politicalloss

If you authorized an app to access the data shared with you, then you authorized release of your friends' information because that's what data you agreed to share with the app.

Indeed, where is a screenshot of the 'Authorize App' consent dialogue that users were presented with.

- A agrees to sharing info with B by accepting a friend request. Explicitly per the terms of service, and implicitly because technically anyone can take a screenshot or a photo or a video and share whatever's shared with them (even in DRM'd systems with limited key distribution).

- B authorizes C to retrieve the data available to B.

- C then reshares, sells, distributes, or otherwise transmits information to D.

F enabled A to share data with B, given explicit user consent. F enabled B to share data with C, given explicit user consent.

If you don't want people to know things, don't put that information on the internet; and don't authorize friends to share information you haven't volunteered.

> Cambridge Analytica asked user A for permission. Facebook allowed CA to gather information about B (A's friend), and B NEVER provided consent. B now is wondering who to sue: Facebook or CA.

B consented to sharing their information with A (by accepting a friend request or making specific data items public-readable), who granted Facebook the right to share that information with (edit) not CA, Dr. Kogan.

> The end users granted Dr. Kogan permission with every opportunity to learn about Dr. Kogan.

> Edit: Correction that users had a chance to learn about Dr. Kogan, not CA.

The end users granted Facebook the right to share the friend data that their friends had granted them access to.

Is there a screenshot of the 'Authorize App' screen at the time? Indeed, what did the fine print say?

I can draw a chord chart of my friend graph using only user IDs and names.

You can analyze my personality with what data that I explicitly grant access to?

Did the losses and liabilities result from the actions of the plaintiff? Do we need multiple non-joined cases?

BTW, the SOLID project believes that data portability is a privacy advantage of their competing, open source federated system.

If you don't want people to know something, don't put it on the internet; regardless of TOS.

We shouldn't expect or rely upon information asymmetry holding over time.

Facebook certainly required users (who are not paying customers) to sign data sharing agreements.

Facebook did not commit the crimes of Cambridge Analytica (Steve Bannon, Trump's campaign guy; Ted Cruz). Facebook was fined $5b. Cambridge Analytica went bankrupt and Nix is barred from serving on the board of any UK company for 7 years.

Facebook's expenses related to Russian misinformation campaigns, Facebook's expenses related to the administration's denial of ongoing foreign information operations paid for by advertisers who don't want a spot next to sleaze.