Facebook’s ＂data gate＂ scandal triggered global resentment and anxiety about the social media empire.
Cctv newsThe scandal of Facebook users’ privacy leakage, like a controversial topical TV series, attracted the attention of the whole world. With the diversion of Facebook company and Zuckerberg’s strong celebrity effect, it seemed that the broadcast was suddenly stopped, leaving an unknown ending, which made a crowd of viewers just watch the excitement and didn’t even react.
Users may be furious about this incident, but after a stop-and-go, open their personal homepage again. Just pretend it never happened? Will the scandal open a door to privacy protection? Should we bravely push open this door, even if there is only endless unknown behind it, or a terrible monster?
Who moved your personal information?
The starting point of the incident began in 2013. Kogan, a scholar at Cambridge University, developed a Facebook-based application called "This is your digital life" to investigate the usage habits of respondents, and 270,000 people participated in the survey. According to the privacy policy of Facebook at that time, Kogan not only obtained the user information of 270,000 respondents, but also obtained the information of their friends, and then Kogan sold the data to Cambridge Analytica. In fact, Facebook has realized the existing problems and quietly revised their privacy terms in 2014. After the incident was exposed in 2015, Facebook asked both Kogan and Cambridge Analytica to delete these materials. In line with the principle of minimizing major issues and minimizing minor issues, when Facebook thought it could come to an end, some people broke the news that the data had not been deleted. Cambridge Analytica even cooperated with the campaign team of US President Trump, and the data was used during the 2016 US presidential election, which may have affected the fairness of the election.
Who is most responsible for privacy leaks?
Kogan’s collection, use and even sale of data did not violate Facebook’s user privacy policy at that time. Whether Cambridge Analytica will use the data for illegal activities after purchasing it is still inconclusive. At present, it is determined that what they violated may be just a mutual trust with Facebook, and they did not delete the data as required. Whether Facebook’s privacy agreement is set reasonably and whether it is the responsibility to inform users when the event first exposed in 2015 can only be an after-the-fact discussion. Because it is users and consumers, we have given them the right to use these data, even if we don’t know it, even if we don’t understand the privacy clause at all. This is an unexplored field, and there are not many legal constraints. People who are ahead can even make rules. As users, they enjoy the convenience brought by Facebook to link the world, and they can only get free services by selling personal information. It seems that we have to accept it. Are we wrong? The fault lies in the bottomless trust in big companies? Can we only condemn it morally? (CCTV reporter Wang Meng)