wildercb/PrivacyTextBooks1.2 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 118
Cambridge Analytica in major data breach.”39 The story showed how,
through third-party apps on Facebook, data analytics company Cambridge
Analytica extracted massive amounts of data from Facebook’s users.40
Cambridge Analytica worked for Donald Trump’s election team and the
Brexit campaign. Cambridge Analytica used the data that it plundered to
create psychological profiles of voters, whom it then targeted and attempted
to influence their voting in the 2016 Presidential election and the Brexit
referendum.41
A big debate arose over whether Cambridge Analytica’s access to the
data was a data breach. People didn’t even regularly use the term “data
breach” until the 2000s, so it’s relatively new and undefined, even though it
is legally significant.42 Nicholas Thompson, editor-in-chief of Wired said of
the incident:
“Breach” is a word in the tech community that means they cracked the protections, right? You
got over the moat and you got in through the door. . . . Facebook, a company of engineers, [is]
really proud that hasn’t happened at Facebook, so if you say data is breached, to Facebook it’s
like, “Oh my God, that’s the most offensive thing you can say.” To the rest of the world, it’s like,
“Of course this is a breach!” Right? “They got the data!”43
But Facebook Vice President Andrew Bosworth declared on Twitter: “This
was unequivocally not a data breach. People chose to share their data with
third-party apps and if those third-party apps did not follow the data
agreements with us/users it is a violation. No systems were infiltrated, no
passwords or information were stolen or hacked.”44 Then in a series of
later-deleted Tweets, Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos said,
“The recent Cambridge Analytica stories by the New York Times and The
Guardian are important and powerful, but it is incorrect to call this a
‘breach’ under any reasonable definition of the term. . . .We can condemn
this behavior while being accurate in our description of it.”45
Two years later, the updated top line in Facebook’s first press release in
response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal reads “The claim that this is a
data breach is completely false. [The app developer] 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.”46
Although Facebook was parsing the distinction between privacy and
security, one harm was identical to the harm of a data breach—billions of
pieces of personal data were compromised when they were improperly
exposed to third parties.47
Facebook’s privacy failures led to the practical equivalent of a security
incident. Specifically, the failure of Facebook to meaningfully consider
privacy in the design of its system and user interfaces left users vulnerable.
According to scholar Ian Bogost, when a person accesses Facebook’s
troublesome interface that was at issue in the Cambridge Analytica scandal,
“the user must accept [a third-party] app’s request to share data with it as
soon as they open it for the first time, even before knowing what the app
does or why.”48 Facebook, not the third party, presented the request for
users to consent to data practices, which made the request seem “official,
safe, and even endorsed.” But of course, it wasn’t. Facebook simply passed
data to the third party.49 The third-party apps only once asked users (during
their first use) for permission to collect and process peoples’ data (including
the data of their “friends”). After that, the data flowed unencrypted to the
app company for years.50 Apps were required to have privacy policies, but
Facebook didn’t review them. Instead, Facebook just checked to see if the
link to the privacy policy went to a valid webpage.51
In its complaint against Facebook, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) stated that Facebook’s controls to address privacy risks created by
third-party apps “did not include screening the third-party developers or
their apps before granting them access to user data.” Facebook
inconsistently enforced its own policies.52
The FTC ultimately slapped Facebook with an unprecedented $5 billion
fine.53 Two Commissioners dissented, arguing that even this whopping fine
wasn’t enough.54
The Cambridge Analytica scandal demonstrates that the relationship
between privacy and security is vitally important and increasingly frayed.
Malicious parties compromised and exfiltrated Facebook users’ data in a
way that was different than your standard “hack n’ breach,” but to nearly
the same effect. The key difference is that the third parties that filched
people’s data didn’t bypass Facebook’s technological safeguards. They used
Facebook for the exact purpose for which it was designed. In other words,
this was a breach that didn’t occur through a break-in at the back door but
through a walk-in at the front door. We can’t protect data by locking it in a
safe if we then give out the combination to anyone who asks for it.
Although the front door is essential for security, it is often isolated in the
privacy silo, where it doesn’t receive the extensive resources from the
security silo. For many organizations, too myopic a focus on the back door
results in insufficient protection for the front door.
Unnecessary Data Makes Data Breaches Worse
Data that doesn’t exist can’t be compromised. The central privacy principle
of data minimization—to collect only data necessary for the purpose at
hand and to avoid retaining unnecessary data—can play a key role at
minimizing the harmful effects of breaches. Many organizations collect far
too much data and keep it for far too long. They should be collecting less
from the outset (and designing tools incapable or discouraging of collecting
more), which will soften the impact if their databases ever get breached.
For example, companies invest billions in an insatiable desire to collect
as much information about you as possible so they can target you with ads
(for questionable efficiency gains).55 One such company you have probably
never heard of is BlueKai, an ad tech tracking startup bought by Oracle in
2014 for over $400 million. But BlueKai has heard of you. It has amassed
“one of the largest banks of web tracking data outside the federal
government.”56 And, for a time “that web tracking data was spilling out
onto the open Internet because a server was left unsecured and without a
password, exposing billions of records for anyone to find.”57
In another case, Ashley Madison was a popular adultery website created
by Noel Biderman, a former sports agent. The website had the slogan “Life
is short. Have an affair.” People could create a free profile, where they
would list their turn-ons, sexual preferences, and location, as well as
include their photo. Male users had to pay fees to send messages to female
members. Although Ashley Madison promised users that their information

Cambridge Analytica in major data breach.”39 The story showed how,

through third-party apps on Facebook, data analytics company Cambridge

Analytica extracted massive amounts of data from Facebook’s users.40

Cambridge Analytica worked for Donald Trump’s election team and the

Brexit campaign. Cambridge Analytica used the data that it plundered to

create psychological profiles of voters, whom it then targeted and attempted

to influence their voting in the 2016 Presidential election and the Brexit

referendum.41

A big debate arose over whether Cambridge Analytica’s access to the

data was a data breach. People didn’t even regularly use the term “data

breach” until the 2000s, so it’s relatively new and undefined, even though it

is legally significant.42 Nicholas Thompson, editor-in-chief of Wired said of

the incident:

“Breach” is a word in the tech community that means they cracked the protections, right? You

got over the moat and you got in through the door. . . . Facebook, a company of engineers, [is]

really proud that hasn’t happened at Facebook, so if you say data is breached, to Facebook it’s

like, “Oh my God, that’s the most offensive thing you can say.” To the rest of the world, it’s like,

“Of course this is a breach!” Right? “They got the data!”43

But Facebook Vice President Andrew Bosworth declared on Twitter: “This

was unequivocally not a data breach. People chose to share their data with

third-party apps and if those third-party apps did not follow the data

agreements with us/users it is a violation. No systems were infiltrated, no

passwords or information were stolen or hacked.”44 Then in a series of

later-deleted Tweets, Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos said,

“The recent Cambridge Analytica stories by the New York Times and The

Guardian are important and powerful, but it is incorrect to call this a

‘breach’ under any reasonable definition of the term. . . .We can condemn

this behavior while being accurate in our description of it.”45

Two years later, the updated top line in Facebook’s first press release in

response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal reads “The claim that this is a

data breach is completely false. [The app developer] 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.”46

Although Facebook was parsing the distinction between privacy and

security, one harm was identical to the harm of a data breach—billions of

pieces of personal data were compromised when they were improperly

exposed to third parties.47

Facebook’s privacy failures led to the practical equivalent of a security

incident. Specifically, the failure of Facebook to meaningfully consider

privacy in the design of its system and user interfaces left users vulnerable.

According to scholar Ian Bogost, when a person accesses Facebook’s

troublesome interface that was at issue in the Cambridge Analytica scandal,

“the user must accept [a third-party] app’s request to share data with it as

soon as they open it for the first time, even before knowing what the app

does or why.”48 Facebook, not the third party, presented the request for

users to consent to data practices, which made the request seem “official,

safe, and even endorsed.” But of course, it wasn’t. Facebook simply passed

data to the third party.49 The third-party apps only once asked users (during

their first use) for permission to collect and process peoples’ data (including

the data of their “friends”). After that, the data flowed unencrypted to the

app company for years.50 Apps were required to have privacy policies, but

Facebook didn’t review them. Instead, Facebook just checked to see if the

link to the privacy policy went to a valid webpage.51

In its complaint against Facebook, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission

(FTC) stated that Facebook’s controls to address privacy risks created by

third-party apps “did not include screening the third-party developers or

their apps before granting them access to user data.” Facebook

inconsistently enforced its own policies.52

The FTC ultimately slapped Facebook with an unprecedented $5 billion

fine.53 Two Commissioners dissented, arguing that even this whopping fine

wasn’t enough.54

The Cambridge Analytica scandal demonstrates that the relationship

between privacy and security is vitally important and increasingly frayed.

Malicious parties compromised and exfiltrated Facebook users’ data in a

way that was different than your standard “hack n’ breach,” but to nearly

the same effect. The key difference is that the third parties that filched

people’s data didn’t bypass Facebook’s technological safeguards. They used

Facebook for the exact purpose for which it was designed. In other words,

this was a breach that didn’t occur through a break-in at the back door but

through a walk-in at the front door. We can’t protect data by locking it in a

safe if we then give out the combination to anyone who asks for it.

Although the front door is essential for security, it is often isolated in the

privacy silo, where it doesn’t receive the extensive resources from the

security silo. For many organizations, too myopic a focus on the back door

results in insufficient protection for the front door.

Unnecessary Data Makes Data Breaches Worse

Data that doesn’t exist can’t be compromised. The central privacy principle

of data minimization—to collect only data necessary for the purpose at

hand and to avoid retaining unnecessary data—can play a key role at

minimizing the harmful effects of breaches. Many organizations collect far

too much data and keep it for far too long. They should be collecting less

from the outset (and designing tools incapable or discouraging of collecting

more), which will soften the impact if their databases ever get breached.

For example, companies invest billions in an insatiable desire to collect

as much information about you as possible so they can target you with ads

(for questionable efficiency gains).55 One such company you have probably

never heard of is BlueKai, an ad tech tracking startup bought by Oracle in

2014 for over $400 million. But BlueKai has heard of you. It has amassed

“one of the largest banks of web tracking data outside the federal

government.”56 And, for a time “that web tracking data was spilling out

onto the open Internet because a server was left unsecured and without a

password, exposing billions of records for anyone to find.”57

In another case, Ashley Madison was a popular adultery website created

by Noel Biderman, a former sports agent. The website had the slogan “Life

is short. Have an affair.” People could create a free profile, where they

would list their turn-ons, sexual preferences, and location, as well as

include their photo. Male users had to pay fees to send messages to female

members. Although Ashley Madison promised users that their information