Zuckerberg Accused Personally in Cambridge Analytica Next Shoe
Mark Zuckerberg has been added as a defendant to D.C.’s Cambridge Analytica privacy complaint—this time, it’s personal. The District’s Attorney General says Zuck has his fingerprints all over it.
If found guilty, it could be super expensive for the Facebook CEO. That’s because D.C. law would make him liable—if the case holds up in court.
Sweat, Zuckerdroid, sweat. In today’s SB Blogwatch, we visualize justice.
Your humble blogwatcher curated these bloggy bits for your entertainment. Not to mention: Bee Gees vs. No Doubt.
D.C. AG Vs. $FB & M.Z.
What’s the craic? Taylor Telford tells tall tales—“Mark Zuckerberg added to D.C. privacy lawsuit”:
Zuckerberg’s ‘brainchild’”
In 2018, Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) sued the social media giant on accusations of unfair and deceptive trade practices … alleging Facebook had misled users … about the security of their data. … After reviewing hundreds of thousands of pages of internal documents and interviewing former employees and others, it became evident that Zuckerberg “knowingly and actively” participated in each decision … and misrepresented how secure that data was, Racine said.
…
Zuckerberg was aware that Facebook’s success hinged on assuring users their data was protected, while selling access to that data without driving people away, Racine’s complaint states. … “Under these circumstances, Mr. Zuckerberg should be held liable for his involvement in the decisions that enabled the exposure of millions of users’ data.”
…
“Zuckerberg was personally aware of the risks that sharing consumer data with apps posed,” the complaint reads, “but actively disregarded those risks because sharing data was otherwise beneficial and lucrative to Facebook’s business.” … The decision to open Facebook to third parties was Zuckerberg’s “brainchild.”
…
A Facebook spokesman called the allegations “as meritless today as they were more than three years ago.”
What does it mean? Lauren Feiner’s gonna tell you what it means. It means, “DC attorney general wants to hold Mark Zuckerberg personally responsible”:
Zuckerberg’s idea”
If Zuckerberg and Facebook are found in violation of the law, they could be made to pay civil penalties, attorneys fees and restitution or damages to victims. D.C.’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act … makes individuals liable for company violations of the law if they knew about them at the time.
…
The Cambridge Analytica scandal made waves in March 2018 when The New York Times and The Guardian published articles revealing that data firm Cambridge Analytica harvested information from 50 million Facebook profiles. Facebook later said data on as many as 87 million people was improperly shared … because of the way the platform was designed. … The scandal raised concerns about how Cambridge Analytica may have used the information it collected to target U.S. users ahead of the 2016 election.
…
[D.C. AG] Racine charges that Facebook’s 2010 decision to open up its platform to third parties, which he claims was Zuckerberg’s idea, helped expose a collection of user data that developers could access through a “side door.” [And that] Zuckerberg was deeply involved in Facebook operations to the point of micromanaging low-level employees about how the platform should run.
Would his punishment be meaningful? Deal In One thinks not:
So what? Worst that will probably happen is he will get fined an amount that he can just find in his pockets.
Unless the punishment is a substantial part of his wealth, all the regular fines for him are like you or me donating 5 bucks to someone.
How serious is the alleged crime? Terrifyingly serious, thinks QuakerOatmeal:
If anyone hasn’t watched “The Great Hack” or “The Social Dilemma”, and is interested in all this, they should! Especially “The Great Hack” because it covers the whole Cambridge Analytica stuff.
It. Is. Terrifying.
Where’s a retired curmudgeonly journalist when you need one? He’s Walt Mossberg (shut up)—“Is Mark Zuckerberg a Man Without Principles?”:
The company is toxic”
A long time ago, I was very close to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. … They both were megalomaniacs … they could be very unpleasant, but they had some principles. … In my encounters with Mark Zuckerberg, I’ve never been able to discover any principles.
…
[In 2010, I asked him] about privacy. … But we couldn’t get him to … complete a coherent sentence.
…
The company is fundamentally unethical. … They don’t follow their own terms of service … they’re basically lying. … Every corporation wants to grow and have better financial results, but not over everything else. Even if it’s over 90% of everything else, there’s some line. [But] I just have never detected a moment when they gave up profits to do the right thing for people.
…
Mark was very young when he started [Facebook. … But] to the extent you can assume that he and Sheryl Sandberg … are responsible, would lead you to think he hasn’t evolved. … Sheryl was supposed to … kind of be the adult in the room. … I’m more surprised that she hasn’t quit … and has apparently been complicit in all this. … The company is toxic.
Good thing? Bad thing? lazyeye thinks it’s an excellent thing:
Excellent! It astonishes me how utterly normalized the abuse of privacy has become.
But Nargg demures:
I still don’t understand why people think “social” and “private” are the same. Facebook is a social web site, not a private one. Duh.
Meanwhile, this Anonymous Coward offers an unpleasant mental image:
Always liked George Carlin’s punishment for the scum of the Earth. You know, pedophiles, terrorists, holocaust deniers, Pharma Execs, social media CEO’s, etc.
Dip them in honey and lock them in a room naked with a wolverine high on angel dust.
And Finally:
I defy you not to put this on repeat
You have been reading SB Blogwatch by Richi Jennings. Richi curates the best bloggy bits, finest forums, and weirdest websites … so you don’t have to. Hate mail may be directed to @RiCHi or [email protected]. Ask your doctor before reading. Your mileage may vary. E&OE. 30.
Image sauce: DonkeyHotey (cc:by)
