The NYU project is probably on the level, but "they're probably on the level" isn't a very good security model at Facebook's scale.
More to the point, the FTC's 2019 Consent Decree [1] makes it fairly clear that FB is responsible for third parties' access to its users' data — and it would be prudent (from FB's point of view) to interpret this responsibility as also covering browser extensions.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/c4365facebo...
This is in stark contrast to CA. "They're probably on the level" because they have entire systems in place to keep them there.
Aleksandar Kogan was a lecturer at Cambridge who then built his own app based on Stilwell's and Kosinki's app and work. Aleksandar then turned around and sold his version to SCL - the parent of Cambridge Analytica. And the reason that Cambridge Analytica wanted his app was because it worked under the social network’s pre-2014 term of service which allowed app developers to harvest data not only from the people who installed the app as well those people's friends.
Stillwell also denied Kogan's request for access to to his and Kosinskis myPersonality dataset. So No the Cambridge Analytica data did not come from Cabridge University or the Psychometrics Center.
The NYU Ad Observatory's data is completely public and the intended audience of that data is journalists and researchers doing analysis of online political advertising. This is the polar opposite of clandestinely harvesting user data in order to manipulate people.
So no it's not "exactly" the same situation but rather the exact opposite.
"That data was acquired via “thisisyourdigitallife,” a third-party app created by a researcher at Cambridge University's Psychometrics Centre. Nearly 300,000 people downloaded it, thereby handing the researcher—and Cambridge Analytica—access to not just their own data, and their friends' as well."
https://www.wired.com/amp-stories/cambridge-analytica-explai...
re: "the exact opposite", you are putting a lot of weight on the intention behind this use. After the public response to CA you might appreciate why FB is going to strictly apply the rules.
But I generally agree that users running an extension in their own browser is a different situation than an app developer subject to the FB ToS and am not sure why FB would be allowed to block this.
Kogan's app was based on the myPersonality app which was developed by Kosinski and Dr David Stillwell who did work at the Psychometrics Lab and denied Kogan access to their dataset. Cambridge Analytica and Cambridge University are not the same thing at all. So there is no comparison to NYU and Cambridge Analytica or Cambridge University for that matter.
Saying I'm "putting a lot of weight on the intention behind this use" is kind of a bizarre statement considering the data is literally available to everybody. See:
https://adobserver.org/ad-database/
The Project also clearly states:
">If you want, you can enter basic demographic information about yourself in the tool to help improve our understanding of why advertisers targeted you. However, we’ll never ask for information that could identify you"
And to that end the code for the plugin that the Ad Observatory project is used also freely available:
https://github.com/OnlinePoliticalTransparency/social-media-...
How much more transparent can you get than that? The goal of the Ad Observatory project is literally to try to understand how we are being targeted and manipulated. How is this in anyway the same as the secret harvesting of data by a political consultancy that billed itself as providing "election management" services?
To the grandparent: A researcher selling IRB-protected data would be effectively ending their academic career and opening themselves up to a mountain of legal trouble from the university and anyone who participated in the trial.
WHAT they were doing with the data was not transparent. HOW they were doing the data collection was completely transparent.
The worst of both worlds. Which is to say—we're saying the same thing.
Univeristy research projects such as these go through extensive review. the univeristy is basically putting their name on the line for any research project that happens under their watch.
I'm not sure what you're advocating for. Is it that Facebook shouldn't be researched because they do not allow it? Not very sound reasoning to me.
It also happens at a different layer of abstraction. Cambridge Analytica extracted data through the permissions framework that Facebook itself implemented.
Facebook's interest in its users' data doesn't need further explanation after you see that most of their profits derive from their control over it. The same control that allowed the profitable mass political targeting that these researchers are trying to study.
There is no way for Facebook or anyone else to prove that the current or a future version of the NYU's extension won't scrape more data than people agreed to.
How so? The extension is open source, anyone can audit it.
I apologize for wasting peoples time, but I can't resist taking the low hanging fruit here.
Facebook is malware.
They don’t. They don’t, at the least, care about anyone’s data - they just phrase it that way to sound legitimate because saying “we want no oversight whatsoever” sounds whiny, and it is. (And so does what they ARE claiming to anyone who understands the technical side).
Or they could partner with NYU, offer technical insight to maintain integrity and privacy (me stifles laughter) and do everything to support researchers who potentially could help build trust in their platform.
Going after this group just isn't a good look if you're Facebook. If there are valid concerns then don't start with a Cease and Desist.
Some research just isn't worth the risk, but as an outsider, I'm not in a place to make that judgement. NYU could also insure against data breaches; in that case, we might get some good security audits.
So could any browser extension with the ol' "read and modify your data on \*" permission. Or any browser. Or any third-party Facebook client.
There is a difference between being technically capable of doing a thing and actually doing the thing- especially in cases where the software authors are well-known and relatively easy to hold accountable. To say otherwise is a little bit goofy!
Like a certain lecturer and senior researcher at University of Cambridge?
They are just doing it more economically then sending a person. This is entirely unlike CA, which effectively, sent a person to go through all participants available information as quickly as possible while they weren’t looking and store a copy of everything.
Rsearchers can get access to anyone's Facebook data if people enable it? What about the ones in chinese universities? Or just respected universities? Which universities is that? How do we decide?
You're missing the point. There needs to be a black and white line, and whatever Facebook allows they're always being demonised, nobody gives them the benefit of the doubt.
Yes. Where is the problem?
This collection can happen manually, within the users’ regular and fully authorized use, without facebooks involvement, and in fact without any ability for them to figure out that it happens.
That it happens through a browser extension (which they may or may not be technically able to detect) should not change legality or legitimacy.
So there is no way for NYU to not have access to friend data if they want access to ad data.
https://adobserver.org/privacy-policy/
And, unlike Facebook which sucks up an ever increasing amount of data on you, this project takes only basic demographic information (age group, gender, ethnicity) and what ads that you're shown. No personal data is retained by NYU.
This is entirely unlike an FB app like CA’s that had full unadulterated access to anything the user might browse.
If there is any evidence that CA/SCL/Kosinski said the data collection was affiliated with UofC, I cannot find it. And when Kosinski attempted to use the data in his research, the UofC IRB denied it.
In this case the data collection is by the NYU AdObservatory project, meaning the data collection and its use (should) have to go through the IRB.
This was _exactly_ the issue with CA, data for academics with an IRB laundered into a for-profit entity.
Cambridge Analytica and the researchers when they were working for it never claimed to be doing UofC research; if they did, UofC could and should have applied an academic (and possibly legal) baseball bat to their collective face. In fact, when Kosinski did try to use the data as part of his UofC related research, the UofC IRB denied it.
All these big data-harvesting companies (FB, Google, etc.) start with the false premise that well-informed users have affirmatively chosen to trust that company with their private data.
>...UK Information Commissioner’s Office has published the findings of its three-year investigation (predating the scandal) into the matter, which concluded there was no illegal electoral interference whatsoever...In other words, the data was commercially available and concerned US voters. The only ‘special sauce’ in CA’s model was the hyperbole of its sales people..." [1]
the left has pushed a false narratives and misinformation making Cambridge Analytica, like Russia, the convenient scapegoat for all the things. The same tricks are in play now with Hunter Biden's laptop coverage, which is non-existent from MSM
[1] https://telecoms.com/506834/uk-information-commissioner-conf...
“Meanwhile: the NYU app has access to friend data in your feed and friend data is also in the ads it scrapes. And it replaces an actual security model with our trust that NYU are nice people and won't abuse this access. That is exactly how Cambridge Analytica happened.”