Content

Page 1 — can Facebook still be trusted?

Page 2 — Facebook has power to change rules of game

Read on a page

Share private stuff with 500 friends? Echtnicht. " Perhaps you know advertising campaign that began in autumn in Germany. Beautiful people on posters talked about how ir personal Facebook is now safer and more protected. The company wanted to inform about "hiring UndKontrollmöglichkeiten". Ihrhabt sovereignty over your profiles – that was message. Not half a year later, Facebook seems to lose control of itself.

Meanwhile, it should also be clear to last: Facebook does not adequately protect data of its users, it Überprüftexterne providers not carefully and informs public insufficiently about what is actually all with ir profile information happened. Media, politicians and even investors agree on this criticism as never before. Since weekend it has been known that analysis firm Cambridge AnalyticaDaten has been tapped by 50 million users to create voter profiles for US election in 2016. And what did Facebook do? It failed in its own crisis communication. Explanatory tweets disappeared again, blog entries were subsequently supplemented with justifications. And you make yourself innocent.

"Nothing was stolen, niemandgehackt. We are victims! We were deceived and lied to! " This summarizes group's previous defence strategy. The users, explains Facebook, would have given ir consent to transmission of ir data at that time, in 2014. At least to scientist Aleksandr Kogan and his company SCL, who collected data via a test-app and n passed it on to Cambridge Analytica. Quote from Facebook blog: "People knowingly passed on ir information, no system was infiltrated and no passwords or sensitive information was stolen or hacked."

Data misuse-How to better protect your data on Facebook © Photo: Claudia Bracholdt Facebook users and advertisers do not usually want same

But's really that simple? Does Facebook not have an obligation to check what happens to data, even if y have flown to third parties? What would Dassoziale network have to do to really protect users ' data? And how stammenüberhaupt profiles of 50 million people, if only 270,000 user Damalsdie app downloaded and used? In short, can one still trust this influential giant or should it ever have been done?

Alice Freelance author for time online to author page

The answers to se questions lead deep into architecture of platforms like Facebook – and reveal an unresolved dilemma of digital economy. GroßeNetzwerke like Facebook, but also Twitter or Google have been struggling to balance ir business model for years. On one hand re are wishes of users, on defringing of advertisers and customers. Both are often diametrically opposed. On Facebook alone, 1.4 billion people are active daily, 2.1 billion visit site at least once a month. And each one of m sollgenau find kind of privacy or (part) public that he sichwünscht. This is promise that Facebook repeats in public like mantra – and for that last year even newsfeed algorithm Verändertwurde.

Anyone who establishes an interface must also take responsibility for third parties

But this is only half truth. Because individual user brings Facebook Malkeinen cents. The actual customers, who are no less courted, ors unambiguous companies – from start-up to middle-market to listed group. For m, Facebook wants to create a profitable environment, a place where Demexterne offers and messages Meet interested customers, i.e. on Facebook users. However, this requires open doors – so-called APIs or programming interfaces – to which external providers andockenkönnen with ir websites or apps. The Facebook login function in third-party apps, which also used Aleksandr Kogan Psychotest2014, acts as a zentralesBindeglied in data exchange.

"Interfaces are not per se dubious," says Lina Ehrig, head of digital and media department at Consumer Central Federation (VZBV). But anyone who establishes an interface and makes its data accessible to third parties "must ensure that data protection regulations are adhered to." It comes to configuration. Facebook could not push sichalso against his responsibility. However, Ehrig admits that Könneeine platform never fully guarantees "that someone, despite vertraglicherRegelung, acts with fraudulent and criminal intentions". And that Istgenau what Facebook is accusing Cambridge Analytica. The company, says Facebook, has misused data and has not even-like schriftlichzugesichert-deleted it again.

Date Of Update: 22 March 2018, 12:03