Category: National

Facebook announced last week that the personal data of up to 87 million of its users may have been compromised and given to a political consulting firm called Cambridge Analytica, according to The New York Times. In addition, The Atlantic reported that “most” Facebook users have likely had their public profile information harvested by third parties.

In the wake of this news, Facebook has been the subject of public ire. Recent privacy concerns follow on the heels of other issues: last year Facebook admitted that its platform was used improperly “by Russians to buy political ads, advertisers to discriminate by race and age, hate groups to spread vile epithets, and hucksters to promote fake news on its platform,” according to The Atlantic.

Profile scraping was enabled by a design vulnerability which Facebook said until last week allowed third parties to submit “phone numbers or email addresses they already have” using the site’s search and account recovery function. While these searches were rate-limited, Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said that “malicious actors…cycled through hundreds of thousands of IP addresses and did a relatively small number of queries for each one.”

Cambridge Analytica obtained data from Facebook users through a different method, The New York Times reported.  The data firm contracted a researcher to create a personality quiz, and when some 270,000 users took the quiz, their personal data as well as data from all their Facebook friends was collected and stored. Facebook later stopped quizzes and apps from gathering data from users’ friends without their knowledge or consent.

The data involved in the Cambridge Analytica scandal was used to target political ads, according to The New York Times. The firm has connections to President Trump’s 2016 digital campaign: Cambridge Analytica is primarily owned by Robert Mercer, a right-wing donor who supported the Trump campaign. Facebook’s problems, however, began even before reports of voter profiling by Cambridge Analytica. Law enforcement and congressional committees are conducting ongoing investigations into Facebook’s role in swaying the opinions of American voters. According to The New York Times, Russian actors bought and targeted divisive political ads on Facebook. Zuckerberg initially dismissed this idea as “crazy,” but Facebook now acknowledges that its platform was misused to target voters based on their personal information.

Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg said of the Cambridge Analytica incident, “We really believed in social experiences. We really believed in protecting privacy. But we were way too idealistic. We did not think enough about the abuse cases.” Before coming to Facebook, Sandberg worked as a VP of Google. In an article for The Atlantic, Michael Jones explained the differences between the policies of Google and Facebook. He wrote that Google pays attention to what users search for in order to customize ads, but emphasized that “the user’s behavior and interest is held in secret by Google and the advertiser never has a hint of it.”

In contrast, Jones said, Facebook has created a place where they can “record what you tell your kids and spouse and friends, and use that to understand you and by extension, something about your friends.” Then, in an arrangement that has made the company wealthy, Facebook “sells access to this description to advertisers.” Jones noted that Facebook’s interactions with advertising companies is analogous to the system used by credit scoring companies because “their customers also get the report on the specific user rather than an anonymous introduction to certain users.” Unlike credit scoring companies, print ads, and television ads, however, online ads are very loosely regulated.

Recent discussion has focused on how to protect online privacy in the future. Some have suggested imposing fines for data breaches: Daniel J. Weitzner, a former White House deputy chief technology officer, says that technology should be policed by “something similar to the Department of Justice’s environmental-crimes unit,” which has levied hundreds of millions of dollars in fines.

Stricter policing of online political advertising is also in the works. Facebook recently backed proposed legislation that would require social media sites to verify the identities of people who buy ads related to political campaigns and divisive issues. However, Ann Ravel, a former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, said that more could be done. She suggested that the FEC’s definition of political ads is too narrow, since it is limited to ads that mention a federal candidate and appear within 60 days prior to a general election or 30 days prior to a primary. This definition, Ravel said, will fail to arrest new forms of election interference, such as ads placed months before an election.

Many hope that further steps will be taken to hold Facebook accountable for activity that occurs on its platform. In the meantime, check your privacy settings and hope for the best.

Sarah is a senior double majoring in English and Biology.

As tensions rose in Washington over President Obama’s liberal immigration policies, hundreds of protesters surrounded the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to show their support for progressive action. The president’s plan is to protect over four million undocumented immigrants from threat of deportation, as well as granting them rights to work legally and have access to programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

The Supreme Court remained highly divided on the issue as questions regarding presidential power and immigration policy have both dominated this year’s election. The question is whether or not Obama has the authority to defer deportations of millions of people without congressional approval. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr, the top appellate lawyer defended the President’s authority to take such action, but was soon challenged by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Twenty-six states have challenged the action on the basis of executive overreach. Justice Anthony Kennedy was quoted as saying “It’s as if the president is setting the policy and the congress is executing it… That’s just upside down.”

Other more liberal justices stepped in to defend the policy. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that since there are 11.3 million undocumented aliens in the country and Congress has provided funds for removing only about 4 million, certain priorities must be set. Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed noting the lack of resources that would be essential if the US were to deport every undocumented alien. “They are here whether we want them or not,” she said.

Texas has been leading the charge of twenty-six states challenging the White House, and questioning executive power. Back in February of 2015 the case was backed by a federal judge, and the policies were blocked from taking effect. Many Republican governors and attorney generals believe the unilateral actions were unconstitutional and violated a federal law that sets parameters for how agencies can establish regulations. Scott A. Keller, Texas’ solicitor general and the lead lawyer on the case, said Mr. Obama’s plan was unprecedented and unlawful.

The case, United States v. Texas, No. 15-674, was heard by an eight-person court making a 4-4 deadlock a real possibility. The evenly split court could mean the programs remain blocked, in that case the issue would be sent back to the district court in Texas.

The other side believes liberal action must be taken to ensure the safety of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. Verrilli is quoted as saying that “deferred action itself reflects nothing more than a judgment that the aliens’ ongoing presence will be tolerated for a period of time, based on enforcement priorities and humanitarian concerns, and work authorization enables them to support themselves while they remain.”

Solicitor General Verrilli also argued on behalf of the Obama administration that the “Constitution reserves exclusive authority to the National Government to make and enforce immigration policy.” He says that if the states are allowed to bring the challenge it would “upend the constitutional design.” Furthermore, Verrilli says that the states don’t have the legal right to be in court because they can’t show the concrete injury that would give them standing.

Immigration is currently one of the biggest cases this term, however, other issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and health care have also been dominating the

platform With the death of Justice Scalia, the Court has had to look at cases heading towards a 5-4 split to see if there is a way to avoid deadlock. A decision in this case will most likely be one of the last rulings of the term, although if the justices are evenly divided we could hear much sooner.