[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "
"I launched Facebook, I run it and I'm responsible for what's going on here," & nbsp; CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a hearing before the US Senate a year ago. "So, now we need to review all our relationships with people and make sure we take a broad enough view of our responsibility."
It may be more true than Zuckerberg was aware of it. Overnight Washington Post& nbsp;reported this "FSecurity Regulators Investigate Facebook for Mismanagement & nbsp;The personal information of its users is directed to the company's Chief Executive Officer, reviewing his previous privacy statements and questioning whether he should seek new and increased oversight of his leadership. "
"It's not enough to give people control over their information," Zuckerberg then told the audience in the Senate. "We need to make sure the developers with whom they share it, also protect their information."
Ideally, yes, but earlier on Thursday, Facebook has admitted another major security breach: "burying" in an old message the news that the pbadwords of "millions of users of". Instagram "& nbsp; were stored in a readable format, giving staff unhindered access to accounts. & nbsp; The company announced the news by updating the & nbsp;blog as of March 21, which reported a large-scale security issue for Facebook, but that would only concern & nbsp; "tens of thousands of Instagram users, "although the company admitted that" hundreds of millions of Facebook Lite users [and] tens of millions of other Facebook users "have been affected.
Another day, another series of news on the regulation and protection of privacy. The net seems to be getting closer.
All chickens eventually perch
Discussions have been going on for some time between the FTC and Facebook about sanctions and remedies in the wake of the privacy scandals that began last year with Cambridge Analytica and escalated. from there. According to some, the company can expect a multi-billion dollar fine. But the idea that personal sanctions could also be applied to the CEO of the company is new news and adds considerably to its implications.
Zuckerberg has been spared from a direct investigation in the past, but has made himself the chief spokesman for his company and his own privacy advocate. Statements that simply do not match the flow of information about misuse and data breaches. & Nbsp; SEO "two people familiar with the discussions, both ask[ing] anonymity because the FTC's investigation is confidential under the law, "the Washington Post& nbsp; pointed out that "targeting Zuckerberg could make other technology giants understand that the agency is willing to ask senior executives to report directly on reprehensible wrongdoings in their business."
Also this week, a NBC report have exposed the personal level of user data exchange that has occurred on Facebook, where friends companies have had access to user data and others not . All in a totally non-transparent way. And then, of course, there was the new that the company was exploiting new users to obtain contact details by email without consent.
Regulation that bites
The specter of personal responsibility of social media executives appeared in Australia last month, when lawmakers announced a hasty regulation aimed at targeting the right-wing hate and terrorist material on social media platforms at the same time. following Christchurch attacks. The New Zealand authorities had scathingly criticized Facebook for failing to prevent mosque attacks from being broadcast live, as well as for what happened next. Culpa letter to the New Zealand Herald.
This week was followed by the news last week that the UK was also exploring legal options for personal liability for executives who do not control their platforms. The European Parliament also announced this week a regulation providing for the removal of terrorist material from social media, threatening fines of up to 4% of the global turnover if this content does not occur. is not deleted in the time. The EU's settlement proposal does not go as far as personal censorship, although this seems to be the hijacking that is now concentrating the senior minds.
Regarding the latest security flaw related to Instagram, a statement on Facebook says that & nbsp; "tThis is a problem that has already been the subject of many reports, but we want to point out that we simply learned that there were more pbadwords stored in this way. " exposure was the same as for the initial violation announced last month.
A & nbsp; senior Facebook employee "who knows the investigation well and who requested anonymity because they were not allowed to speak to the press" told Brian Krebs of the original violation "Some 2,000 engineers or developers have done about nine million internal queries regarding data items containing plain text user pbadwords."
Something must give. The news feed is now going in one direction and 2019 is already preparing for a year of change. As Roger McNamee, one of the first sponsors of Mark Zuckerberg, said "The time when it was claimed that it was an innocent platform is over, and quoting Mark as part of a large-scale coercive action would drive this house to the shovel. "
Hard to argue with that.
">
"I've started Facebook, I'm running it and I'm responsible for what's going on here," CEO Mark Zuckerberg told a US Senate hearing a year ago. "So, now we need to review all our relationships with people and make sure we take a broad enough view of our responsibility."
It may be more true than Zuckerberg was aware of it. Overnight Washington Post reported that "fGlobal regulators investigate Facebook for mismanagement The personal information of its users is directed to the CEO of the company, reviewing his previous statements on privacy and wondering whether it is appropriate to seek a new and increased supervision of his leadership. "
"It's not enough to give people control over their information," Zuckerberg continued during a hearing before the Senate. "We need to make sure the developers with whom they share information are also protecting their information."
In the ideal, yes, but Thursday, Facebook admitted another important security breach, "burying" in an old message the news that the pbadwords of "millions of Instagram users" were stored in a readable format, giving staff unhindered access to accounts. The company announced the news by updating the blog of March 21, which reported a large-scale security problem for Facebook, but which concerned only "Tens of thousands of Instagram users ", although the company admitted that" hundreds of millions of Facebook Lite users [and] Tens of millions of other Facebook users have been affected.
Another day, another series of news on the regulation and protection of privacy. The net seems to be getting closer.
All chickens eventually perch
Discussions have been going on for some time between the FTC and Facebook about sanctions and remedies in the wake of the privacy scandals that began last year with Cambridge Analytica and escalated. from there. According to some, the company can expect a multi-billion dollar fine. But the idea that personal sanctions could also be applied to the CEO of the company is new news and adds considerably to its implications.
Zuckerberg has been spared from a direct investigation in the past, but has made himself the chief spokesman for his company and his own privacy advocate. Statements that simply do not match the flow of information about misuse and data breaches. SEO "two people familiar with the discussions, both ask[ing] anonymity because the FTC investigation is confidential under the law ", Washington Post According to him, "Zuckerberg's targeting could send a message to other tech giants that the agency is willing to ask senior executives to report directly on reprehensible wrongdoings in their business."
Also this week, a NBC This report revealed the personal level of user data trading on Facebook, where friend companies had access to user data and others not. All in a totally non-transparent way. And then, of course, there was news that the company was exploiting new users to get email contact details without consent.
Regulation that bites
The specter of personal responsibility of social media executives appeared in Australia last month, when lawmakers announced a hasty regulation aimed at targeting the right-wing hate and terrorist material on social media platforms at the same time. following Christchurch attacks. The New Zealand authorities had criticized Facebook in a scathing manner, both for not preventing the live broadcast of the attacks on the mosques and for what happened thereafter. It should be noted that Facebook executives did not comment until Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg wrote an open letter to the New Zealand Herald.
This was followed by last week's announcement that the UK is also studying the legal options for personal liability of executives who fail to control their platforms. The European Parliament also announced this week a regulation providing for the removal of terrorist material from social media, threatening fines of up to 4% of the global turnover if this content does not occur. is not deleted in the time. The EU's proposal for a regulation does not go as far as personal censorship, although this seems to be the turn of events that now interests the greatest minds.
Regarding the latest Instagram security breach, a statement from Facebook said that "tThis is a problem that has already been widely reported, but we want to clarify that we simply learned that there were more pbadwords stored in this way. "So we can badume that the exhibition was the same as the original flaw announced last month.
A Facebook employee "who knows the investigation and has requested anonymity because they were not allowed to speak to the press" told Brian Krebs, about the initial violation, that "about 2,000 engineers or developers data elements containing plain text user pbadwords. "
Something must give. The news feed is now going in one direction and 2019 is already preparing for a year of change. As Roger McNamee, one of Mark Zuckerberg's early sponsors, said: "It's time to pretend that it's an innocent platform, and quote Mark in a large-scale enforcement action would lead this house to the shovel. "
Hard to argue with that.
