
Check if your data was shared with Cambridge analytica FB check tool - askari01
https://www.facebook.com/help/1873665312923476?helpref=search&sr=1&query=cambridge
======
forkerenok
The cynic in me keeps wondering whether this is a genuine attempt at getting
some transparency points or FB wants to more precisely analyze how many people
actually care...

~~~
panarky
This only applies to the leak of 84 million profiles to Cambridge Analytica.

This leak was less than 4% of a much larger leak that's not getting much
attention.

Why doesn't Facebook alert users if their profile was leaked to "malicious
actors" who collected profiles of "most of its 2 billion users worldwide".

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2018/04/04...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
switch/wp/2018/04/04/facebook-said-the-personal-data-of-most-its-2-billion-
users-has-been-collected-and-shared-with-outsiders/)

~~~
aylmao
I think the reason this isn't being reported much on is because it wasn't a
leak. It sounds like it was just a scrape of data from the site.

Scraping websites to collect public information is nothing new. Malicious
actors do it all the time, as do non-malicious actors too. Google literally
does it.

EDIT: I'm all for facebook messed up and we need more guarantees but lets be
objective though. The CA issue is an issue, this 2 billion thing is just a
web-crawler.

~~~
panarky
No, this wasn't just garden variety web crawling.

Sites can control whether they get crawled or not.

Facebook, for example, stops Google from crawling Facebook profiles.

But Facebook allowed "malicious actors" to access to user profiles for "most
of its 2 billion users worldwide".

These 2 billion users didn't choose to expose their personal information to
"malicious actors", Facebook did it without their consent.

------
devilmoon
What about those of us that actually deleted Facebook after the scandal? How
are we supposed to check if our data was shared with CA if Facebook requires
you to be logged in to check?

~~~
hshehehjdjdjd
If Facebook purged your information, how could they verify your identity? They
don’t want to provide the ability to check if an arbitrary person was leaked,
because that has its own privacy issues. So in this context I wonder what you
expect them to do.

~~~
devilmoon
Facebook takes up to 90 days to purge my information from their systems (if
ever, I am quite sure a ghost account will always remain and it will be a
strong one as well since they've collected so much information on me
throughout the years). They have my email address, they could just email
everyone whose data was shared.

------
creo
Hey Facebook, how about you notify people, not other way around?

~~~
andrewguenther
Everyone who was impacted is getting a notification at the top of their feed.
Looks like it isn't showing up for everyone immediately though, I first heard
about it two days ago and I just saw it today.

~~~
primitur
They've got my email. They can send me an email notification.

Methinks they don't want to do that because lawyers.

~~~
HenryBemis
I won't downvote you, I will just say: duh! the objective is that you spend
more time on Facebook, NOT on your mailbox :)

~~~
notheguyouthink
Is "duh" really a meaningful statement here? We're discussing this because
Facebook is already in "trouble" for scummy tactics. Doesn't _" duh, of course
they want you to login"_ sort of accept one of those tactics?

Imo, yes - email should totally be possible, without logging in ideally, if
they wanted to truly save face. The fact that they aren't is, of course, a
clear indication that they aren't being honest, instead they're primarily
concerned with using this as a scummy tactic to get their hooks into your
brain again.

So.. no, not duh, imo. If we accept "duh", we start lowering our expectations,
in the same way that American politics has as of late. We lose our base
position, indicating when we should be outraged/etc.

------
kerng
Step 1) Login to Facebook.

Sorry, that's not how breach notification works. Facebook attempts to continue
making money off of their customers data being leaked.

------
tudorw
"you must log in first", er no, I deleted my account, I'd still like to know
what they shared, is that possible ?

~~~
nevi-me
I think there's no incentive to do that.

\- "I deleted my account 3 months ago, so how come my records still exist on
your servers"?

\- If a class-action or some other litigation takes place, proof that n+1
people's into was shared is worse than n people's info. If an account is
deleted, perhaps less risk.

\- If the only non-creepy way of verifying who I am is logging in, and I can't
log in anymore, any other option is bad PR for FB, and is subject to abuse.

~~~
tudorw
I have not checked, but it would seem likely I still have some rights to know
what they know about me, does anyone know their current legal obligation to
fulfil my right to be forgotten ?

------
gjm11
One thing I find interesting about this is the very cautious wording of the
message you get in the "good" case.

'As a result, it doesn't appear your Facebook information was shared with
Cambridge Analytica _by "This is Your Digital Life"_.'

They don't say your information wasn't shared with Cambridge Analytica. They
don't even say your information "doesn't appear" to have been shared with
Cambridge Analytica. They say it doesn't appear to have been shared _by this
particular route_.

Mere caution on general principles? Or do they know or suspect that there may
be other means by which Facebook users' data have been shared with Cambridge
Analytica?

------
verteu
Is there a tool to check if my social graph data was scraped by the Obama
campaign? Or is this only a scandal when it helps Republicans?

[1]
[https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975](https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975)
[2] [http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/379245-whats-genius-
fo...](http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/379245-whats-genius-for-obama-is-
scandal-when-it-comes-to-trump)

~~~
btown
There is a subtle difference in that the Obama campaign obtained consent from
the friend who volunteered their subgraph to use that data for political
purposes, whereas Cambridge Analytica’s academic sources obtained no such
consent from anyone. One could argue that the distinction is less meaningful
as Obama’s usage was not very well informed consent. But it’s a distinction
nonetheless. And beyond that, Facebook has no incentive to expand the scope of
their PR problem by advertising this lesser known fact.

As the tweet cites, Facebook was politically biased in a specific enforcement
action in the past. That does not itself indicate that there is any political
reasoning behind the decision not to release an Obama tool today.

------
aphextron
>”You must log in first.”

~~~
jsendros
I'm not sure how you expected to avoid this.

~~~
aphextron
Because I deleted my account immediately upon learning about the disclosures.
I assumed the notifications would come via email or SMS. They've never had
trouble doing that before now. For FB to turn this into yet another data
collection vector, as well as tricking people who may have “deactivated” their
accounts into logging back in and stopping the deactivation process, is just
the height of evil absurdity. This is beyond the pale even for them.

------
blablabla123
Check, probably not shared for me and my friends.

That's not surprising though as I'm from Germany. And of course it's "not
shared" for most Facebook users. However this is highly misleading as this is
just one example of data harvesting on Facebook.

------
stuaxo
I find it very hard to imagine that "This is your digital life" was the only
source CA used.

It's more logical that they would have had an ongoing effort to keep
collecting data.

------
Tycho
What’s funny about this whole thing is that nobody really cares that _their
own_ data may have been accessed by CA, they are just angry that _other_
people, meaning gullible Trump supporters, may have been affected.

~~~
aksss
It’s a ridiculous narrative (the trump thing). Any explanation for behavior of
a group that depends on patronizing assumptions rarely reflects a true
understanding of that group’s motivations. It’s not a reason to let up on
Facebook but it’s always been a stretch to think that in an election with
billions spent that Hillary lost because of this shit. Try a simpler
explanation: Hillary was a shit candidate who many distrust, and she worked
very hard to get that reputation.

~~~
vostok
> Try a simpler explanation: Hillary was a shit candidate who many distrust,
> and she worked very hard to get that reputation.

It seems to me that many people who are not Clinton worked very hard at
manufacturing this reputation.

------
itakedrugs
Is it possible to know if they target democrats?

