(in)Secure is a weekly column that dives into the rapidly escalating topic of cybersecurity.
Last year, Facebook collected over nine billion dollars in ad revenue over just a single quarter. That’s a lot of ads. As a trade-off for using a free service, people on Facebook put up with the proliferation of these ads in their newsfeeds. But what if the trade-off involved more than that? What if it involved your personal data being sold off without your consent?
Let’s be clear. This isn’t an actual data breach. It’s merely a policy
no one at Facebook
cared about.
Facebook’s latest scandal involves a data analysis firm called Cambridge Analytica, which was supplied with the personal data of 50 million Facebook profiles without the consent of those people, which just happened to be used in the election of a certain presidential candidate. On its own, the scandal is more than a little troubling, and it provides a startling look into how little the world’s biggest social media platform is concerned about personal data.
Let’s be clear. This doesn’t involve an actual data breach. It’s merely a policy no one at Facebook cared about.
Under the guise of academic research
Using personal data for the sake of academic research has been a weak point in Facebook’s privacy policy for years now — and it’s the first vulnerability the collaborators involved with the Cambridge Analytica scandal exploited.
Despite the name, Cambridge Analytica has no official connection to academia. It’s a research organization founded with the specific purpose of impacting the electoral process, and was run by former Trump aide Steve Bannon, as well as and hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer.
The facade of academic research was used as an entry point for an important figure in the crew — Aleksandr Kogan, a researcher who worked for both Cambridge University and (briefly at) St. Petersburg State University. According to a report by the New York Times, when doing work for Cambridge Analytica, Kogan told Facebook that he was collecting data for academic purposes rather than political.
The description for the app said, word for word, “This app is part of a research program in the Department of Psychology at the University of Cambridge.” Apparently, Facebook did nothing to verify that claim. To make things worse, Kogan stated he later changed the reason for his use for the data, and
Facebook has been giving the data of its users to academic researchers for years now — and not in secret.
Facebook has been giving the data of its users to academic researchers for years now — and not in secret.
These studies were all met with public outrage, but Facebook emphasized that they weren’t the result of data breaches or significant holes in the company’s research protocols. It saw them as only “minor oversights.”
There’s little reason to believe a platform that views massive misuse of data without consent as “minor oversights” cares about your privacy. And that’s not where it ends.
Under the guise of a personality quiz
The other area where Facebook’s data policies are weak lie in something we all know too well: personality quizzes. They’re prominent on Facebook, and Kogan used the vulnerable pinch point to collect the data that Cambridge Analytica purchased from him.
Through Global Science Research (GSR), a separate company he created, Kogan developed a Facebook plugin called thisisyourdigitallife. It paid a group of 270,000 people to download the app and take the quiz. That might not sound like much, but the app was then allowed to collect data from each of those people’s friends as well. The result was data for 50 million profiles, now in the hands of Cambridge Analytica. That’s a lot of data.
Never did Facebook inform its users that data was being used without their consent. That alone is already calling British law into question.
According to The Guardian, Facebook learned this trick was used to mine massive amounts of data in 2015, which was then used by the Ted Cruz presidential campaign. Facebook’s response was to send Cambridge Analytica an official letter, obtained by the Times, stating the following: “Because this data was obtained and used without permission, and because GSR was not authorized to share or sell it to you, it cannot be used legitimately in the future and must be deleted immediately.”
Never did Facebook inform its users of all
the data that was
being used without
their consent.
Over two years passed before Facebook would even follow up on its request. “If this data still exists, it would be a grave violation of
Cambridge Analytica wasn’t the only organization bending Facebook’s privacy policies. A previous employee of Facebook spoke to The Guardian, saying that “My concerns were that all of the data that left
That’s from Sandy Parakilas, who was the platform operations manager in 2011 and 2012. “Once the data left Facebook servers there was not any control, and there was no insight into what was going on.”
Who could be bothered to care?
As reported by the Times, research director Jonathan Albright at Columbia University summarized the problem well: “Unethical people will always do bad things when we make it easy for them and there are few — if any — lasting repercussions.”
Facebook will make sure it takes care of this specific problem, sure. After remaining silent for multiple days after the release,
He also vowed to take others steps, such as auditing suspicious apps or limiting the amount of data developers can access from applications. These policies will all help prevent a very similar scenario from unfolding, but cybersecurity is all about prevention. It requires a proactive approach to stopping holes in the system.
For a company that lives and dies on the trust people have in giving away personal information, you’d think it’d issues a little more seriously across the breadth of its platform. If it doesn’t make massive changes to the way things are done across all levels of privacy and security, #deleteFacebook could grow into far more than just a hashtag.
