. No evidence of Russian interference in the US elections has ever been presented, but here everyone believes in what is closer to him. It's just a matter of faith, as no facts are given. “Trust us, and we will get the evidence later,” said one well-known politician who ended his career badly in the last century.

In 2017, the idea was hammered into the minds of American audiences that social media had influenced the elections, they had become a magic key that opened the doors of the White House for Trump. And against this background, the company that worked with Trump's headquarters, namely Cambridge Analytics from Britain, decided to grab its piece of PR.

What is Cambridge Analytics and how did it come about? This is a very interesting question, since it is a subsidiary of the British SCL Group, which is engaged in a wide range of issues in Britain - security research in any form, support for the fight against terrorism, drugs, political campaigns. And a few years ago, a daughter appeared with the catchy name of Cambridge Analytics. The New York Times dug a lot and in detail under what kind of company it is and why it appeared. According to them, in 2013 the company was created to accompany the US elections, the first $15 million was invested by the sponsor of the Republicans Robert Mercer (Robert Mercer). The first job was supporting Ted Cruz in the elections, and only then was the Trump campaign. The company positions itself as a researcher of social networks, user behavior and provides services to both political players and corporations, allowing you to increase the effectiveness of advertising on social networks. While it sounds like an ordinary data broker, of which there are dozens in the world, the largest ones work in the USA, and they are not well known. It is noteworthy that the small company Cambridge Analytics has offices in five locations - New York, Washington, London, as well as in Malaysia and Brazil.For a startup, a fairly large field of activity and clients scattered all over the world. I think that if you dig into the contracts of the SCL Group, you can find the roots of where the clients of this company come from. And it is difficult to assume that Trump's campaign headquarters trusted someone without a family and a tribe. I would cautiously say that the SCL Group created a private data broker, which also performs the functions of an intelligence and analytical agency. The methods and results of work are painfully similar.

The first major scandal was the public appearance of Cambridge Analytics CEO Alexander Nix after Trump's victory. In several interviews, he said that Trump's victory was largely based on how his company processed user profiles and allowed them to be addressed correctly. He called it the "secret ingredient" of the presidential race, much to the displeasure of the Trump team, which denied using any data provided by Cambridge Analytics. Colleagues in the market ridiculed Alexander, saying that his story was more like fantasy than reality. I perceived this as part of a PR campaign for Cambridge Analytics to attract new customers, they wanted to make a lot of noise in the business press, present themselves as some kind of arbiter of fate. And as a result, they attracted unwanted attention. It doesn’t matter who intelligence officers/analysts work for (there are more of the latter in intelligence, although any intelligence officer is an analyst, but the opposite is not always true), it is important that they do not attract attention, this is a key condition for fruitful work. And Alexander Nix broke that unwritten rule. And then came the second act of the Cambridge Analytics tragedy.

Act 2 - the same and Cambridge Analytics under a magnifying glass

When the story of Cambridge Analytics began to be promoted in the United States, they wondered what exactly the company was doing for Trump and what data it had. In a short time, we found out that the company had data from social networks, which it somehow analyzed and made recommendations on “advertising”. Then everything calmed down, but not so long ago, in two publications at the same time (!) There are notes that, since 2014, Cambridge Analytics has been collecting data from Facebook users and, in general, they have collected them in the amount of 50 million accounts. Curiously, the notes appear in the New York Times and the London's Observer. It is possible that this is an accident and a coincidence, but it looks more like a planned preparation of public opinion.

So, the notes say that British researcher Alexander Kogan created an application in 2014 in which you could enter your Facebook login details. Approximately 270,000 people downloaded this application, and what followed was a matter of technology - the program collected all their records, as well as the records of their friends that were visible to them. Alexander Kogan passed all this data to Cambridge Analytics, and they believed that they were obtained legally (naivete that knows no bounds! This is the company's line of defense today).

In comments to the press, Cambridge Analytics claims that all data received from Kogan was deleted in 2015, Facebook demands to verify this claim, but does not have any tools for this. At the London office of the company, local investigators have already carried out some activities to find out what data is on its computers. That is, the state intervened in the situation, in the United States this story is also being untwisted.

The first thing that raises my doubts is that all the data is stored in one office and is not hosted in the cloud. It's cheaper, more logical, and the data itself isn't particularly valuable. Therefore, there are doubts that investigators will find anything other than Cambridge Analytics reports and business correspondence. And if the company really was a private research project, to which people from the intelligence service were even remotely related, then the organization is such that nothing will be found there.

But the issue is not finding clues, but that Facebook is so vulnerable to external attacks and access to user data. For example, no one can prevent the collection of data from public profiles in any social network, be it Facebook or some other. The openness of a social network is a necessary quality within which it exists. And the user already determines which data he opens for everyone, and which - only for friends. However, every social network uses its anonymized data in order to create social profiles and sell them to the side, this is a significant part of the companies' income. And the same data brokers act as buyers. And that suits everyone. In the case of Cambridge Analytics, Facebook's annoyance is understandable, the company fraudulently collected the data and did not pay Facebook a dime, all by the cash register. Facebook's actual interest in this is clear and understandable, they are protecting their business model.

But Cambridge Analytics, apparently, are becoming the same scapegoats as Hollywood artists, they have become a bargaining chip in the political struggle. The language of their CEO brought the situation to the point of seizing documents, studying the company's activities under a magnifying glass. Usually in such cases, the lit up company is quietly taken away from the radar, and instead they open a new one that does exactly the same thing. I am sure that the SCL Group will do just that, but a little later, when all the perpetrators will be publicly punished.

Scandal in the public field - consequences for Facebook

The stock market reacted very sharply to the situation with the “hacking” of Facebook, although it can be a stretch to consider what happened as a data leak, it was practically impossible to prevent what happened in Facebook (in theory they could, but no one thought about it). Look how the company's shares fell on the anticipation that the US will tighten the regulation of social networks.

And also the hysteria from ordinary and not very people began to gain momentum. For example, one of the co-owners of WhatsApp, who made billions of dollars selling the Facebook application, wrote that it was time to leave the social network, hashtag #deletefacebook.

The problem is that deleting your account does not mean that all your data will also be deleted, it just won't be visible. This means that Facebook will still have access to them and the ability to use them in the analysis, as well as sell them indirectly to data brokers. This is the risk of any social network, it is almost impossible to delete data from there, and there are still search engines with saved copies of pages, third-party resources.

Any scandal of this kind attracts the violent, the crowd is easily hysterical, but few dare to act. Remember how many people in the United States during Trump's presidential campaign promised to leave to live in Canada, as a result, we do not observe any migration wave, mundane things took over, rationality prevailed.

Facebook hysteria is fueled by the fact that many people sincerely believe that the data they posted on the social network still belongs to them. But this is not so, this is already information, the rights to which they gave to that same network. At your leisure, re-read the user agreements of most social networks, you will find a lot of interesting things.

It is likely that all the hype around Facebook will lead to the fact that governments will tighten laws on the storage of information, protect user data, and introduce the necessary minimum. There is nothing wrong with this, and this is to be welcomed. For example, supporters of such an approach in Russia received an additional trump card from the state. But their logic is often lame, for some reason, by default, it is believed that storage in Russia means no copies of data in other countries, no access to this data from the territory of other countries. Truth? What makes you think so? All major services store data in several places, and the appearance of local copies in Russia does not mean that some service somewhere near Washington will not contain a copy of it. The old logic no longer applies, but exactly the same can be said about social networks, which are quite young by the standards of human history. And we do not have a clear approach to them. Because social networks can and should be used to assess the state of society, both one's own and someone else's. You need to be able to separate useful data and information noise. But it is impossible to close the social network from the collection of information by third parties, this is contrary to the nature of these services.

And here the question arises, what damage was done to Facebook users, whose data was allegedly collected in Cambridge Analytics. The answer is obvious - none. Large corporations and states do not operate on the lives of individuals, the game is built on an attempt to influence society. And if society reacts, then the problem is in society, but not in such a tool as social networks, there is no need to confuse cause and effect.

Today, Facebook users who are hysterical under the influence of the media forget that they, as adults, are no less responsible for what they tell the world about themselves. And if they posted in their accounts information about where they hid the key to the house in which the money is, then this is a problem with their sanity. I'm exaggerating, but I think you get the point.

And now the important questions for discussion in the comments. How serious do you think the situation with Facebook is, and not far-fetched? Has there been a data leak? Has your relationship with Facebook and social media changed because of this story? And most importantly, what do you consider it possible to post on your social accounts, Hair Pro Shampoo Liss Extreme 1 L and what is taboo for you personally and you will never share it with others? Let's discuss these questions.

Social media and privacy - what Facebook failed to do

An interesting political battle is unfolding before our eyes between two influential groups in the United States. Moreover, it would seem that the small-town event has already led to a whole series of seemingly unrelated scandals, resignations and new appointments. It is impossible to consider the scandal around the personal data of Facebook users, which has been blazing all week, without reference to the political component. Since we remain out of politics, I will simply outline what is happening without going into details, if you wish, you can find them yourself and delve into this topic.

The last presidential elections in the United States were, at the very least, very emotional; this has not been observed in American politics for a long time. The society split into two equal parts, and Trump lost in absentia to Hillary Clinton, but unexpectedly pulled ahead and became the winner. Trump's personnel policy as president looks chaotic, but media scandals have become a sign of his rule, for example, around Harvey Weinstein in Hollywood and other actors, producers, film industry workers. There is no point in whitewashing Weinstein and many others, they probably really did what they are credited with. But it is interesting what was the trigger and why the consciousness of the humiliated and offended woke up in a single harmonious impulse. The American press has repeatedly suggested that Weinstein flew in because he supported the wrong side in the US presidential election. Trite, but the version with the settling of scores on the political Olympus looks at least sensible. Looking at what is happening with Facebook from this point of view, we will find very interesting intersections that lead directly to the story of Trump's election.

Election hype on social media – Cambridge Analytica

The average American spends a couple of hours a day on social networks, they have become no less, if not more powerful information tool than television. It is no coincidence that Russia is accused of meddling in the US presidential election on social networks, the losing side needs a clear image of a strong enemy who did not allow their dream to come true. Unfortunately, the large-scale investigation that has been going on in the United States for more than a year has not been able to prove that Russia had anything to do with Trump's election campaign or somehow influenced it, invested resources in it. In November 2017, hearings were held in the US Senate Intelligence Committee, where representatives of Google, Facebook, Twitter spoke, and the senators chastised them and demanded to provide evidence of the Russian trace. Social media couldn't do it, but the persistence of the questioners was amazing. For example, Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein said: “We are telling you that there is a cyber war going on. Don't think we won't give up on you. You are responsible because these are your platforms.” To me, this sounds more like intimidation than a real desire to find out what exactly is going on.

Given that the hearings in the Senate could be watched and listened to, I had a double impression. Representatives of the industry sluggishly fought back, sometimes inappropriately saying figures that refuted the main plot of the proceedings. For example, a Twitter spokesperson said that the political ads from the "Russians" were worth $50,000, which looked pathetic compared to the billions spent by the two applicants. Either Russians are SMM geniuses, or something is wrong here.

I will not assume that after these hearings, the companies were explained how to count correctly, but in fact, all bots and trolls after that began to be attributed to "Russian hackers" by default, and the latter became a kind of meme. No evidence of Russian interference in the US elections has ever been presented, but here everyone believes in what is closer to him. It's just a matter of faith, as no facts are given. “Trust us, and we will get the evidence later,” said one well-known politician who ended his career badly in the last century.

In 2017, the idea was hammered into the minds of American audiences that social media had influenced the elections, they had become a magic key that opened the doors of the White House for Trump. And against this background, the company that worked with Trump's headquarters, namely Cambridge Analytics from Britain, decided to grab its piece of PR.

What is Cambridge Analytics and how did it come about? This is a very interesting question, since it is a subsidiary of the British SCL Group, which is engaged in a wide range of issues in Britain - security research in any form, support for the fight against terrorism, drugs, political campaigns. And a few years ago, a daughter appeared with the catchy name of Cambridge Analytics. The New York Times dug a lot and in detail under what kind of company it is and why it appeared. According to them, in 2013 the company was created to accompany the US elections, the first $15 million was invested by the sponsor of the Republicans Robert Mercer (Robert Mercer). The first job was supporting Ted Cruz in the elections, and only then was the Trump campaign. The company positions itself as a researcher of social networks, user behavior and provides services to both political players and corporations, allowing you to increase the effectiveness of advertising on social networks. While it sounds like an ordinary data broker, of which there are dozens in the world, the largest ones work in the USA, and they are not well known. It is noteworthy that the small company Cambridge Analytics has offices in five locations - New York, Washington, London, as well as in Malaysia and Brazil.For a startup, a fairly large field of activity and clients scattered all over the world. I think that if you dig into the contracts of the SCL Group, you can find the roots of where the clients of this company come from. And it is difficult to assume that Trump's campaign headquarters trusted someone without a family and a tribe. I would cautiously say that the SCL Group created a private data broker, which also performs the functions of an intelligence and analytical agency. The methods and results of work are painfully similar.

The first major scandal was the public appearance of Cambridge Analytics CEO Alexander Nix after Trump's victory. In several interviews, he said that Trump's victory was largely based on how his company processed user profiles and allowed them to be addressed correctly. He called it the "secret ingredient" of the presidential race, much to the displeasure of the Trump team, which denied using any data provided by Cambridge Analytics. Colleagues in the market ridiculed Alexander, saying that his story was more like fantasy than reality. I perceived this as part of a PR campaign for Cambridge Analytics to attract new customers, they wanted to make a lot of noise in the business press, present themselves as some kind of arbiter of fate. And as a result, they attracted unwanted attention. It doesn’t matter who intelligence officers/analysts work for (there are more of the latter in intelligence, although any intelligence officer is an analyst, but the opposite is not always true), it is important that they do not attract attention, this is a key condition for fruitful work. And Alexander Nix broke that unwritten rule. And then came the second act of the Cambridge Analytics tragedy.

Act 2 - the same and Cambridge Analytics under a magnifying glass

When the story of Cambridge Analytics began to be promoted in the United States, they wondered what exactly the company was doing for Trump and what data it had. In a short time, we found out that the company had data from social networks, which it somehow analyzed and made recommendations on “advertising”. Then everything calmed down, but not so long ago, in two publications at the same time (!) There are notes that, since 2014, Cambridge Analytics has been collecting data from Facebook users and, in general, they have collected them in the amount of 50 million accounts. Curiously, the notes appear in the New York Times and the London's Observer. It is possible that this is an accident and a coincidence, but it looks more like a planned preparation of public opinion.

So, the notes say that British researcher Alexander Kogan created an application in 2014 in which you could enter your Facebook login details. Approximately 270,000 people downloaded this application, and what followed was a matter of technology - the program collected all their records, as well as the records of their friends that were visible to them. Alexander Kogan passed all this data to Cambridge Analytics, and they believed that they were obtained legally (naivete that knows no bounds! This is the company's line of defense today).

In comments to the press, Cambridge Analytics claims that all data received from Kogan was deleted in 2015, Facebook demands to verify this claim, but does not have any tools for this. At the London office of the company, local investigators have already carried out some activities to find out what data is on its computers. That is, the state intervened in the situation, in the United States this story is also being untwisted.

The first thing that raises my doubts is that all the data is stored in one office and is not hosted in the cloud. It's cheaper, more logical, and the data itself isn't particularly valuable. Therefore, there are doubts that investigators will find anything other than Cambridge Analytics reports and business correspondence. And if the company really was a private research project, to which people from the intelligence service were even remotely related, then the organization is such that nothing will be found there.

But the issue is not finding clues, but that Facebook is so vulnerable to external attacks and access to user data. For example, no one can prevent the collection of data from public profiles in any social network, be it Facebook or some other. The openness of a social network is a necessary quality within which it exists. And the user already determines which data he opens for everyone, and which - only for friends. However, every social network uses its anonymized data in order to create social profiles and sell them to the side, this is a significant part of the companies' income. And the buyers are the same data brokers. And that suits everyone. In the case of Cambridge Analytics, Facebook's annoyance is understandable, the company fraudulently collected the data and did not pay Facebook a dime, all by the cash register. Facebook's actual interest in this is clear and understandable, they are protecting their business model.

But Cambridge Analytics, apparently, are becoming the same scapegoats as Hollywood artists, they have become a bargaining chip in the political struggle. The language of their CEO brought the situation to the point of seizing documents, studying the company's activities under a magnifying glass. Usually in such cases, the lit up company is quietly taken away from the radar, and instead they open a new one that does exactly the same thing. I am sure that the SCL Group will do just that, but a little later, when all the perpetrators will be publicly punished.

Scandal in the public field - consequences for Facebook

The stock market reacted very sharply to the situation with the “hacking” of Facebook, although it can be a stretch to consider what happened as a data leak, it was practically impossible to prevent what happened in Facebook (in theory they could, but no one thought about it). Look how the company's shares fell on the anticipation that the US will tighten the regulation of social networks.

And also the hysteria from ordinary and not very people began to gain momentum. For example, one of the co-owners of WhatsApp, who made billions of dollars selling the Facebook application, wrote that it was time to leave the social network, hashtag #deletefacebook.

The problem is that deleting your account does not mean that all your data will also be deleted, it just won't be visible. This means that Facebook will still have access to them and the ability to use them in the analysis, as well as sell them indirectly to data brokers. This is the risk of any social network, it is almost impossible to delete data from there, and there are still search engines with saved copies of pages, third-party resources.

Any scandal of this kind attracts the violent, the crowd is easily hysterical, but few dare to act. Remember how many people in the United States during Trump's presidential campaign promised to leave to live in Canada, as a result, we do not observe any migration wave, mundane things took over, rationality prevailed.

Facebook hysteria is fueled by the fact that many people sincerely believe that the data they posted on the social network still belongs to them. But this is not so, this is already information, the rights to which they gave to that same network. At your leisure, re-read the user agreements of most social networks, you will find a lot of interesting things.

It is likely that all the hype around Facebook will lead to the fact that governments will tighten laws on the storage of information, protect user data, and introduce the necessary minimum. There is nothing wrong with this, and this is to be welcomed. For example, supporters of such an approach in Russia received an additional trump card from the state. But their logic is often lame, for some reason, by default, it is believed that storage in Russia means no copies of data in other countries, no access to this data from the territory of other countries. Truth? What makes you think so? All major services store data in several places, and the appearance of local copies in Russia does not mean that some service somewhere near Washington will not contain a copy of it. The old logic no longer applies, but exactly the same can be said about social networks, which are quite young by the standards of human history. And we do not have a clear approach to them. Because social networks can and should be used to assess the state of society, both one's own and someone else's. You need to be able to separate useful data and information noise. But it is impossible to close the social network from the collection of information by third parties, this is contrary to the nature of these services.

And here the question arises, what damage was done to Facebook users, whose data was allegedly collected in Cambridge Analytics. The answer is obvious - none. Large corporations and states do not operate on the lives of individuals, the game is built on an attempt to influence society. And if society reacts, then the problem is in society, but not in such a tool as social networks, there is no need to confuse cause and effect.

Today, Facebook users who are hysterical under the influence of the media forget that they, as adults, are no less responsible for what they tell the world about themselves. And if they posted in their accounts information about where they hid the key to the house in which the money is, then this is a problem with their sanity. I'm exaggerating, but I think you get the point.

And now the important questions for discussion in the comments. How serious do you think the situation with Facebook is, and not far-fetched? Has there been a data leak? Has your relationship with Facebook and social media changed because of this story? And most importantly - what do you consider it possible to post on your social accounts, Hair Pro Shampoo Liss Extreme 1 L and what is taboo for you personally and you will never share it with others? Let's discuss these questions.

And now the important questions for discussion in the comments. How serious do you think the situation with Facebook is, and not far-fetched? Was there a data leak? Has your relationship with Facebook and social media changed because of this story? And most importantly - what do you consider it possible to post in your social accounts, Hair Pro Shampoo Liss Extreme 1 L Hair Pro Shampoo Liss Extreme 1L and what is taboo for you personally and you will never share it with others? Let's discuss these questions.