“Approximately 270,000 people downloaded the app. In so doing, they gave their consent for Kogan to access information such as the city they set on their profile, or content they had liked, as well as more limited information about friends who had their privacy settings set to allow it,” the statement reads.
The kicker’s in the last bit of that. Unless users had their Facebook privacy settings locked down the app slurped not only the 270,000 consenting users but all their friends as well - over 50 million people according to Christopher Wylie, a former researcher director at CA, who had a copy of the data set.
Facebook is peeved that the data was collected under an academic license and then sold commercially.
If they had a commercial license, nothing would have been said about this.
270k people unwitting gave access to their data, which allowed the data of 50 million other people to be stolen.
How do you not get the words you are typing?
See that's where you are wrong.
https://www.ft.com/content/6591e21a-2ce1-11e8-a34a-7e7563b0b0f4 Mr Kogan said on Wednesday that his interest in the data gathered from around 270,000 Facebook users paid to complete a survey, and their friends, was to better understand people’s personalities — a key area of his academic research. But by transferring the data to Cambridge Analytica for commercial use, Facebook said he breached their terms of service.
People were paid to sign up. You don't just give your facebook details away to an app - you have to authorise it and it shows you what you are giving access to. Most people just ignore that and click Ok. There is a difference between not reading/understand and stolen.
“Approximately 270,000 people downloaded the app. In so doing, they gave their consent for Kogan to access information such as the city they set on their profile, or content they had liked, as well as more limited information about friends who had their privacy settings set to allow it,” the statement reads.
The kicker’s in the last bit of that. Unless users had their Facebook privacy settings locked down the app slurped not only the 270,000 consenting users but all their friends as well - over 50 million people according to Christopher Wylie, a former researcher director at CA, who had a copy of the data set.
Facebook is peeved that the data was collected under an academic license and then sold commercially.
If they had a commercial license, nothing would have been said about this.
I use Apple News.app all the time. You can curate the topics you want to see. I wouldn’t mind micropayment options on a per article basis.
But I suspect most folks wouldn't. Other techs from PayPal to startup Flattr to Google have tried (and Google still is) to encourage micropayments pretty much along those lines and for a few years now, but with very limited success. People don't want to open up a wallet, and publishers and their employees won't work for free. We're at a standoff.
If I could use my pre-loaded iTunes account, I'd definitely buy an article now and then. I'd rather that than yet another monthly subscription hitting a credit card. People make in-app purchases in games for as little as a dollar all the time. Articles could be priced anywhere from a quarter up to whatever the owner thinks would sell.
I think the bigger picture isn't News, but privacy in general.
Apple has continually promoted their stance on privacy and protection of user data. We haven't really had any major breaches at Google or Facebook that caused a large amount of personal data to be leaked, so people currently don't seem to care how much they know about you. All it takes is one major incident to get people thinking, and this Facebook issue could be a tipping point in general awareness about what companies know about you. Enough that people might start getting fed up with data mining your personal habits/tastes. Consumer backlash (and maybe even legislation) could have serious consequences for Facebook and Google, and virtually none for Apple. It would probably have the opposite effect on Apple, improving their reputation in the eyes of consumers.
This is a big "what if", but what if Apple started a Facebook type service with their normal privacy stance in place? And open it up to anyone (just create an AppleID account).
Then we could gauge if people are really motivated by privacy. I realize that Facebook is "sticky" if you've been there for years, so the concern for privacy needs to hit a tipping point. Have we reached that tipping point yet?
As for you personally I suspect some Apple ad contributed to your interest unless you simply knee-jerk purchase anything with the Apple logo on it.
If Google’s ads are effective, why can’t it see its own Nexus/Pixel products despite incessant advertising for them all over its sites for years?
Huh? Do you think even every Apple user buys every Apple thing they see in an ad. If you don't want something you don't want something, even tho the very best ads might make you believe you do. Apple believes ads are effective since they use Google too among other providers, and I suspect they know more about the effectiveness of them than you wouldn't you agree? Little different than armchair execs coming in to say what Apple should do, or how they'd run things.
So Google just doesn't have anyone looking at their ads?
Or Google isn't good at advertising?
Or is nobody interested in Google's brand, or their pitch for what makes a good TV player, headset, tablet, watch, phone?
Keep spinning those wheels and come up with an explanation!
What's your "armchair exec" understanding for why Google has totally failed at hardware after spending massive billions to acquire hardware talent and spending years promoting its annual brands? Was that all to help Samsung and Chinese companies understand how to build something that Google could put its Maps and Assistant on?
I wonder when the day will come that the people PAYING for the advertisements realise it's not working? Do ads really work on anyone, I may be in a minority but other than rarely making me aware of something new I didn't know about, adverts (TV, radio, internet, magazine etc.) have never directly resulted in me making a purchase, big nor small.
Apparently they work since nearly every retailer, product maker, car dealer, technology company (yup Apple), restaurant, movie and TV producer and service provider uses them. Ads have proven their value over centuries.
As for you personally I suspect some Apple ad contributed to your interest unless you simply knee-jerk purchase anything with the Apple logo on it.
Nice dig there, google dude.
Nah. Most of the techies here on AI don't rely on Apple ads to make up our minds on buying Apple gear. I'd wager most techies do a bunch of researching/reading about the gear and use that for their decision making, not the 15-second spots on TV which are designed for the mass market "normals".
As for you personally I suspect some Apple ad contributed to your interest unless you simply knee-jerk purchase anything with the Apple logo on it.
If Google’s ads are effective, why can’t it see its own Nexus/Pixel products despite incessant advertising for them all over its sites for years?
Huh? Do you think even every Apple user buys every Apple thing they see in an ad. If you don't want something you don't want something, even tho the very best ads might make you believe you do. Apple believes ads are effective since they use Google too among other providers, and I suspect they know more about the effectiveness of them than you wouldn't you agree? Little different than armchair execs coming in to say what Apple should do, or how they'd run things.
So Google just doesn't have anyone looking at their ads?
Or Google isn't good at advertising?
Or is nobody interested in Google's brand, or their pitch for what makes a good TV player, headset, tablet, watch, phone?
Keep spinning those wheels and come up with an explanation!
What's your "armchair exec" understanding for why Google has totally failed at hardware after spending massive billions to acquire hardware talent and spending years promoting its annual brands? Was that all to help Samsung and Chinese companies understand how to build something that Google could put its Maps and Assistant on?
I don't pretend to be qualified as an exec at a major tech company.
For reasons know to Apple they believe Google Ads are a wise investment. For reasons known to Bank of America, and Ford, and Johnson&Johnson they think so too and so do other major companies from Target to Walmart to State Farm. For reasons known to millions of other companies from Global 500's to local sole proprietorships it's a wise investment too. No disrespect meant by this, but that Daniel Eran Dilger doesn't see any sense in Apple's choice doesn't mean there isn't one. A products' market success or lack thereof is not dependent solely on the quality of the ads promoting it even if for reasons know to you it seems sensical to frame it that way.
“Approximately 270,000 people downloaded the app. In so doing, they gave their consent for Kogan to access information such as the city they set on their profile, or content they had liked, as well as more limited information about friends who had their privacy settings set to allow it,” the statement reads.
The kicker’s in the last bit of that. Unless users had their Facebook privacy settings locked down the app slurped not only the 270,000 consenting users but all their friends as well - over 50 million people according to Christopher Wylie, a former researcher director at CA, who had a copy of the data set.
Facebook is peeved that the data was collected under an academic license and then sold commercially.
If they had a commercial license, nothing would have been said about this.
270k people unwitting gave access to their data, which allowed the data of 50 million other people to be stolen.
How do you not get the words you are typing?
Stolen? When a person uses Facebook voluntarily, they are giving up a tremendous amount of personal/ private information. The best way to prevent the unwanted resale or reuse of personal information is to never give it out.
I wish Apple News had better customize settings, for example don't want to see articles from "People" magazine, maybe I have overlooked something in the settings....
I wonder when the day will come that the people PAYING for the advertisements realise it's not working? Do ads really work on anyone, I may be in a minority but other than rarely making me aware of something new I didn't know about, adverts (TV, radio, internet, magazine etc.) have never directly resulted in me making a purchase, big nor small.
Apparently they work since nearly every retailer, product maker, car dealer, technology company (yup Apple), restaurant, movie and TV producer and service provider uses them. Ads have proven their value over centuries.
As for you personally I suspect some Apple ad contributed to your interest unless you simply knee-jerk purchase anything with the Apple logo on it.
Nice dig there, google dude.
Nah. Most of the techies here on AI don't rely on Apple ads to make up our minds on buying Apple gear. I'd wager most techies do a bunch of researching/reading about the gear and use that for their decision making, not the 15-second spots on TV which are designed for the mass market "normals".
I agree most long time techie fans on an Apple fan site wouldn't. But the OP already graciously and politely answered me so your interpretation of his thought process isn't particularly insightful.
Anyone who uses Facebook for their news source deserves to remain confused and ignorant. Half the crap posted is false and misleading. Anytime my wife says "look what so-and-so posted on Facebook" I immediately ask if she has verified it with Snopes. You can't control the links Facebook users post to the site, but legitimate news sources should avoid any direct relationship with Facebook like the plague. Despite the best intentions the truth is going to get completely lost in that cesspool of society. Unfortunately Facebook hits generate revenue and it is all about the almighty dollar in the end.
Apple news isn't any more reliable than the underlying news sources they push. A lot of it is just opinion pieces masquerading as news. The curated sources are biased as the editors will purposely push articles that reflect their own beliefs. I tend to use MSN as my aggregator but I know it has a liberal bias and I have to adjust my interpretations accordingly. If Apple can curate news in an unbiased way then that is fine, but given Tim Cook's use of his official position as Apple CEO to push liberal agenda items I don't particularly trust them all that much.
The only way to get a balanced view of the news is to read a variety of different sources and piece together enough information to make your own informed decisions. Realize that sources like Fox News and MSNBC are highly biased and anything they say needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Reuters and Associated Press tend to be the most unbiased IMHO.
I use Apple News.app all the time. You can curate the topics you want to see. I wouldn’t mind micropayment options on a per article basis.
But I suspect most folks wouldn't. Other techs from PayPal to startup Flattr to Google have tried (and Google still is) to encourage micropayments pretty much along those lines and for a few years now, but with very limited success. People don't want to open up a wallet, and publishers and their employees won't work for free. We're at a standoff.
I think the problem with Micro payments have been they haven't been so MICRO!!! When I think MICRO payments, I think things like 20 cents, 10 cents, 25 cents, 5 cents. That type of thing. When it's 99 cents, $1.99, on up, that's not a MIRCO payment. Now on the other hand I could read a topic I was interested in for 10 cents or so, and it was a quick Apple Pay Cash right then to continue, then you would have something.
Put it this way, charge less, more people click and pay. You get your money in volume not a high price. Think early on with buying Movies. Not many were willing to pay $80 or more for a VHS Movie. At $15-$20 or so, sales shot through the roof.
I don't want to subscribe to a Magazine or Newspaper to read just a few things at $10 each. If there's something I'm interested in, I'm willing to pay a little to read it. If it's $10 for everything a month. How the hell can you justify 1 article for $1.99? I don't think so. Then they say that's MICRO,...what?
That's one of the reasons I don't buy Digital Movies because in general they're cheaper on a DISC. Besides not being locked down with DRM on a single platform that could disappear. I'll buy the disc and rip it myself and throw it on my NAS.
There's so much FREE content, isn't it better to get a little something than nothing at all?
I don’t believe all the news around Cambridge Analytica and Facebook will result in a measurable amount of people leaving Facebook permanently. I wouldn’t be surprised if most people aren’t even aware of the issues, more than on a cursory level.
Maybe this will work out well for Apple News and publishers, but I don’t think this particular issue will change much.
When the UK and EU government is finished with them, it will have an impact. They'll be in the news for awhile.
Also, social media die slowly, if people feel less trustful , they'll use it less and it will slowly wither people will replace it with something just as bad for sure though.
If you like watching lots and lots of news then I guess you might want someone to curate it for you. But if you only browse the news occassionally looking for any big things coming up that might effect you, then you kind of want to do your own research.
Something that's curated would have a better integration with the ecosystem than relying on machine learning and automated process to so the work.
Apple controls the meta data and can insure the data is consistent, this provides a more uniform more consistent experience which is a staple of the IOS experience.
If you like watching lots and lots of news then I guess you might want someone to curate it for you. But if you only browse the news occassionally looking for any big things coming up that might effect you, then you kind of want to do your own research.
Something that's curated would have a better integration with the ecosystem than relying on machine learning and automated process to so the work.
Apple controls the meta data and can insure the data is consistent, this provides a more uniform more consistent experience which is a staple of the IOS experience.
Wouldn't that rely on machine learning? Surely Apple wouldn't be having real people track your interests and then decide what other content you might be interested in seeing. I can't imagine it wouldn't be automated.
Political aspects of this discussion end now. We didn't make it political, and neither will you. I don't give a crap who used the data, and that's not the point of this article, at all.
If you can't see your comment, re-read the commenting guidelines. If you've got an issue, take it up with me in a direct message. If you complain about it in this thread, you're done.
Still can't get Apple News here in New Zealand. We can get crap apps from Stuff, NZ Herald, OneNews, Newshub etc but they are tedious. Hell, Stuff has the same article listed over 6 times in the feed sometimes.
I would love Apple News to curate these sources but I can't.
Yes I know I can change my regional settings to Australia and it will show up but I don't live in Australia I live in New Zealand and so doing so will give me access to the app but not the relevant content so it's a waste of time to do that.
I wonder when the day will come that the people PAYING for the advertisements realise it's not working? Do ads really work on anyone, I may be in a minority but other than rarely making me aware of something new I didn't know about, adverts (TV, radio, internet, magazine etc.) have never directly resulted in me making a purchase, big nor small.
IMO ads work but they need a new model. Why are commercials still 30 seconds? Because "that's how it's always been"? How stupid is that? They should be doing much shorter commercial breaks wtih shorter commercials.
Are you going to reach over and skip 3 commercials that are 5 seconds each? i won't. But I will skip 5 commercials that are 20 seconds each.
I use Apple News.app all the time. You can curate the topics you want to see. I wouldn’t mind micropayment options on a per article basis.
But I suspect most folks wouldn't. Other techs from PayPal to startup Flattr to Google have tried (and Google still is) to encourage micropayments pretty much along those lines and for a few years now, but with very limited success. People don't want to open up a wallet, and publishers and their employees won't work for free. We're at a standoff.
I think the problem with Micro payments have been they haven't been so MICRO!!! When I think MICRO payments, I think things like 20 cents, 10 cents, 25 cents, 5 cents. That type of thing. When it's 99 cents, $1.99, on up, that's not a MIRCO payment. Now on the other hand I could read a topic I was interested in for 10 cents or so, and it was a quick Apple Pay Cash right then to continue, then you would have something.
Put it this way, charge less, more people click and pay. You get your money in volume not a high price. Think early on with buying Movies. Not many were willing to pay $80 or more for a VHS Movie. At $15-$20 or so, sales shot through the roof.
I don't want to subscribe to a Magazine or Newspaper to read just a few things at $10 each. If there's something I'm interested in, I'm willing to pay a little to read it. If it's $10 for everything a month. How the hell can you justify 1 article for $1.99? I don't think so. Then they say that's MICRO,...what?
That's one of the reasons I don't buy Digital Movies because in general they're cheaper on a DISC. Besides not being locked down with DRM on a single platform that could disappear. I'll buy the disc and rip it myself and throw it on my NAS.
There's so much FREE content, isn't it better to get a little something than nothing at all?
I’m ok with a $1, but yes, there should 50¢, 25¢ options. The biggest issue with micro payments to me is availability and ease of use. Apple already has the whole payment infrastructure. They can just put a button on the page, push the button, biometric authentication to approve, and it’s done.
I’d paying after reading, so it’s like donationware or sponsorship to me. If there is a paywall to read, I can’t see how that can be successful as there is too much free media it is competing with.
Comments
https://www.ft.com/content/6591e21a-2ce1-11e8-a34a-7e7563b0b0f4
Mr Kogan said on Wednesday that his interest in the data gathered from around 270,000 Facebook users paid to complete a survey, and their friends, was to better understand people’s personalities — a key area of his academic research. But by transferring the data to Cambridge Analytica for commercial use, Facebook said he breached their terms of service.
People were paid to sign up. You don't just give your facebook details away to an app - you have to authorise it and it shows you what you are giving access to. Most people just ignore that and click Ok. There is a difference between not reading/understand and stolen.
People make in-app purchases in games for as little as a dollar all the time. Articles could be priced anywhere from a quarter up to whatever the owner thinks would sell.
Then we could gauge if people are really motivated by privacy. I realize that Facebook is "sticky" if you've been there for years, so the concern for privacy needs to hit a tipping point. Have we reached that tipping point yet?
Or Google isn't good at advertising?
Or is nobody interested in Google's brand, or their pitch for what makes a good TV player, headset, tablet, watch, phone?
Keep spinning those wheels and come up with an explanation!
What's your "armchair exec" understanding for why Google has totally failed at hardware after spending massive billions to acquire hardware talent and spending years promoting its annual brands? Was that all to help Samsung and Chinese companies understand how to build something that Google could put its Maps and Assistant on?
Nah. Most of the techies here on AI don't rely on Apple ads to make up our minds on buying Apple gear. I'd wager most techies do a bunch of researching/reading about the gear and use that for their decision making, not the 15-second spots on TV which are designed for the mass market "normals".
For reasons know to Apple they believe Google Ads are a wise investment. For reasons known to Bank of America, and Ford, and Johnson&Johnson they think so too and so do other major companies from Target to Walmart to State Farm. For reasons known to millions of other companies from Global 500's to local sole proprietorships it's a wise investment too. No disrespect meant by this, but that Daniel Eran Dilger doesn't see any sense in Apple's choice doesn't mean there isn't one. A products' market success or lack thereof is not dependent solely on the quality of the ads promoting it even if for reasons know to you it seems sensical to frame it that way.
Apple news isn't any more reliable than the underlying news sources they push. A lot of it is just opinion pieces masquerading as news. The curated sources are biased as the editors will purposely push articles that reflect their own beliefs. I tend to use MSN as my aggregator but I know it has a liberal bias and I have to adjust my interpretations accordingly. If Apple can curate news in an unbiased way then that is fine, but given Tim Cook's use of his official position as Apple CEO to push liberal agenda items I don't particularly trust them all that much.
The only way to get a balanced view of the news is to read a variety of different sources and piece together enough information to make your own informed decisions. Realize that sources like Fox News and MSNBC are highly biased and anything they say needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Reuters and Associated Press tend to be the most unbiased IMHO.
I think the problem with Micro payments have been they haven't been so MICRO!!! When I think MICRO payments, I think things like 20 cents, 10 cents, 25 cents, 5 cents. That type of thing. When it's 99 cents, $1.99, on up, that's not a MIRCO payment. Now on the other hand I could read a topic I was interested in for 10 cents or so, and it was a quick Apple Pay Cash right then to continue, then you would have something.
Put it this way, charge less, more people click and pay. You get your money in volume not a high price. Think early on with buying Movies. Not many were willing to pay $80 or more for a VHS Movie. At $15-$20 or so, sales shot through the roof.
I don't want to subscribe to a Magazine or Newspaper to read just a few things at $10 each. If there's something I'm interested in, I'm willing to pay a little to read it. If it's $10 for everything a month. How the hell can you justify 1 article for $1.99? I don't think so. Then they say that's MICRO,...what?
That's one of the reasons I don't buy Digital Movies because in general they're cheaper on a DISC. Besides not being locked down with DRM on a single platform that could disappear. I'll buy the disc and rip it myself and throw it on my NAS.
There's so much FREE content, isn't it better to get a little something than nothing at all?
If you can't see your comment, re-read the commenting guidelines. If you've got an issue, take it up with me in a direct message. If you complain about it in this thread, you're done.
I would love Apple News to curate these sources but I can't.
Yes I know I can change my regional settings to Australia and it will show up but I don't live in Australia I live in New Zealand and so doing so will give me access to the app but not the relevant content so it's a waste of time to do that.
Are you going to reach over and skip 3 commercials that are 5 seconds each? i won't. But I will skip 5 commercials that are 20 seconds each.
I’m ok with a $1, but yes, there should 50¢, 25¢ options. The biggest issue with micro payments to me is availability and ease of use. Apple already has the whole payment infrastructure. They can just put a button on the page, push the button, biometric authentication to approve, and it’s done.
I’d paying after reading, so it’s like donationware or sponsorship to me. If there is a paywall to read, I can’t see how that can be successful as there is too much free media it is competing with.