Yahoo has struck a revised $117.5 million settlement with millions of people whose email addresses and other personal information were stolen in the largest data breach in history.

The proposed class-action settlement made public on Tuesday was designed to address criticisms of US District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California. She rejected an earlier version of the accord on Jan. 28, and her approval is still required.

Koh said the original settlement was not "fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable" because it had no overall dollar value and did not say how much victims might expect to recover. She also said the legal fees appeared to be too high.

Yahoo, now part of New York-based <a href="https://www.wionews.com/science-tech/verizon-expected-to-cut-2000-jobs-at-yahoo-aol-16618">Verizon Communications Inc</a>, had been accused of being slow to disclose three data breaches affecting about 3 billion accounts from 2013 to 2016.

The new settlement includes at least $55 million for victims' out-of-pocket expenses and other costs, $24 million for two years of credit monitoring, up to $30 million for legal fees, and up to $8.5 million for other expenses.

It covers as many as 194 million people in the United States and Israel with roughly 896 million accounts.

John Yanchunis, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in a court filing, called the $117.5 million the "biggest common fund ever obtained in a data breach case." He did not immediately respond to requests for additional comment.

Separately, Verizon agreed to spend $306 million between 2019 and 2022 on information security, five times what Yahoo spent from 2013 to 2016. It also pledged to quadruple Yahoo's staffing in that area.

"The settlement demonstrates our strong commitment to security," Verizon said in a statement.

Yahoo agreed in July 2016 to sell its internet business to Verizon for $4.83 billion. Only later did it reveal the scope of the breaches, prompting a price cut to $4.48 billion. Verizon wrote off much of Yahoo's value in December.

US prosecutors charged two Russian intelligence agents and two hackers in connection with one of the breaches in 2017. One hacker later pleaded guilty.

Yahoo has struck a revised $117.5 million settlement with millions of people whose email addresses and other personal information were stolen in the largest data breach in history.

Yahoo has struck a revised $117.5 million settlement with millions of people whose email addresses and other personal information were stolen in the largest data breach in history. The proposed class-action settlement made public on Tuesday was designed to address criticisms of US District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California. She rejected an earlier version of the accord on Jan. 28, and her approval is still required. Koh said the original settlement was not "fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable" because it had no overall dollar value and did not say how much victims might expect to recover. She also said the legal fees appeared to be too high. Yahoo, now part of New York-based Verizon Communications Inc, had been accused of being slow to disclose three data breaches affecting about 3 billion accounts from 2013 to 2016. The new settlement includes at least $55 million for victims' out-of-pocket expenses and other costs, $24 million for two years of credit monitoring, up to $30 million for legal fees, and up to $8.5 million for other expenses. It covers as many as 194 million people in the United States and Israel with roughly 896 million accounts. John Yanchunis, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in a court filing, called the $117.5 million the "biggest common fund ever obtained in a data breach case." He did not immediately respond to requests for additional comment. Separately, Verizon agreed to spend $306 million between 2019 and 2022 on information security, five times what Yahoo spent from 2013 to 2016. It also pledged to quadruple Yahoo's staffing in that area. "The settlement demonstrates our strong commitment to security," Verizon said in a statement. Yahoo agreed in July 2016 to sell its internet business to Verizon for $4.83 billion. Only later did it reveal the scope of the breaches, prompting a price cut to $4.48 billion. Verizon wrote off much of Yahoo's value in December. US prosecutors charged two Russian intelligence agents and two hackers in connection with one of the breaches in 2017. One hacker later pleaded guilty.

Yahoo strikes $117.5 million data breach settlement after earlier accord rejected

Facebook Inc said on Thursday it has resolved a glitch that exposed passwords of millions of users stored in readable format within its internal systems to its employees.

The passwords were accessible to as many as 20,000 Facebook employees and dated back as early as 2012, cybersecurity blog KrebsOnSecurity, which first reported the issue, said in its report.

"These passwords were never visible to anyone outside of Facebook and we have found no evidence to date that anyone internally abused or improperly accessed them," the company said.

KrebsOnSecurity, citing a senior Facebook employee, said the internal investigation by the company so far indicates that between 200 million and 600 million Facebook users may have had their account passwords stored in plain text.

Facebook said the issue was discovered in January as part of a routine security review. Majority of the affected were users of Facebook Lite, a version of the social media app largely used by people in regions with lower connectivity.

The social network is also probing the causes of a series of security failures, in which employees built applications that logged unencrypted password data for Facebook users, the report said.

"We estimate that we will notify hundreds of millions of Facebook Lite users, tens of millions of other Facebook users, and tens of thousands of Instagram users," the company said.

Facebook Inc said on Thursday it has resolved a glitch that exposed passwords of millions of users stored in readable format within its internal systems to its employees.

Facebook Inc said on Thursday it has resolved a glitch that exposed passwords of millions of users stored in readable format within its internal systems to its employees. The passwords were accessible to as many as 20,000 Facebook employees and dated back as early as 2012, cybersecurity blog KrebsOnSecurity, which first reported the issue, said in its report. "These passwords were never visible to anyone outside of Facebook and we have found no evidence to date that anyone internally abused or improperly accessed them," the company said. KrebsOnSecurity, citing a senior Facebook employee, said the internal investigation by the company so far indicates that between 200 million and 600 million Facebook users may have had their account passwords stored in plain text. Facebook said the issue was discovered in January as part of a routine security review. Majority of the affected were users of Facebook Lite, a version of the social media app largely used by people in regions with lower connectivity. The social network is also probing the causes of a series of security failures, in which employees built applications that logged unencrypted password data for Facebook users, the report said. "We estimate that we will notify hundreds of millions of Facebook Lite users, tens of millions of other Facebook users, and tens of thousands of Instagram users," the company said.

Facebook fixes glitch that exposed millions of user passwords to employees

Facebook Inc Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said on Wednesday the company would encrypt conversations on more of its messaging services and make them compatible, the latest sign that the world's biggest social network sees its future in intimate online chats.

Zuckerberg said in a post on his Facebook profile that within a few years direct messaging would dwarf discussion on the traditional, open platform of Facebook's news feed, where public posts can go viral across the world.

"Working towards implementing end-to-end encryption for all private communications is the right thing to do," Zuckerberg said. He cautioned that details of the plan could change as the company consults experts throughout 2019.

The strategy could frustrate law enforcement surveillance efforts as well as lawmakers who have called on Facebook to better moderate user content. It also would limit the company's ability to generate revenue through targeted ads.

But Zuckerberg said he could live with those tradeoffs because users want better control of their data while still having easy access to their contacts.

As part of Zuckerberg's strategy, a Facebook user would be able to communicate with WhatsApp users while only having a Messenger account and vice versa. Users would also have more options for how long chats are saved, he added.

"The future of communication will increasingly shift to private, encrypted services where people can be confident what they say to each other stays secure and their messages and content won't stick around forever," he said. "This is the future I hope we will help bring about."

Facebook shares rose 0.7 per cent on Wednesday. Shares in Snap Inc, which owns messaging app Snapchat, ended down more than 2 per cent.

Zuckerberg acknowledged that the public may be sceptical about Facebook's privacy push given the company does not have a "strong reputation for building privacy protective services."

Lawmakers, users and investors have expressed concerns over the last two years that Facebook is not doing enough to safeguard user data after a series of breaches and privacy bugs.

But Zuckerberg wrote that "we've repeatedly shown that we can evolve to build the services that people really want."

Facebook is one of the biggest global players in private messaging with its WhatsApp, Messenger and Instagram, each used by more than 1 billion people. Only WhatsApp fully secures message content from all outsiders, including Facebook itself.

Police have raised concerns about introducing similar security to the other services because they would no longer be able to access online chat records to track religious extremists or other perpetrators.

Regulators have called for Facebook to increase moderation of user content, but more encryption would make it difficult to view and track problematic posts.

Encrypted conversations also limit Facebook's ability to send targeted advertisements. Facebook may need to look for new ways to insert itself between businesses and consumers to generate revenue.

Tencent Holdings Ltd's WeChat app has shown how a messaging service can generate revenue through not only displaying ads but also being a marketplace for games, merchandise and services such as taxi rides.

Facebook has encouraged messaging conversations between businesses and consumers since at least 2016 but has not disclosed its revenue from the efforts.

Zuckerberg said on Wednesday that "significant thought" still needs to go into integrating commerce into messaging.

James Cordwell, a financial analyst at Atlantic Equities, said Facebook's strategy risks undercutting its current way of making money.

"But if they can pull off this WeChat-esque strategy," he said, "it could open up material revenue streams beyond just advertising, something that investors have been craving for quite some time."

Facebook Inc Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said on Wednesday the company would encrypt conversations on more of its messaging services and make them compatible, the latest sign that the world's biggest social network sees its future in intimate online chats.

Facebook Inc Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said on Wednesday the company would encrypt conversations on more of its messaging services and make them compatible, the latest sign that the world's biggest social network sees its future in intimate online chats. Zuckerberg said in a post on his Facebook profile that within a few years direct messaging would dwarf discussion on the traditional, open platform of Facebook's news feed, where public posts can go viral across the world. "Working towards implementing end-to-end encryption for all private communications is the right thing to do," Zuckerberg said. He cautioned that details of the plan could change as the company consults experts throughout 2019. The strategy could frustrate law enforcement surveillance efforts as well as lawmakers who have called on Facebook to better moderate user content. It also would limit the company's ability to generate revenue through targeted ads. But Zuckerberg said he could live with those tradeoffs because users want better control of their data while still having easy access to their contacts. As part of Zuckerberg's strategy, a Facebook user would be able to communicate with WhatsApp users while only having a Messenger account and vice versa. Users would also have more options for how long chats are saved, he added. "The future of communication will increasingly shift to private, encrypted services where people can be confident what they say to each other stays secure and their messages and content won't stick around forever," he said. "This is the future I hope we will help bring about." Facebook shares rose 0.7 per cent on Wednesday. Shares in Snap Inc, which owns messaging app Snapchat, ended down more than 2 per cent. Zuckerberg acknowledged that the public may be sceptical about Facebook's privacy push given the company does not have a "strong reputation for building privacy protective services." Lawmakers, users and investors have expressed concerns over the last two years that Facebook is not doing enough to safeguard user data after a series of breaches and privacy bugs. But Zuckerberg wrote that "we've repeatedly shown that we can evolve to build the services that people really want." Facebook is one of the biggest global players in private messaging with its WhatsApp, Messenger and Instagram, each used by more than 1 billion people. Only WhatsApp fully secures message content from all outsiders, including Facebook itself. Police have raised concerns about introducing similar security to the other services because they would no longer be able to access online chat records to track religious extremists or other perpetrators. Regulators have called for Facebook to increase moderation of user content, but more encryption would make it difficult to view and track problematic posts. Encrypted conversations also limit Facebook's ability to send targeted advertisements. Facebook may need to look for new ways to insert itself between businesses and consumers to generate revenue. Tencent Holdings Ltd's WeChat app has shown how a messaging service can generate revenue through not only displaying ads but also being a marketplace for games, merchandise and services such as taxi rides. Facebook has encouraged messaging conversations between businesses and consumers since at least 2016 but has not disclosed its revenue from the efforts. Zuckerberg said on Wednesday that "significant thought" still needs to go into integrating commerce into messaging. James Cordwell, a financial analyst at Atlantic Equities, said Facebook's strategy risks undercutting its current way of making money. "But if they can pull off this WeChat-esque strategy," he said, "it could open up material revenue streams beyond just advertising, something that investors have been craving for quite some time."

Facebook to implement end-to-end encryption in all private chats: Mark Zuckerberg

The fast-growing, Chinese-owned video sharing network TikTok agreed to pay a $5.7 million fine to US authorities to settle charges that it illegally collected personal information from children, officials said Wednesday.

The Federal Trade Commission said the penalty by the social network, which had been known as Musical.ly, was the largest ever in a children's privacy investigation.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/science-tech/chinese-apple-staff-suspected-of-selling-private-data-16580">Chinese Apple staff suspected of selling private data</a>

The social network, which has been surging in popularity with young smartphone users and taking over from rivals like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat, failed to obtain parental consent from its underage users as required by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, FTC officials said.

"The operators of Musical.ly -- now known as TikTok -- knew many children were using the app, but they still failed to seek parental consent before collecting names, email addresses, and other personal information from users under the age of 13," said FTC chairman Joe Simons.&nbsp;

"This record penalty should be a reminder to all online services and websites that target children: We take enforcement of COPPA very seriously, and we will not tolerate companies that flagrantly ignore the law."

TikTok claimed some 500 million users worldwide last year, making it one of the most popular worldwide apps.

Owned by China's ByteDance, it expanded its reach in the US with the merger with Musical.ly.

Teens have been flocking to the service, which allows them to create and share videos of 15 seconds.

According to the FTC, the company required users to provide an email address, phone number, username, first and last name, a short biography, and a profile picture.

The consumer protection regulator said 65 million accounts have been registered in the United States.

Officials said the company knew that many of its users were under 13 and should have taken greater precautions.

"In our view, these practices reflected the company's willingness to pursue growth even at the expense of endangering children," said a statement from FTC commissioners Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.

"The agency secured a record-setting civil penalty and deletion of ill-gotten data, as well as other remedies to stop this egregious conduct."

TikTok has faced criticism around the world for featuring sexually suggestive content inappropriate for children.

TikTok said in a statement it would create a "separate app experience" for younger users with additional privacy protections as part of its agreement with regulators.

"It's our priority to create a safe and welcoming experience for all of our users, and as we developed the global TikTok platform, we've been committed to creating measures to further protect our user community -- including tools for parents to protect their teens and for users to enable additional privacy settings," the statement said. 
&nbsp;

The fast-growing, Chinese-owned video sharing network TikTok agreed to pay a $5.7 million fine to US authorities to settle charges that it illegally collected personal information from children, officials said Wednesday.

The fast-growing, Chinese-owned video sharing network TikTok agreed to pay a $5.7 million fine to US authorities to settle charges that it illegally collected personal information from children, officials said Wednesday. The Federal Trade Commission said the penalty by the social network, which had been known as Musical.ly, was the largest ever in a children's privacy investigation. Also read: Chinese Apple staff suspected of selling private data The social network, which has been surging in popularity with young smartphone users and taking over from rivals like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat, failed to obtain parental consent from its underage users as required by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, FTC officials said. "The operators of Musical.ly -- now known as TikTok -- knew many children were using the app, but they still failed to seek parental consent before collecting names, email addresses, and other personal information from users under the age of 13," said FTC chairman Joe Simons. "This record penalty should be a reminder to all online services and websites that target children: We take enforcement of COPPA very seriously, and we will not tolerate companies that flagrantly ignore the law." TikTok claimed some 500 million users worldwide last year, making it one of the most popular worldwide apps. Owned by China's ByteDance, it expanded its reach in the US with the merger with Musical.ly. Teens have been flocking to the service, which allows them to create and share videos of 15 seconds. According to the FTC, the company required users to provide an email address, phone number, username, first and last name, a short biography, and a profile picture. The consumer protection regulator said 65 million accounts have been registered in the United States. Officials said the company knew that many of its users were under 13 and should have taken greater precautions. "In our view, these practices reflected the company's willingness to pursue growth even at the expense of endangering children," said a statement from FTC commissioners Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. "The agency secured a record-setting civil penalty and deletion of ill-gotten data, as well as other remedies to stop this egregious conduct." TikTok has faced criticism around the world for featuring sexually suggestive content inappropriate for children. TikTok said in a statement it would create a "separate app experience" for younger users with additional privacy protections as part of its agreement with regulators. "It's our priority to create a safe and welcoming experience for all of our users, and as we developed the global TikTok platform, we've been committed to creating measures to further protect our user community -- including tools for parents to protect their teens and for users to enable additional privacy settings," the statement said.

TikTok app fined in US for illegally gathering children's data

Data is the new oil: This is how the World Economic Forum (WEF) hailed the birth of a new “asset class” in 2011.

The WEF views are even more rosy in 2019 — about the exponential expansion of this “data universe”. Ok, we get it.&nbsp;

WEF, the rich man’s club, now finds data even more valuable than oil. As long as machines can produce and consume ever larger amounts of data, the immaterial world of money and data can expand ad infinitum. And wow, that’s a lot of money to be made.

Let’s pass over some simple, mundane questions. The sort that ask if people can eat data or wear it, the sort that place people where they live — in the material universe.

Let’s not take issue with our leaders who say the physical universe — the pakoda producing-consuming one — is expanding. Let’s consider the data universe instead, and the happy rumours of ever-growing data leading to financial growth. The data universe turns out to be even more unequal than the one we know. Its “growth” does not create jobs; indeed, it creates job loss. Twenty-six individuals now own wealth equal to that of the bottom half of the world’s population. Yes, it creates wealth, but for whom?

Professor Shoshanna Zuboff of the Harvard Business School and no radical, writes in ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism’, that the object of collecting, processing and using data is no longer to service our needs better. It is to automate us, to modify our behaviour, producing a “behavioural surplus” that fuels the digital economy. This outcome has darkened the digital dream, and caused its rapid mutation into surveillance capitalism.

Professor Tim Wu, who coined the term ‘net neutrality’, has a slightly different take. He believes that attention capital — capturing our attention — is the key driver in the digital economy. For both Wu and Zuboff, digital monopolies comprise a form of rogue capitalism, and it is creating a dystopian society.

Whether critical or rosy, these views of the digital economy capture only one aspect of today’s world. The digital monopolies are the fastest growing monopolies the world has ever seen.

If we take the top five companies in the Fortune 500 list by market capitalisation today (2018), they are all digital monopolies. Collecting raw data and processing it makes up the key element of this growth.

If data is powering this growth, who owns the data? Most people ask questions about whether the data belongs to the companies that collect and process it, or to the individuals whose data is being collected.

Both frames conceive of data as property, their only question is who owns this property. Other assumptions — such as the one that data is neither a commodity nor property, but a part of the digital commons — are dropped out of the debate.

Those who take a narrow view of data — of merely, protecting our privacy — miss out two aspects of data. The first point is that the most useful data is not our personal demographic data: Who we are in terms of age, gender or ethnicity. It is the data of our social interactions. It’s useful, at this point, to recall the film on Facebook, and why it was called, ‘The Social Network’.

The second point is that a huge amount of data today is collected from sensors, cameras and devices. They belong to larger collectives, towns, municipalities, and other such entities; not individuals.

If data is the new oil — or the new super oil WEF sees with excitement — the question of who controls this data and its flow is not just an economic issue. It is deeply political as well.

Great Britain built its colonial empire (over which the sun never set), on the back of naval control of the oceans. Who controls the data and its flow will decide who will rule the world in the 21st century.

This is the context in which we have to view the recent move by the World Economic Forum to initiate e-commerce negotiations within the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Apart from the absurdity of WEF starting WTO negotiations, negotiations on e-commerce or, more correctly, use of digital platforms to buy and sell goods, WEF has little to do with trade.

The “negotiations” are all about control over data and its flows: No restrictions on digital platforms; open collection of peoples data and no taxes on digital goods. In effect, a blatant plea for a neo-colonial data regime.

Indian big capital has been showing interest in controlling the data of Indians. Mukesh Ambani has already pitched in. The dream here? Exercising control over data for their private gain, with the Indian State giving them access to the Aadhaar ecosystem built with public money.

Yes, there is the question of who will control data. But the critical question has to do with the purpose. Is data being collected and processed for the benefit of digital monopolies — global or Indian? Or is it for public good?

The demand that our peoples’ data should belong to digital monopolies will create a more unequal world. A Luddite reaction to this development may be to smash physical and algorithmic machines.

The right response is working out a trajectory different from the dystopian one of ever-growing digital capital. That means re-imagining our digital future with people at its centre, not capital. 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-data-and-its-discontents-2718461">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Data is the new oil: This is how the World Economic Forum (WEF) hailed the birth of a new “asset class” in 2011. The WEF views are even more rosy in 2019 — about the exponential expansion of this “data universe”.

Data is the new oil: This is how the World Economic Forum (WEF) hailed the birth of a new “asset class” in 2011. The WEF views are even more rosy in 2019 — about the exponential expansion of this “data universe”. Ok, we get it. WEF, the rich man’s club, now finds data even more valuable than oil. As long as machines can produce and consume ever larger amounts of data, the immaterial world of money and data can expand ad infinitum. And wow, that’s a lot of money to be made. Let’s pass over some simple, mundane questions. The sort that ask if people can eat data or wear it, the sort that place people where they live — in the material universe. Let’s not take issue with our leaders who say the physical universe — the pakoda producing-consuming one — is expanding. Let’s consider the data universe instead, and the happy rumours of ever-growing data leading to financial growth. The data universe turns out to be even more unequal than the one we know. Its “growth” does not create jobs; indeed, it creates job loss. Twenty-six individuals now own wealth equal to that of the bottom half of the world’s population. Yes, it creates wealth, but for whom? Professor Shoshanna Zuboff of the Harvard Business School and no radical, writes in ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism’, that the object of collecting, processing and using data is no longer to service our needs better. It is to automate us, to modify our behaviour, producing a “behavioural surplus” that fuels the digital economy. This outcome has darkened the digital dream, and caused its rapid mutation into surveillance capitalism. Professor Tim Wu, who coined the term ‘net neutrality’, has a slightly different take. He believes that attention capital — capturing our attention — is the key driver in the digital economy. For both Wu and Zuboff, digital monopolies comprise a form of rogue capitalism, and it is creating a dystopian society. Whether critical or rosy, these views of the digital economy capture only one aspect of today’s world. The digital monopolies are the fastest growing monopolies the world has ever seen. If we take the top five companies in the Fortune 500 list by market capitalisation today (2018), they are all digital monopolies. Collecting raw data and processing it makes up the key element of this growth. If data is powering this growth, who owns the data? Most people ask questions about whether the data belongs to the companies that collect and process it, or to the individuals whose data is being collected. Both frames conceive of data as property, their only question is who owns this property. Other assumptions — such as the one that data is neither a commodity nor property, but a part of the digital commons — are dropped out of the debate. Those who take a narrow view of data — of merely, protecting our privacy — miss out two aspects of data. The first point is that the most useful data is not our personal demographic data: Who we are in terms of age, gender or ethnicity. It is the data of our social interactions. It’s useful, at this point, to recall the film on Facebook, and why it was called, ‘The Social Network’. The second point is that a huge amount of data today is collected from sensors, cameras and devices. They belong to larger collectives, towns, municipalities, and other such entities; not individuals. If data is the new oil — or the new super oil WEF sees with excitement — the question of who controls this data and its flow is not just an economic issue. It is deeply political as well. Great Britain built its colonial empire (over which the sun never set), on the back of naval control of the oceans. Who controls the data and its flow will decide who will rule the world in the 21st century. This is the context in which we have to view the recent move by the World Economic Forum to initiate e-commerce negotiations within the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Apart from the absurdity of WEF starting WTO negotiations, negotiations on e-commerce or, more correctly, use of digital platforms to buy and sell goods, WEF has little to do with trade. The “negotiations” are all about control over data and its flows: No restrictions on digital platforms; open collection of peoples data and no taxes on digital goods. In effect, a blatant plea for a neo-colonial data regime. Indian big capital has been showing interest in controlling the data of Indians. Mukesh Ambani has already pitched in. The dream here? Exercising control over data for their private gain, with the Indian State giving them access to the Aadhaar ecosystem built with public money. Yes, there is the question of who will control data. But the critical question has to do with the purpose. Is data being collected and processed for the benefit of digital monopolies — global or Indian? Or is it for public good? The demand that our peoples’ data should belong to digital monopolies will create a more unequal world. A Luddite reaction to this development may be to smash physical and algorithmic machines. The right response is working out a trajectory different from the dystopian one of ever-growing digital capital. That means re-imagining our digital future with people at its centre, not capital. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Data and its discontents

Facebook has been ordered to curb its data collection practices in Germany after a landmark ruling on Thursday that the world's largest social network abused its market dominance to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/washington-sues-facebook-over-cambridge-analytica-row-185389">gather information about users without their consent</a>.

Germany, where privacy concerns run deep, is in the forefront of a global backlash against Facebook, fuelled by last year's <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/cambridge-analytica-whistleblower-calls-for-online-regulation-175918">Cambridge Analytica scandal </a>in which tens of millions of Facebook profiles were harvested without their users' consent.

The country's antitrust watchdog objected in particular to how <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-targets-dangerous-armed-groups-in-latest-myanmar-bans-195310">Facebook</a> pools data on people from third-party apps - including its own WhatsApp and Instagram - and its online tracking of people who aren't even members through <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/duplicate-facebook-accounts-tripled-in-three-years-at-250-million-195042">Facebook </a>'like' or 'share' buttons.

"In future, Facebook will no longer be allowed to force its users to agree to the practically unrestricted collection and assigning of non-Facebook data to their Facebook accounts," Federal Cartel Office chief Andreas Mundt said.

Facebook said it would appeal the decision, the culmination of a three-year probe, saying the regulator underestimated the competition it faced and undermined Europe-wide privacy rules that took effect last year.

"We disagree with their conclusions and intend to appeal so that people in Germany continue to benefit fully from all our services," Facebook said in a blog post.

In its order, the cartel office said Facebook would only be allowed to assign data from WhatsApp or Instagram to its main Facebook app accounts if users consented voluntarily. Collecting data from third-party websites and assigning it to Facebook would similarly require consent.

If consent is withheld, Facebook would have to substantially restrict its collection and combining of data. It should develop proposals to do this within 12 months, subject to the outcome of appeal proceedings at the Duesseldorf Higher Regional Court that should be filed within a month.

If Facebook fails to comply, the cartel office said it could impose fines of up to 10 per cent of the company's annual global revenues, which grew by 37 per cent to $55.8 billion last year.

Antitrust lawyer Thomas Vinje, a partner at Clifford Chance in Brussels, said the Cartel Office ruling had potentially far-reaching implications.

"This is a landmark decision," he told Reuters. "It’s limited to Germany but strikes me as exportable and might have a significant impact on Facebook's business model."

Vinje said it would be tough for Facebook to persuade the court that the Cartel Office's definition of the market for social media, and its dominance, were misguided. This is a battle that many firms have fought in court and lost, he added.

Implications

German Justice Minister Katarina Barley welcomed the ruling. "Users are often unaware of this flow of data and cannot prevent it if they want to use the services," she told Reuters. "We need to be rigorous in tackling the abuse of power that comes with data."

The German antitrust regulator's powers were expanded in 2017 to include consumer protection in public-interest cases where it could argue that a company - such as Facebook - had so little competition that consumers lack any effective choice.

Facebook has an estimated 23 million daily active users in Germany, giving it a market share of 95 per cent, according to the Cartel Office which considers Google+ - a rival social network that is being closed down – to be its only competitor.

Facebook said the cartel office failed to recognise the extent of competition it faced from Google's YouTube or Twitter for users' attention, and also said the regulator was encroaching into areas that should be handled by data protection watchdogs.

Facebook is considering appealing on the data protection issues to the European Court of Justice, but here the Cartel Office may also have the upper hand, said Vinje, the lawyer.

"It seems to me that the Federal Cartel Office is informed by data protection, but not dependent on them and that it has based its decision squarely on competition law," he said.

The European Commission said: "We are closely following the work of the Bundeskartellamt both in the framework of the European Competition Network and through direct contacts."

"The European legislator has made sure that there is now a regulation in place that addresses this type of conduct, namely the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)," it added.

As part of complying with the GDPR, Facebook said it had rebuilt the information its provides people about their privacy and the controls they have over their information and improved the privacy 'choices' that they are offered. It would also soon launch a 'clear history' feature, it said.

Mundt also expressed concern over reports that Facebook, which counts 2.7 billion users worldwide, plans to merge the infrastructure of its Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram services.

"If I understand things correctly, this move would intensify the pooling of data," said Mundt. "It's not very hard to conclude that, putting it carefully, this could be relevant in antitrust terms. We would have to look at this very closely."

Facebook has said that discussions on such a move are at a very early stage.

Facebook has been ordered to curb its data collection practices in Germany after a landmark ruling on Thursday that the world's largest social network abused its market dominance to gather information about users without their consent.

Facebook has been ordered to curb its data collection practices in Germany after a landmark ruling on Thursday that the world's largest social network abused its market dominance to gather information about users without their consent. Germany, where privacy concerns run deep, is in the forefront of a global backlash against Facebook, fuelled by last year's Cambridge Analytica scandal in which tens of millions of Facebook profiles were harvested without their users' consent. The country's antitrust watchdog objected in particular to how Facebook pools data on people from third-party apps - including its own WhatsApp and Instagram - and its online tracking of people who aren't even members through Facebook 'like' or 'share' buttons. "In future, Facebook will no longer be allowed to force its users to agree to the practically unrestricted collection and assigning of non-Facebook data to their Facebook accounts," Federal Cartel Office chief Andreas Mundt said. Facebook said it would appeal the decision, the culmination of a three-year probe, saying the regulator underestimated the competition it faced and undermined Europe-wide privacy rules that took effect last year. "We disagree with their conclusions and intend to appeal so that people in Germany continue to benefit fully from all our services," Facebook said in a blog post. In its order, the cartel office said Facebook would only be allowed to assign data from WhatsApp or Instagram to its main Facebook app accounts if users consented voluntarily. Collecting data from third-party websites and assigning it to Facebook would similarly require consent. If consent is withheld, Facebook would have to substantially restrict its collection and combining of data. It should develop proposals to do this within 12 months, subject to the outcome of appeal proceedings at the Duesseldorf Higher Regional Court that should be filed within a month. If Facebook fails to comply, the cartel office said it could impose fines of up to 10 per cent of the company's annual global revenues, which grew by 37 per cent to $55.8 billion last year. Antitrust lawyer Thomas Vinje, a partner at Clifford Chance in Brussels, said the Cartel Office ruling had potentially far-reaching implications. "This is a landmark decision," he told Reuters. "It’s limited to Germany but strikes me as exportable and might have a significant impact on Facebook's business model." Vinje said it would be tough for Facebook to persuade the court that the Cartel Office's definition of the market for social media, and its dominance, were misguided. This is a battle that many firms have fought in court and lost, he added. Implications German Justice Minister Katarina Barley welcomed the ruling. "Users are often unaware of this flow of data and cannot prevent it if they want to use the services," she told Reuters. "We need to be rigorous in tackling the abuse of power that comes with data." The German antitrust regulator's powers were expanded in 2017 to include consumer protection in public-interest cases where it could argue that a company - such as Facebook - had so little competition that consumers lack any effective choice. Facebook has an estimated 23 million daily active users in Germany, giving it a market share of 95 per cent, according to the Cartel Office which considers Google+ - a rival social network that is being closed down – to be its only competitor. Facebook said the cartel office failed to recognise the extent of competition it faced from Google's YouTube or Twitter for users' attention, and also said the regulator was encroaching into areas that should be handled by data protection watchdogs. Facebook is considering appealing on the data protection issues to the European Court of Justice, but here the Cartel Office may also have the upper hand, said Vinje, the lawyer. "It seems to me that the Federal Cartel Office is informed by data protection, but not dependent on them and that it has based its decision squarely on competition law," he said. The European Commission said: "We are closely following the work of the Bundeskartellamt both in the framework of the European Competition Network and through direct contacts." "The European legislator has made sure that there is now a regulation in place that addresses this type of conduct, namely the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)," it added. As part of complying with the GDPR, Facebook said it had rebuilt the information its provides people about their privacy and the controls they have over their information and improved the privacy 'choices' that they are offered. It would also soon launch a 'clear history' feature, it said. Mundt also expressed concern over reports that Facebook, which counts 2.7 billion users worldwide, plans to merge the infrastructure of its Messenger, WhatsApp and Instagram services. "If I understand things correctly, this move would intensify the pooling of data," said Mundt. "It's not very hard to conclude that, putting it carefully, this could be relevant in antitrust terms. We would have to look at this very closely." Facebook has said that discussions on such a move are at a very early stage.

Germany to restrict Facebook's data gathering activities

Facebook Inc's operations chief Sheryl Sandberg said on Wednesday that the world's largest social network needed to win back public trust after facing scandals for violating its users' privacy.

The social media platform is investing billions of dollars a year to improve the security of its network, Sandberg said in an interview hosted by German newspaper Die Zeit and UK law firm CMS at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/google-facebook-spend-big-on-us-lobbying-amid-policy-battles-192129">Google, Facebook spend big on US lobbying amid policy battles</a>

"We did not anticipate all of the risks from connecting so many people," Sandberg said, adding that the site had added features that give users greater control over their personal information.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-accused-of-allowing-anti-brexit-fake-news-on-its-platform-191338">Facebook accused of allowing anti-Brexit fake news on its platform</a>

The 15-year-old technology company has been a darling of California's Silicon Valley, making stars out of its founder, chief executive and chairman Mark Zuckerberg, and Sandberg, known for her feminist manifesto "Lean In". But its shares have fallen roughly 33 per cent since July to $144 due to concerns about user privacy.

Last year, the company was buffeted by revelations that UK consultancy Cambridge Analytica had improperly acquired data on millions of its US&nbsp;users to target election advertising.

"We need to earn back trust," Sandberg said.

Some of<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-backs-election-integrity-ai-initiatives-in-germany-191671"> Facebook</a>'s major shareholders have pushed for Zuckerberg, who has majority control of the company, to step down as chairman.

Sandberg said he should remain both chair and CEO. She said that she also plans to remain at Facebook, where she has worked since 2008.

"I think I have a job to do," she said. "It's a job I really want to do."

Sandberg said that if Facebook had to change its business model and charge users a subscription fee instead of collecting advertising revenue, far fewer people would be able to use it.

"Fundamentally disallowing our business model would harm a lot of people all over the world."

She said her grassroots women's movement, spurred by the publication of "Lean In", was still going strong. But, asked if she was considering a run for US president in the 2020 election, she replied,&nbsp;"It's not on my agenda."

Facebook Inc's operations chief Sheryl Sandberg said on Wednesday that the world's largest social network needed to win back public trust after facing scandals for violating its users' privacy.

Facebook Inc's operations chief Sheryl Sandberg said on Wednesday that the world's largest social network needed to win back public trust after facing scandals for violating its users' privacy. The social media platform is investing billions of dollars a year to improve the security of its network, Sandberg said in an interview hosted by German newspaper Die Zeit and UK law firm CMS at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Also read: Google, Facebook spend big on US lobbying amid policy battles "We did not anticipate all of the risks from connecting so many people," Sandberg said, adding that the site had added features that give users greater control over their personal information. Also read: Facebook accused of allowing anti-Brexit fake news on its platform The 15-year-old technology company has been a darling of California's Silicon Valley, making stars out of its founder, chief executive and chairman Mark Zuckerberg, and Sandberg, known for her feminist manifesto "Lean In". But its shares have fallen roughly 33 per cent since July to $144 due to concerns about user privacy. Last year, the company was buffeted by revelations that UK consultancy Cambridge Analytica had improperly acquired data on millions of its US users to target election advertising. "We need to earn back trust," Sandberg said. Some of Facebook's major shareholders have pushed for Zuckerberg, who has majority control of the company, to step down as chairman. Sandberg said he should remain both chair and CEO. She said that she also plans to remain at Facebook, where she has worked since 2008. "I think I have a job to do," she said. "It's a job I really want to do." Sandberg said that if Facebook had to change its business model and charge users a subscription fee instead of collecting advertising revenue, far fewer people would be able to use it. "Fundamentally disallowing our business model would harm a lot of people all over the world." She said her grassroots women's movement, spurred by the publication of "Lean In", was still going strong. But, asked if she was considering a run for US president in the 2020 election, she replied, "It's not on my agenda."

Facebook must earn back trust, says Chief operation officer Sheryl Sandberg in Davos

Germany's BSI cyber defence agency on Saturday defended its role in responding to a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/data-of-politicians-leaked-including-of-chancellor-merkel-german-government-188289">far-reaching data breach</a>, saying it could not have connected individual cases it was aware of last year until the entire data release became public.

The government said on Friday that personal data and documents from hundreds of German politicians and public figures had been published online, in what appeared to be one of Germany's most far-reaching data breaches.

The story has shocked the establishment and prompted calls for security agencies to clarify whether any security deficiencies they were aware of had been exploited.

The BSI said in a statement that it had been contacted by a lawmaker in early December about suspicious activity on their private email and social media accounts.

"Only by becoming aware of the release of the data sets via the Twitter account 'G0d' on Jan&nbsp;3, 2019, could the BSI in a further analysis on Jan. 4, 2019 connect this case and four other cases that the BSI became aware of during 2018," it said.

"At the beginning of December 2018, it was not foreseeable that there would be more cases."

Investigations so far showed the data breaches predominantly concerned private and personal accounts, the BSI said, adding: "The BSI is responsible for the operational protection of government networks."

Germany's BSI cyber defence agency on Saturday defended its role in responding to a far-reaching data breach, saying it could not have connected individual cases it was aware of last year until the entire data release became public.

Germany's BSI cyber defence agency on Saturday defended its role in responding to a far-reaching data breach, saying it could not have connected individual cases it was aware of last year until the entire data release became public. The government said on Friday that personal data and documents from hundreds of German politicians and public figures had been published online, in what appeared to be one of Germany's most far-reaching data breaches. The story has shocked the establishment and prompted calls for security agencies to clarify whether any security deficiencies they were aware of had been exploited. The BSI said in a statement that it had been contacted by a lawmaker in early December about suspicious activity on their private email and social media accounts. "Only by becoming aware of the release of the data sets via the Twitter account 'G0d' on Jan 3, 2019, could the BSI in a further analysis on Jan. 4, 2019 connect this case and four other cases that the BSI became aware of during 2018," it said. "At the beginning of December 2018, it was not foreseeable that there would be more cases." Investigations so far showed the data breaches predominantly concerned private and personal accounts, the BSI said, adding: "The BSI is responsible for the operational protection of government networks."

German cyber defence agency defends handling of far-reaching data breach

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg pushed back Wednesday against emails showing the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-accused-of-giving-access-to-users-data-181753">social media giant offering Netflix and other popular apps </a>preferential access to people's data even after it had tightened its privacy rules.

A British parliamentary committee investigating whether the social media behemoth was being used to manipulate the results of elections published 250 pages of internal Facebook documents earlier Wednesday.

They show executives holding discussions about big companies such as Netflix being granted preferential access to user data even after Facebook had tightened its privacy rules in 2014-15.

Zuckerberg featured in one email exchange from 2012 in which he mulled selling the information to developers.

The emails feature in a lawsuit filed against Facebook in a California court by the now-defunct US app developer Six4Three.

They were sealed by the presiding judge but seized by the British committee under a never-before used parliamentary enforcement procedure last month.

Zuckerberg said he was writing because he did not want the emails to "misrepresent our actions or motives".

"Like any organization, we had a lot of internal discussion and people raised different ideas," Zuckerberg said in a message posted on Facebook.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="294" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fzuck%2Fposts%2F10105559172610321&amp;width=500" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="500"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

He did not directly address Facebook's apparent decision to give some of the world's most popular apps special access to friends lists and other personal information that many people want to keep private.

"Ultimately, we decided on a model where we continued to provide the developer platform for free and developers could choose to buy ads if they wanted," Zuckerberg wrote.

But he added: "To be clear, that's different from selling people's data. We've never sold anyone's data."

'Public interest'

The UK parliamentary committee headed by Damian Collins -- a member of Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservative Party -- calls the policy of giving apps privileged information about users "whitelisting".

"Facebook have clearly entered into whitelisting agreements with certain companies, which meant that after the platform changes in 2014/15 they maintained full access to friends data," Collins wrote in a note accompanying the emails.

"The idea of linking access to friends data to the financial value of the developers relationship with Facebook is a recurring feature of the documents."

The emails show Facebook holding "whitelisting" discussions with the Russian-founded dating service Wadoo and US giants such as Netflix and the cab hailing service Lyft.

Most of the emails released by Collins were from years before Facebook had tightened its privacy policy rules.

Collins said his decision to ignore the US court gagging order and release the exchanges was based on "considerable public interest" in their content.

"We need a more public debate about the rights of social media users and the smaller businesses who are required to work with the tech giants," he wrote in a Twitter post.

Zuckerberg did not condemn the emails' publication or threaten any reciprocal measures against Collins.

"I understand there is a lot of scrutiny on how we run our systems," Zuckerberg wrote.

"That's healthy given the vast number of people who use our services around the world."

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg pushed back Wednesday against emails showing the social media giant offering Netflix and other popular apps preferential access to people's data even after it had tightened its privacy rules.

Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg pushed back Wednesday against emails showing the social media giant offering Netflix and other popular apps preferential access to people's data even after it had tightened its privacy rules. A British parliamentary committee investigating whether the social media behemoth was being used to manipulate the results of elections published 250 pages of internal Facebook documents earlier Wednesday. They show executives holding discussions about big companies such as Netflix being granted preferential access to user data even after Facebook had tightened its privacy rules in 2014-15. Zuckerberg featured in one email exchange from 2012 in which he mulled selling the information to developers. The emails feature in a lawsuit filed against Facebook in a California court by the now-defunct US app developer Six4Three. They were sealed by the presiding judge but seized by the British committee under a never-before used parliamentary enforcement procedure last month. Zuckerberg said he was writing because he did not want the emails to "misrepresent our actions or motives". "Like any organization, we had a lot of internal discussion and people raised different ideas," Zuckerberg said in a message posted on Facebook. × He did not directly address Facebook's apparent decision to give some of the world's most popular apps special access to friends lists and other personal information that many people want to keep private. "Ultimately, we decided on a model where we continued to provide the developer platform for free and developers could choose to buy ads if they wanted," Zuckerberg wrote. But he added: "To be clear, that's different from selling people's data. We've never sold anyone's data." 'Public interest' The UK parliamentary committee headed by Damian Collins -- a member of Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservative Party -- calls the policy of giving apps privileged information about users "whitelisting". "Facebook have clearly entered into whitelisting agreements with certain companies, which meant that after the platform changes in 2014/15 they maintained full access to friends data," Collins wrote in a note accompanying the emails. "The idea of linking access to friends data to the financial value of the developers relationship with Facebook is a recurring feature of the documents." The emails show Facebook holding "whitelisting" discussions with the Russian-founded dating service Wadoo and US giants such as Netflix and the cab hailing service Lyft. Most of the emails released by Collins were from years before Facebook had tightened its privacy policy rules. Collins said his decision to ignore the US court gagging order and release the exchanges was based on "considerable public interest" in their content. "We need a more public debate about the rights of social media users and the smaller businesses who are required to work with the tech giants," he wrote in a Twitter post. Zuckerberg did not condemn the emails' publication or threaten any reciprocal measures against Collins. "I understand there is a lot of scrutiny on how we run our systems," Zuckerberg wrote. "That's healthy given the vast number of people who use our services around the world."

We never sold anyone's data: Zuckerberg defends Facebook

The e-commerce giant, Amazon on Wednesday said that the number of its customers' names and email address has been accidentally exposed due to a glitch on their site.

The issue has now been resolved, according to the mail sent to affected customers, but information regarding the exact number of people affected or what exactly the issue was is not been disclosed by the company.

"The issue has been fixed. This is not a result of anything you have done, and there is no need for you to change your password or take any other action," email sent to customers reads.

According to a report by AFP, Amazon has also said that there was no breach of any Amazon systems or its website, and passwords have been kept safe.

Amid the rising online privacy debates, Amazon's vague and not-so-specific email has sparked a criticism from users -- &nbsp;including cyber experts as they accused the company of withholding information.

Amazon customers in the US and Europe have reported receiving messages from the company.

The disclosure came on the cusp of the year-end holiday shopping season, with retailers online and in real-world shops offering "Black Friday" bargains pegged to the day after the Thanksgiving holiday in the US.

Amazon is the "undisputed e-commerce leader" in the US, with a 48 per cent share of online sales here this year expected to equate to some $252 billion, according to analysts at eMarketer.

The market tracker forecast that total e-commerce sales in the US would jump 16.6 per cent to $123.73 billion this holiday season as compared with the same period last year.

The e-commerce giant, Amazon on Wednesday said that the number of its customers' names and email address has been accidentally exposed due to a glitch on their site.

The e-commerce giant, Amazon on Wednesday said that the number of its customers' names and email address has been accidentally exposed due to a glitch on their site. The issue has now been resolved, according to the mail sent to affected customers, but information regarding the exact number of people affected or what exactly the issue was is not been disclosed by the company. "The issue has been fixed. This is not a result of anything you have done, and there is no need for you to change your password or take any other action," email sent to customers reads. According to a report by AFP, Amazon has also said that there was no breach of any Amazon systems or its website, and passwords have been kept safe. Amid the rising online privacy debates, Amazon's vague and not-so-specific email has sparked a criticism from users -- including cyber experts as they accused the company of withholding information. Amazon customers in the US and Europe have reported receiving messages from the company. The disclosure came on the cusp of the year-end holiday shopping season, with retailers online and in real-world shops offering "Black Friday" bargains pegged to the day after the Thanksgiving holiday in the US. Amazon is the "undisputed e-commerce leader" in the US, with a 48 per cent share of online sales here this year expected to equate to some $252 billion, according to analysts at eMarketer. The market tracker forecast that total e-commerce sales in the US would jump 16.6 per cent to $123.73 billion this holiday season as compared with the same period last year.

Amazon says some customer email addresses exposed

India’s data localisation policy has come under the rich world’s scanner. Ironically, while holding monopolistic power on data, rich nations have audaciously termed India’s policy as being perverse for an emerging economy out to damage its lucrative successful export sectors built on its software supremacy.

The trigger for this tirade of being protectionist stems from a spate of proposals and potential laws on data localisation declared by Indian authorities recently.

The draft e-commerce policy placing a ban on the global transfer of data generated by Indian e-commerce users demonstrate and reinforce the authorities’ resolve to keep data close to their chest.

It is not just India that alone is an outlier in this gambit as such localisation policies have been in vogue in developed and developing countries since the inception of the Internet.

To boot there are genuinely solid and valid reasons for impeding the free flow of data, the principal one being obsessive concerns and dread over privacy.

Even as some of the fiercest restrictions on data movements are in paranoid-about-personal liberty and freedom States such as Russia and China, 22 out of the 27 nations of the European Union (EU) too follow data localisation measures.

In its latest Trade &amp; Development Report (TDR), 2018, Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) contends many governments are using data localisation measures, akin to what they deployed when they designed their foreign direct investment policies.

This was sought to be purported to goad domestic linkages of foreign investments and to foster domestic digital capacities and infrastructure to upgrade value chains.

In this context, localisation steps encompass requirements such as locating servers and/or computing facilities within national boundaries which can encourage foreign firms to invest in domestic digital infrastructure and allow local authorities to enforce national laws.

It is small wonder that many analysts have dubbed data the “new oil”, not only because they have to be extracted and processed from an initially unrefined and raw state, but presumably because processed data could invest its owners with monopolistic powers.

Unlike oil, however, data is not a finite resource with the ability to exclude competitors from access, thereby building even more monopoly muscles and rent-seeking proclivity.

The primordial and prime-mover gains commanded by digital giants such as Amazon, Alibaba, Google, Facebook in amassing data have allowed them to avail of big data analytics to outfox rivals, considered minnows or even obstruct potential ones from contesting the heft and might of a few at the top of the heap.

This has also practically nullified and rendered nugatory any established competition or anti-trust policies that are incongruent to digital economy management.

According to UNCTAD, the exponential growth and operation of Uber — the world’s biggest taxi service provider that owns no taxis but remote-controls cab aggregators effectively put paid to local taxi operators such as the eponymous TSR in Delhi, which had to fold up from a big scale operation to skeletal one now with Uber and small platform service providers dominating the landscape.

In pitching for the priority need to retain their data sovereignty to build their digital skills and preclude rules, which restrict their ability to monitor the flow of their national data, UNCTAD maintains that classification of data into personal and non-personal data and designing respective data policies are crucial steps in building digital infrastructure.

Even as India’s draft e-commerce policy is pilloried for making Indian consumer data to be held locally, UNCTAD has rightly argued the need for recognising the associated risks when domestic producers and consumers linked to e-commerce platforms are made international.

By willfully or unwarily bearing such risks, not only do countries unnecessarily expose their consumers to new products and producers, but also risk reducing domestic market shares of their indigenous producers and in the process, lose out on valuable data that is generated by the transactions of consumers and producers.

This is so because the “network effects” of these platforms permit them to glean gargantuan data of connected economies, which can then be used by these global monopoly platforms to foresee market trends, inundate the consumers with products associated to their tastes and preferences based on personal data analytics.

This would also help them effectively reorganise and refocus national production and sales. Wisely, UNCTAD sounded out the bugle that many of the proposals in the World Trade Organization (WTO), if accepted, would not allow governments to restrict the outflow of the data of their producers and consumers in the future.

That is the reason why India stoutly opposed new issues at the Buenos Aires (Argentina) meeting of the WTO in December 2017, when the leader of the Indian delegation and Union Commerce Minister, Suresh Prabhu, rejected bringing in new issues such as e-commerce into negotiations as “extremely divisive”.&nbsp;

India’s view was that gains from e-commerce must not be confused with gains from negotiating binding rules in this domain. That is also the reason why it supports the continuation of the 1998 Work Programme with a non-negotiating mandate.

In the end, gains from e-commerce now emerging as a big fancy among the demographically dynamic youth of the country can become a reality only if domestic authorities encourage national e-commerce platforms, nurture and protect them with the objective of improving domestic and global market access of their producers.

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-gains-of-domestic-data-mining-2683052">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

India’s data localisation policy has come under the rich world’s scanner. Ironically, while holding monopolistic power on data, rich nations have audaciously termed India’s policy as being perverse for an emerging economy out to damage its lucrative successful export sectors built on its software supremacy.

India’s data localisation policy has come under the rich world’s scanner. Ironically, while holding monopolistic power on data, rich nations have audaciously termed India’s policy as being perverse for an emerging economy out to damage its lucrative successful export sectors built on its software supremacy. The trigger for this tirade of being protectionist stems from a spate of proposals and potential laws on data localisation declared by Indian authorities recently. The draft e-commerce policy placing a ban on the global transfer of data generated by Indian e-commerce users demonstrate and reinforce the authorities’ resolve to keep data close to their chest. It is not just India that alone is an outlier in this gambit as such localisation policies have been in vogue in developed and developing countries since the inception of the Internet. To boot there are genuinely solid and valid reasons for impeding the free flow of data, the principal one being obsessive concerns and dread over privacy. Even as some of the fiercest restrictions on data movements are in paranoid-about-personal liberty and freedom States such as Russia and China, 22 out of the 27 nations of the European Union (EU) too follow data localisation measures. In its latest Trade & Development Report (TDR), 2018, Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) contends many governments are using data localisation measures, akin to what they deployed when they designed their foreign direct investment policies. This was sought to be purported to goad domestic linkages of foreign investments and to foster domestic digital capacities and infrastructure to upgrade value chains. In this context, localisation steps encompass requirements such as locating servers and/or computing facilities within national boundaries which can encourage foreign firms to invest in domestic digital infrastructure and allow local authorities to enforce national laws. It is small wonder that many analysts have dubbed data the “new oil”, not only because they have to be extracted and processed from an initially unrefined and raw state, but presumably because processed data could invest its owners with monopolistic powers. Unlike oil, however, data is not a finite resource with the ability to exclude competitors from access, thereby building even more monopoly muscles and rent-seeking proclivity. The primordial and prime-mover gains commanded by digital giants such as Amazon, Alibaba, Google, Facebook in amassing data have allowed them to avail of big data analytics to outfox rivals, considered minnows or even obstruct potential ones from contesting the heft and might of a few at the top of the heap. This has also practically nullified and rendered nugatory any established competition or anti-trust policies that are incongruent to digital economy management. According to UNCTAD, the exponential growth and operation of Uber — the world’s biggest taxi service provider that owns no taxis but remote-controls cab aggregators effectively put paid to local taxi operators such as the eponymous TSR in Delhi, which had to fold up from a big scale operation to skeletal one now with Uber and small platform service providers dominating the landscape. In pitching for the priority need to retain their data sovereignty to build their digital skills and preclude rules, which restrict their ability to monitor the flow of their national data, UNCTAD maintains that classification of data into personal and non-personal data and designing respective data policies are crucial steps in building digital infrastructure. Even as India’s draft e-commerce policy is pilloried for making Indian consumer data to be held locally, UNCTAD has rightly argued the need for recognising the associated risks when domestic producers and consumers linked to e-commerce platforms are made international. By willfully or unwarily bearing such risks, not only do countries unnecessarily expose their consumers to new products and producers, but also risk reducing domestic market shares of their indigenous producers and in the process, lose out on valuable data that is generated by the transactions of consumers and producers. This is so because the “network effects” of these platforms permit them to glean gargantuan data of connected economies, which can then be used by these global monopoly platforms to foresee market trends, inundate the consumers with products associated to their tastes and preferences based on personal data analytics. This would also help them effectively reorganise and refocus national production and sales. Wisely, UNCTAD sounded out the bugle that many of the proposals in the World Trade Organization (WTO), if accepted, would not allow governments to restrict the outflow of the data of their producers and consumers in the future. That is the reason why India stoutly opposed new issues at the Buenos Aires (Argentina) meeting of the WTO in December 2017, when the leader of the Indian delegation and Union Commerce Minister, Suresh Prabhu, rejected bringing in new issues such as e-commerce into negotiations as “extremely divisive”. India’s view was that gains from e-commerce must not be confused with gains from negotiating binding rules in this domain. That is also the reason why it supports the continuation of the 1998 Work Programme with a non-negotiating mandate. In the end, gains from e-commerce now emerging as a big fancy among the demographically dynamic youth of the country can become a reality only if domestic authorities encourage national e-commerce platforms, nurture and protect them with the objective of improving domestic and global market access of their producers. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Gains of domestic data mining

Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific airlines shares fell sharply today after the company revealed data of about 9.4 million passengers had been accessed without authorisation.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We have discovered unauthorised access to some of our passenger data. For Data Security Event support, please DM <a href="https://twitter.com/CxInfosec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@cxinfosec</a> for assistance.
— Cathay Pacific (@cathaypacific) <a href="https://twitter.com/cathaypacific/status/1055117720444854273?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 24, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The company had said on Wednesday that it had discovered "suspicious activity" in March and launched an investigation in May which revealed that personal data had been breached.

Shares of Cathay Pacific plunged 6.5 per cent on Thursday morning sinking to HK$ 9.93.

The data breach information reportedly included passport numbers, identity card numbers, email addresses and credit card details.&nbsp;

"We are in the process of contacting affected passengers, using multiple communications channels, and providing them with information on steps they can take to protect themselves," Cathay Pacific Chief Executive Officer Rupert Hogg had said in a statement while revealing the data fraud.

"We have no evidence that any personal data has been misused," Hogg added.

"The following personal data was accessed: passenger name, nationality, date of birth, phone number, email, address, passport number, identity card number, frequent flyer programme membership number, customer service remarks, and historical travel information," he informed.&nbsp;

CEO&nbsp;Hogg also said 403 expired credit card numbers and 27 credit card numbers with no CVV were also accessed.&nbsp;

Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific airlines shares fell sharply today after the company revealed data of about 9.4 million passengers had been accessed without authorisation.

Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific airlines shares fell sharply today after the company revealed data of about 9.4 million passengers had been accessed without authorisation. We have discovered unauthorised access to some of our passenger data. For Data Security Event support, please DM @cxinfosec for assistance. — Cathay Pacific (@cathaypacific) October 24, 2018 × The company had said on Wednesday that it had discovered "suspicious activity" in March and launched an investigation in May which revealed that personal data had been breached. Shares of Cathay Pacific plunged 6.5 per cent on Thursday morning sinking to HK$ 9.93. The data breach information reportedly included passport numbers, identity card numbers, email addresses and credit card details. "We are in the process of contacting affected passengers, using multiple communications channels, and providing them with information on steps they can take to protect themselves," Cathay Pacific Chief Executive Officer Rupert Hogg had said in a statement while revealing the data fraud. "We have no evidence that any personal data has been misused," Hogg added. "The following personal data was accessed: passenger name, nationality, date of birth, phone number, email, address, passport number, identity card number, frequent flyer programme membership number, customer service remarks, and historical travel information," he informed. CEO Hogg also said 403 expired credit card numbers and 27 credit card numbers with no CVV were also accessed.

Cathay Pacific airlines shares plunge after data leak revelation

Britain's information regulator on Thursday upheld a small but symbolic 500,000 pound ($645,000) fine for Facebook for breaches of data protection law related to the harvesting of data by consultancy Cambridge Analytica.

Confirming its initial decision on the fine in July, the Information Commissioner's Office said data from at least one million British users had been among that harvested by Cambridge and used for political purposes.

Britain's information regulator on Thursday upheld a small but symbolic 500,000 pound ($645,000) fine for Facebook for breaches of data protection law related to the harvesting of data by consultancy Cambridge Analytica.

Britain's information regulator on Thursday upheld a small but symbolic 500,000 pound ($645,000) fine for Facebook for breaches of data protection law related to the harvesting of data by consultancy Cambridge Analytica. Confirming its initial decision on the fine in July, the Information Commissioner's Office said data from at least one million British users had been among that harvested by Cambridge and used for political purposes.

UK regulator fines Facebook £500,000 in Cambridge Analytica scandal

In the latest blow, Facebook is now expected to be fined a whopping US $1.6 billion by the European Union (EU) privacy watchdog due to the latest data breach which exposed the private information of at least 50 million users, reports said.&nbsp;

The latest data breach is said to have violated the EU's new privacy law called the General Data Protection Regulation, which came into effect in May.&nbsp;The new law by the EU aims to safeguard users data for people within the European Union.&nbsp;

The breach was discovered on Friday and Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DCI), Facebook's lead regulator in Europe, has asked the social network to reveal more information about the hack including information on EU users that were impacted.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/DPCIreland?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DPCIreland</a> is awaiting from Facebook further urgent details of the security breach impacting some 50m users, including details of EU users which have been affected, so that we can properly assess the nature of the breach and risk to users. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/dataprotection?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#dataprotection</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GDPR?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GDPR</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/eudatap?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#eudatap</a> <a href="https://t.co/3oM3BSaSBS">https://t.co/3oM3BSaSBS</a>
— Data Protection Commission Ireland (@DPCIreland) <a href="https://twitter.com/DPCIreland/status/1046417378236608512?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 30, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

In the biggest-ever security breach after Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook on Friday admitted hackers broke into nearly 50 million users' accounts by stealing their "access tokens" or digital keys.

This allowed them to steal Facebook access tokens which they could then use to take over people's accounts.

The hackers also gained access to personal information from third-party apps and services, like Tinder, Spotify, Airbnb, and Instagram, which allow users to sign up using their Facebook login.

According to Facebook, users’ passwords were not revealed in the data breach, though impacted accounts did have to re-log into the social network on Friday. &nbsp;

Senator Mark R. Warner has also called for a full probe into the incident.

&nbsp;

In the latest blow, Facebook is now expected to be fined a whopping US $1.6 billion by the European Union (EU) privacy watchdog due to the latest data breach which exposed the private information of at least 50 million users, reports said.

In the latest blow, Facebook is now expected to be fined a whopping US $1.6 billion by the European Union (EU) privacy watchdog due to the latest data breach which exposed the private information of at least 50 million users, reports said. The latest data breach is said to have violated the EU's new privacy law called the General Data Protection Regulation, which came into effect in May. The new law by the EU aims to safeguard users data for people within the European Union. The breach was discovered on Friday and Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DCI), Facebook's lead regulator in Europe, has asked the social network to reveal more information about the hack including information on EU users that were impacted. .@DPCIreland is awaiting from Facebook further urgent details of the security breach impacting some 50m users, including details of EU users which have been affected, so that we can properly assess the nature of the breach and risk to users. #dataprotection #GDPR #eudatap https://t.co/3oM3BSaSBS — Data Protection Commission Ireland (@DPCIreland) September 30, 2018 × In the biggest-ever security breach after Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook on Friday admitted hackers broke into nearly 50 million users' accounts by stealing their "access tokens" or digital keys. This allowed them to steal Facebook access tokens which they could then use to take over people's accounts. The hackers also gained access to personal information from third-party apps and services, like Tinder, Spotify, Airbnb, and Instagram, which allow users to sign up using their Facebook login. According to Facebook, users’ passwords were not revealed in the data breach, though impacted accounts did have to re-log into the social network on Friday. Senator Mark R. Warner has also called for a full probe into the incident.

Facebook to be fined $1.6 billion over latest EU data breach 

The Indian government asked Facebook to respond by June 20 the media reports of sharing user data without the consent of the users.

The official statement states, "Recently there are media reports claiming that Facebook has agreements which are allowing phone and other device manufacturers access to its users' personal information, including that of their friends, without taking their explicit consent. The Government of India is deeply concerned about reports of such lapses/violations".

"The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has sought an explanation from Facebook seeking a detailed factual report on the issue. Facebook has been asked to respond by June 20."

Already facing criticism over the data breach scandal, Facebook came under fire again on Wednesday after the reports that it shared data with four Chinese mobile manufacturing firms.

The company also acknowledged the reports on Wednesday and said that it is ending the agreement with Huawei.

The United States also criticised Facebook after Republican and Democratic lawmakers demanded that the social media be more forthcoming about data it has shared with the Chinese companies.

Facebook had earlier revealed 87 million users' account was hacked after a UK-based firm Cambridge Analytica was accused of harvesting Facebook data.

New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood said the "data-sharing partnerships with other corporations" is part of the ongoing investigation into the reported misuse of Facebook user data by Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook faced criticism in the United States on Wednesday from Republican and Democratic lawmakers who demanded that the social media company be more forthcoming about data it has shared with four Chinese firms

The Indian government asked Facebook to respond by June 20 the media reports of sharing user data without the consent of the users. The official statement states, "Recently there are media reports claiming that Facebook has agreements which are allowing phone and other device manufacturers access to its users' personal information, including that of their friends, without taking their explicit consent. The Government of India is deeply concerned about reports of such lapses/violations". "The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has sought an explanation from Facebook seeking a detailed factual report on the issue. Facebook has been asked to respond by June 20." Already facing criticism over the data breach scandal, Facebook came under fire again on Wednesday after the reports that it shared data with four Chinese mobile manufacturing firms. The company also acknowledged the reports on Wednesday and said that it is ending the agreement with Huawei. The United States also criticised Facebook after Republican and Democratic lawmakers demanded that the social media be more forthcoming about data it has shared with the Chinese companies. Facebook had earlier revealed 87 million users' account was hacked after a UK-based firm Cambridge Analytica was accused of harvesting Facebook data. New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood said the "data-sharing partnerships with other corporations" is part of the ongoing investigation into the reported misuse of Facebook user data by Cambridge Analytica.

India seeks Facebook's response over reports of data sharing without consent

As per reports, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will not be testifying before the UK Parliament.

Parliament members had previously noted that Zuckerberg would be summoned to testify in connection to the Cambridge Analytica data leak whenever he is in the country next.

Facebook officials have now noted that Zuckerberg does not plan to do so.

Parliamentary member Damian Collins called the incident "disappointing".&nbsp;

"It is disappointing that a company with the resources of Facebook chooses not to provide a sufficient level of detail and transparency on various points including on Cambridge Analytica, dark ads, Facebook Connect, the amount spent by Russia on UK ads on the platform, data collection across the web, budgets for investigations, and that shows general discrepancies between Schroepfer and Zuckerberg’s respective testimonies. Given that these were follow up questions to questions Mr Schroepfer previously failed to answer, we expected both detail and data, and in a number of cases got excuses," Collins noted in a statement.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Collins urged Zuckerberg to appear via video link if he does not plan to present himself in person before the Parliament.&nbsp;

"If Mark Zuckerberg truly recognises the ‘seriousness’ of these issues as they say they do, we would expect that he would want to appear in front of the Committee and answer questions that are of concern not only to Parliament but Facebook’s tens of millions of users in this country. Although Facebook says Mr Zuckerberg has no plans to travel to the UK, we would also be open to taking his evidence by video link, if that would be the only way to do this during the period of our inquiry," read the statement.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Zuckerberg and his social media giant, Facebook, emerge at the centre of a controversy that involves UK-based data analysis company Cambridge Analytica.

Zuckerberg is facing regulatory probes over data breach and privacy violation&nbsp;of around 90 million users.&nbsp;

Zuckerberg is facing regulatory probes over data breach and privacy violation of around 90 million users.

As per reports, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will not be testifying before the UK Parliament. Parliament members had previously noted that Zuckerberg would be summoned to testify in connection to the Cambridge Analytica data leak whenever he is in the country next. Facebook officials have now noted that Zuckerberg does not plan to do so. Parliamentary member Damian Collins called the incident "disappointing". "It is disappointing that a company with the resources of Facebook chooses not to provide a sufficient level of detail and transparency on various points including on Cambridge Analytica, dark ads, Facebook Connect, the amount spent by Russia on UK ads on the platform, data collection across the web, budgets for investigations, and that shows general discrepancies between Schroepfer and Zuckerberg’s respective testimonies. Given that these were follow up questions to questions Mr Schroepfer previously failed to answer, we expected both detail and data, and in a number of cases got excuses," Collins noted in a statement. Collins urged Zuckerberg to appear via video link if he does not plan to present himself in person before the Parliament. "If Mark Zuckerberg truly recognises the ‘seriousness’ of these issues as they say they do, we would expect that he would want to appear in front of the Committee and answer questions that are of concern not only to Parliament but Facebook’s tens of millions of users in this country. Although Facebook says Mr Zuckerberg has no plans to travel to the UK, we would also be open to taking his evidence by video link, if that would be the only way to do this during the period of our inquiry," read the statement. Zuckerberg and his social media giant, Facebook, emerge at the centre of a controversy that involves UK-based data analysis company Cambridge Analytica. Zuckerberg is facing regulatory probes over data breach and privacy violation of around 90 million users.

Mark Zuckerberg may not testify before UK Parliament

The Cambridge Analytica consultancy at the center of this year’s Facebook privacy row is closing, the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday reported the founder of the firm’s UK-based parent as saying.

SCL Group founder Nigel Oakes confirmed that both companies were closing, the WSJ said.

The newspaper added, citing an unnamed source, that the decision was taken because the companies were losing clients and facing mounting legal fees in the Facebook investigation.

The firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The row over the improper use of data on 87 million Facebook users by Cambridge Analytica in President Donald Trump’s 2016 U.S. election campaign, has hurt the shares of the world’s biggest social network and prompted multiple official investigations.

SCL Group founder Nigel Oakes confirmed that both companies were closing, the WSJ said

The Cambridge Analytica consultancy at the center of this year’s Facebook privacy row is closing, the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday reported the founder of the firm’s UK-based parent as saying. SCL Group founder Nigel Oakes confirmed that both companies were closing, the WSJ said. The newspaper added, citing an unnamed source, that the decision was taken because the companies were losing clients and facing mounting legal fees in the Facebook investigation. The firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The row over the improper use of data on 87 million Facebook users by Cambridge Analytica in President Donald Trump’s 2016 U.S. election campaign, has hurt the shares of the world’s biggest social network and prompted multiple official investigations.

Cambridge Analytica shutting down following Facebook crisis

Facebook has moved to block referral of an Irish privacy case to Europe's top court, a lawyer for the U.S. tech giant said on Monday, seeking to avoid a potential ban on the legal instrument it uses to transfer users' data to the United States.

The case, taken by privacy activist Max Schrems, is the latest to question whether methods used by technology firms such as Google and Apple to transfer data outside the 28-nation European Union give EU consumers sufficient protection from U.S. surveillance.

The Irish High Court this month ordered the case to be referred to the EU's top court for a detailed assessment of whether the methods used for data transfers - including standard contractual clauses and the Privacy Shield agreement - were legal.

A ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against the legal arrangements could cause major headaches for thousands of firms, which make millions of these transfers every day.

The lawyer, Paul Gallagher, told the Irish High Court on Monday that Facebook was seeking a stay on the court's referral of the case to the ECJ to give the Irish Supreme Court time to decide if it would hear an appeal.

"The ideal thing we would be looking for would be a stay pending a determination by the Supreme Court," Gallagher told the court, adding that Facebook would seek an accelerated referral to the Supreme Court so it would take days, not months.

The case was taken in Ireland, the location of Facebook's headquarters for most markets outside the United States.

The judge earlier said the case raised well-founded concerns that there is an absence of an effective remedy in U.S. law compatible with EU legal requirements.

The case is the latest to question whether methods used by technology firms such as Google and Apple to transfer data outside the 28-nation European Union give EU consumers sufficient protection from U.S. surveillance

Facebook has moved to block referral of an Irish privacy case to Europe's top court, a lawyer for the U.S. tech giant said on Monday, seeking to avoid a potential ban on the legal instrument it uses to transfer users' data to the United States. The case, taken by privacy activist Max Schrems, is the latest to question whether methods used by technology firms such as Google and Apple to transfer data outside the 28-nation European Union give EU consumers sufficient protection from U.S. surveillance. The Irish High Court this month ordered the case to be referred to the EU's top court for a detailed assessment of whether the methods used for data transfers - including standard contractual clauses and the Privacy Shield agreement - were legal. A ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) against the legal arrangements could cause major headaches for thousands of firms, which make millions of these transfers every day. The lawyer, Paul Gallagher, told the Irish High Court on Monday that Facebook was seeking a stay on the court's referral of the case to the ECJ to give the Irish Supreme Court time to decide if it would hear an appeal. "The ideal thing we would be looking for would be a stay pending a determination by the Supreme Court," Gallagher told the court, adding that Facebook would seek an accelerated referral to the Supreme Court so it would take days, not months. The case was taken in Ireland, the location of Facebook's headquarters for most markets outside the United States. The judge earlier said the case raised well-founded concerns that there is an absence of an effective remedy in U.S. law compatible with EU legal requirements.

Facebook seeks to block referral of privacy case to EU's top court

Facebook Inc on Tuesday gave an explanation for the types of posts it allows on its social network, giving far more detail than ever before on what is permitted on subjects ranging from drug use and sex work to bullying, hate speech and inciting violence.

Facebook for years has had "community standards" for what people can post. But only a relatively brief and general version was publicly available, while it had a far more detailed internal document to decide when individual posts or accounts should be removed.

Now, the company is providing the longer document on its website to clear up confusion and be more open about its operations, said Monika Bickert, Facebook's vice president of product policy and counter-terrorism.

New policies will, for the first time, allow people to appeal a decision to take down an individual piece of content. Previously, only the removal of accounts, Groups and Pages could be appealed.

Facebook is also beginning to provide the specific reason why content is being taken down for a wider variety of situations.

Facebook, the world's largest social network, has become a dominant source of information in many countries around the world. It uses both automated software and an army of moderators that now numbers 7,500 to take down text, pictures and videos that violate its rules. Under pressure from several governments, it has been beefing up its moderator ranks since last year.

Appeals

We know we need to do more. That’s why, over the coming year, we are going to build out the ability for people to appeal our decisions. As a first step, we are launching appeals for posts that were removed for nudity/sexual activity, hate speech or graphic violence.

Here’s how it works:

<ul>
	<li>If your photo, video or post has been removed because it violates our Community Standards, you will be notified, and given the option to request additional review.</li>
	<li>This will lead to a review by our team (always by a person), typically within 24 hours.</li>
	<li>If we’ve made a mistake, we will notify you, and your post, photo or video will be restored.</li>
</ul>

Participation and Feedback

Our efforts to improve and refine our Community Standards depend on participation and input from people around the world. In May, we will launch Facebook Forums: Community Standards, a series of public events in Germany, France, the UK, India, Singapore, the US and other countries where we’ll get people’s feedback directly. We will share more details about these initiatives as we finalize them.

As our CEO Mark Zuckerberg said at the start of the year: “we won’t prevent all mistakes or abuse, but we currently make too many errors enforcing our policies and preventing misuse of our tools.” Publication of today’s internal enforcement guidelines – as well as the expansion of our appeals process – will create a clear path for us to improve over time. These are hard issues and we’re excited to do better going forward.

Meanwhile, Facebook has long made clear that it does not allow people to buy and sell prescription drugs, marijuana or firearms on the social network, but the newly published document details what another speech on those subjects is permitted.

Content in which someone "admits to personal use of non-medical drugs" should not be posted on Facebook, the rulebook says.

The document elaborates on harassment and bullying, barring for example "cursing at a minor." It also prohibits content that comes from a hacked source, "except in limited cases of newsworthiness."

The new community standards do not incorporate separate procedures under which governments can demand the removal of content that violates local law.

In those cases, Bickert said, formal written requests are required and are reviewed by Facebook's legal team and outside attorneys. Content deemed to be permissible under community standards but in violation of the local law - such as a prohibition in Thailand on disparaging the royal family - are then blocked in that country, but not globally.

The community standards also do not address false information - Facebook does not prohibit it but it does try to reduce its distribution - or other contentious issues such as the use of personal data.

New policies will, for the first time, allow people to appeal a decision to take down an individual piece of content. Previously, only the removal of accounts, Groups and Pages could be appealed

Facebook Inc on Tuesday gave an explanation for the types of posts it allows on its social network, giving far more detail than ever before on what is permitted on subjects ranging from drug use and sex work to bullying, hate speech and inciting violence. Facebook for years has had "community standards" for what people can post. But only a relatively brief and general version was publicly available, while it had a far more detailed internal document to decide when individual posts or accounts should be removed. Now, the company is providing the longer document on its website to clear up confusion and be more open about its operations, said Monika Bickert, Facebook's vice president of product policy and counter-terrorism. New policies will, for the first time, allow people to appeal a decision to take down an individual piece of content. Previously, only the removal of accounts, Groups and Pages could be appealed. Facebook is also beginning to provide the specific reason why content is being taken down for a wider variety of situations. Facebook, the world's largest social network, has become a dominant source of information in many countries around the world. It uses both automated software and an army of moderators that now numbers 7,500 to take down text, pictures and videos that violate its rules. Under pressure from several governments, it has been beefing up its moderator ranks since last year. Appeals We know we need to do more. That’s why, over the coming year, we are going to build out the ability for people to appeal our decisions. As a first step, we are launching appeals for posts that were removed for nudity/sexual activity, hate speech or graphic violence. Here’s how it works: If your photo, video or post has been removed because it violates our Community Standards, you will be notified, and given the option to request additional review. This will lead to a review by our team (always by a person), typically within 24 hours. If we’ve made a mistake, we will notify you, and your post, photo or video will be restored. Participation and Feedback Our efforts to improve and refine our Community Standards depend on participation and input from people around the world. In May, we will launch Facebook Forums: Community Standards, a series of public events in Germany, France, the UK, India, Singapore, the US and other countries where we’ll get people’s feedback directly. We will share more details about these initiatives as we finalize them. As our CEO Mark Zuckerberg said at the start of the year: “we won’t prevent all mistakes or abuse, but we currently make too many errors enforcing our policies and preventing misuse of our tools.” Publication of today’s internal enforcement guidelines – as well as the expansion of our appeals process – will create a clear path for us to improve over time. These are hard issues and we’re excited to do better going forward. Meanwhile, Facebook has long made clear that it does not allow people to buy and sell prescription drugs, marijuana or firearms on the social network, but the newly published document details what another speech on those subjects is permitted. Content in which someone "admits to personal use of non-medical drugs" should not be posted on Facebook, the rulebook says. The document elaborates on harassment and bullying, barring for example "cursing at a minor." It also prohibits content that comes from a hacked source, "except in limited cases of newsworthiness." The new community standards do not incorporate separate procedures under which governments can demand the removal of content that violates local law. In those cases, Bickert said, formal written requests are required and are reviewed by Facebook's legal team and outside attorneys. Content deemed to be permissible under community standards but in violation of the local law - such as a prohibition in Thailand on disparaging the royal family - are then blocked in that country, but not globally. The community standards also do not address false information - Facebook does not prohibit it but it does try to reduce its distribution - or other contentious issues such as the use of personal data.

Facebook releases long-secret rules on how it polices the service

A researcher at the centre of a scandal over the alleged misuse of the data of nearly 100 million Facebook users said on Tuesday the work he did was not useful for micro-targeted adverts that would be needed to sway an election.

Aleksandr Kogan, who worked for the University of Cambridge, is at the centre of a controversy over Cambridge Analytica`s use of millions of users` data without their permission after it was hired by Donald Trump for his 2016 election campaign.&nbsp;Kogan said that the dataset he compiled would be of little help for targeted advertising, and that the data he obtained would not be useful for identifying individuals.

"I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook," he said in written testimony to a parliamentary committee.

"In fact, the platform`s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work."&nbsp;

Facebook has said that the personal information of about 87 million users may have been improperly shared with political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, after Kogan created a personality quiz app to collect the data.

Facebook and Cambridge Analytica have blamed Kogan for alleged data misuse, but he has said that he was being made a scapegoat by the companies for the scandal. Cambridge Analytica will later address Kogan`s remarks at a briefing. 
&nbsp; 
Cambridge Analytica is also under scrutiny over campaigning for the 2016 referendum when Britons voted to leave the European Union.&nbsp;

Kogan said that former Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix, who was also a director of the consultancy`s parent firm SCL Group, had previously lied to lawmakers when he said he had not received data from Kogan.

"We certainly gave them data, that`s indisputable," Kogan told lawmakers. Asked if Nix had lied, Kogan answered: "Absolutely."

Kogan hired a market research firm called Qualtrics to recruit 200,000 to 300,000 people to take the quiz to collect the data, resulting in expenses of $600,000-$800,000. Kogan`s company was paid 230,000 pounds ($320,643.00) by SCL for its predictive analysis based on the findings, Kogan said.

However, he added that he thought it was unlikely that SCL used the data for the Trump campaign, after he heard that it had not yielded good results when it was deployed in Republican candidate Ted Cruz`s campaign.

Kogan said that he never drew a salary from GSR, the company that he founded to do the research that was wound up last year. Most of the money received from SCL was spent on coding work, acquiring data and legal fees. He was allowed to keep the data he gathered on the project.

Kogan said that GSR had a close relationship with Facebook, and one of his partners at the firm, Joseph Chancellor, now worked for the social media giant.&nbsp;

Kogan added that Facebook`s allegations that he ran a scam, was a fraud and a liar amounted to crisis PR.&nbsp;&nbsp;"PR is PR," he said. "It`s convenient for them to point the finger."

Aleksandr Kogan, who worked for the University of Cambridge, is at the centre of a controversy over Cambridge Analytica`s use of millions of users` data without their permission after it was hired by Donald Trump for his 2016 election campaign

A researcher at the centre of a scandal over the alleged misuse of the data of nearly 100 million Facebook users said on Tuesday the work he did was not useful for micro-targeted adverts that would be needed to sway an election. Aleksandr Kogan, who worked for the University of Cambridge, is at the centre of a controversy over Cambridge Analytica`s use of millions of users` data without their permission after it was hired by Donald Trump for his 2016 election campaign. Kogan said that the dataset he compiled would be of little help for targeted advertising, and that the data he obtained would not be useful for identifying individuals. "I believe the project we did makes little to no sense if the goal is to run targeted ads on Facebook," he said in written testimony to a parliamentary committee. "In fact, the platform`s tools provide companies a far more effective pathway to target people based on their personalities than using scores from users from our work." Facebook has said that the personal information of about 87 million users may have been improperly shared with political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, after Kogan created a personality quiz app to collect the data. Facebook and Cambridge Analytica have blamed Kogan for alleged data misuse, but he has said that he was being made a scapegoat by the companies for the scandal. Cambridge Analytica will later address Kogan`s remarks at a briefing. Cambridge Analytica is also under scrutiny over campaigning for the 2016 referendum when Britons voted to leave the European Union. Kogan said that former Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix, who was also a director of the consultancy`s parent firm SCL Group, had previously lied to lawmakers when he said he had not received data from Kogan. "We certainly gave them data, that`s indisputable," Kogan told lawmakers. Asked if Nix had lied, Kogan answered: "Absolutely." Kogan hired a market research firm called Qualtrics to recruit 200,000 to 300,000 people to take the quiz to collect the data, resulting in expenses of $600,000-$800,000. Kogan`s company was paid 230,000 pounds ($320,643.00) by SCL for its predictive analysis based on the findings, Kogan said. However, he added that he thought it was unlikely that SCL used the data for the Trump campaign, after he heard that it had not yielded good results when it was deployed in Republican candidate Ted Cruz`s campaign. Kogan said that he never drew a salary from GSR, the company that he founded to do the research that was wound up last year. Most of the money received from SCL was spent on coding work, acquiring data and legal fees. He was allowed to keep the data he gathered on the project. Kogan said that GSR had a close relationship with Facebook, and one of his partners at the firm, Joseph Chancellor, now worked for the social media giant. Kogan added that Facebook`s allegations that he ran a scam, was a fraud and a liar amounted to crisis PR. "PR is PR," he said. "It`s convenient for them to point the finger."

My work was no good for targeted advertising, says researcher in Facebook scandal

Mark Zuckerberg testified before the US Congress last week over Facebook's data breach issue and answered around 500 question in the five-hour-long interaction.

Now, Facebook has answered some questions that perhaps the users would be unaware of. The clarification came on Monday in a post written by Facebook's product management director David Baser, who leads a team at the company that focuses on privacy and data use and the tools users can use to control and download their information.&nbsp;

Baser listed the various ways that Facebook gets data about people from other websites and apps: social plug-ins like Facebook’s “share” and “like” buttons the Facebook login, which one can use to enter into another website or app Facebook Analytics, which lets those other sites and apps better understand how folks use their services plus other tools which let sites and apps serve and measure the effectiveness of ads.&nbsp;

He informed that when a user visits a site or app that uses Facebook's services, they receive information even if the user is logged out or don’t have a Facebook account. This is because other apps and sites don’t know who is using Facebook.

Twitter, Pinterest and LinkedIn all have similar Like and Share buttons to help people share things on their services. Google has a popular analytics service. And Amazon, Google and Twitter all offer login features. These companies — and many others — also offer advertising services.

Apps and websites that use Facebook's services, such as the Like button or Facebook Analytics, send them information to make their content and ads better.

The website also gets information about the browser and operating system (for example Android or Windows) a user is using because not all browsers and devices support the same features. It also gets cookies, which are identifiers that websites use to know if a user has visited before. This can help with things like saving items in their shopping cart.

Baser goes on to say that Facebook uses the information it gets to provide various services to these sites or apps, including the manner in which such sites can show ads.

There are three main ways in which Facebook uses the information they get from other websites and apps: providing our services to these sites or apps improving safety and security on Facebook and enhancing our own products and services.&nbsp;

He finally mentioned how a user is in full control of their information on Facebook and be transparent about what information Facebook has and how it is used.&nbsp;

The clarification came on Monday in a post written by Facebook product management director David Baser, who leads a team at the company that focuses on privacy and data use and the tools users can use to control and download their information

Mark Zuckerberg testified before the US Congress last week over Facebook's data breach issue and answered around 500 question in the five-hour-long interaction. Now, Facebook has answered some questions that perhaps the users would be unaware of. The clarification came on Monday in a post written by Facebook's product management director David Baser, who leads a team at the company that focuses on privacy and data use and the tools users can use to control and download their information. Baser listed the various ways that Facebook gets data about people from other websites and apps: social plug-ins like Facebook’s “share” and “like” buttons the Facebook login, which one can use to enter into another website or app Facebook Analytics, which lets those other sites and apps better understand how folks use their services plus other tools which let sites and apps serve and measure the effectiveness of ads. He informed that when a user visits a site or app that uses Facebook's services, they receive information even if the user is logged out or don’t have a Facebook account. This is because other apps and sites don’t know who is using Facebook. Twitter, Pinterest and LinkedIn all have similar Like and Share buttons to help people share things on their services. Google has a popular analytics service. And Amazon, Google and Twitter all offer login features. These companies — and many others — also offer advertising services. Apps and websites that use Facebook's services, such as the Like button or Facebook Analytics, send them information to make their content and ads better. The website also gets information about the browser and operating system (for example Android or Windows) a user is using because not all browsers and devices support the same features. It also gets cookies, which are identifiers that websites use to know if a user has visited before. This can help with things like saving items in their shopping cart. Baser goes on to say that Facebook uses the information it gets to provide various services to these sites or apps, including the manner in which such sites can show ads. There are three main ways in which Facebook uses the information they get from other websites and apps: providing our services to these sites or apps improving safety and security on Facebook and enhancing our own products and services. He finally mentioned how a user is in full control of their information on Facebook and be transparent about what information Facebook has and how it is used.

How does Facebook collect user, non-user data? Company clarifies

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg during his congressional hearing today said he wants to ensure protection of integrity of elections, mentioning that he knows the importance of the upcoming polls in countries, including India, Hungary and Brazil.

Zuckerberg faced a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees.

He noted that there are several important elections in 2018 in countries like India, Hungary and Brazil and his company wants to ensure protection of integrity in these elections.

Zuckerberg, 33, testified before the senators and a House panel amid a firestorm over the alleged hijacking of data of millions of Facebook users by British firm Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has disclosed his company is "working with" special counsel Robert Mueller in the federal probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign and working hard to change its own operations after the harvesting of users' private information by a Trump campaign-affiliated data-mining company.

The founder of the social media giant publicly apologized for his company's errors in failing to better protect the personal information of its millions of users, a controversy that has brought a flood of bad publicity and sent the company's stock value plunging. He seemed to achieve a measure of success: Facebook shares surged 4.5 per cent for the day, the biggest gain in two years.

Zuckerberg told the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees that he has not been personally interviewed by Mueller's team, but "I know we're working with them." He offered no details, citing a concern about confidentiality rules of the investigation.

Earlier this year Mueller charged 13 Russian individuals and three Russian companies in a plot to interfere in the 2016 presidential election through a social media propaganda effort that included online ad purchases using US aliases and politicking on U.S. soil. A number of the Russian ads were on Facebook.

During yesterday's at-times-contentious hearing, Zuckerberg said it had been "clearly a mistake" to believe the data-mining company Cambridge Analytica had deleted user data that it had harvested in an attempt to sway elections. He said Facebook had considered the data collection "a closed case" because it thought the information had been discarded.

Facebook also didn't alert the Federal Trade Commission, Zuckerberg said, and he assured senators the company would handle the situation differently today.

He began a two-day congressional inquisition with a public apology for the way Facebook handled the data-mining of its users' data. He took responsibility for failing to prevent Cambridge Analytica, which was affiliated with Donald Trump's presidential campaign, from gathering personal information from 87 million users.

Separately, the company began alerting some of its users that their data was gathered by Cambridge Analytica. A notification that appeared on Facebook for some users Tuesday told them that "one of your friends" used Facebook to log into a now-banned personality quiz app called "This Is Your Digital Life." The notice says the app misused the information, including public profiles, page likes, birthdays and current cities, by sharing it with Cambridge Analytica.

Zuckerberg had apologized many times already, to users and the public, but this was the first time before Congress. He also is to testify Wednesday before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the Commerce Committee chairman, told Zuckerberg his company had a 14-year history of apologizing for "ill-advised decisions" related to user privacy. "How is today's apology different?" Thune asked.

"We have made a lot of mistakes in running the company," Zuckerberg responded. "I think it's pretty much impossible, I believe, to start a company in your dorm room and then grow it to be at the scale that we're at now without making some mistakes." Zuckerberg said Facebook is going through "a broader philosophical shift in how we approach our responsibility as a company." He said the company needs to take a "more proactive role" that includes ensuring the tools it creates are used in "good and healthy" ways.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Zuckerberg's appearance marked the most intense hearing for a tech company since entrepreneur and businessman Bill Gates testified before Congress in March 1998.

Many of the senators' questions seemed to focus on Facebook's basic functions, such as its privacy settings and what it does and doesn't do with user data. Because each of the 44 senators had just 5 minutes to ask questions, there was little time for tough follow-ups. On some subjects, that allowed Zuckerberg to tell the lawmakers that his people would get back to them with more information.

In the hearings, Zuckerberg is trying to both restore public trust in his company and stave off federal regulations that some lawmakers have floated. In his opening statement, he also apologized for his company's involvement in facilitating fake news and Russian interference in the elections.

Zuckerberg said at a congressional hearing that he knows the importance of upcoming polls in India, Hungary and Brazil

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg during his congressional hearing today said he wants to ensure protection of integrity of elections, mentioning that he knows the importance of the upcoming polls in countries, including India, Hungary and Brazil. Zuckerberg faced a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees. He noted that there are several important elections in 2018 in countries like India, Hungary and Brazil and his company wants to ensure protection of integrity in these elections. Zuckerberg, 33, testified before the senators and a House panel amid a firestorm over the alleged hijacking of data of millions of Facebook users by British firm Cambridge Analytica. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has disclosed his company is "working with" special counsel Robert Mueller in the federal probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign and working hard to change its own operations after the harvesting of users' private information by a Trump campaign-affiliated data-mining company. The founder of the social media giant publicly apologized for his company's errors in failing to better protect the personal information of its millions of users, a controversy that has brought a flood of bad publicity and sent the company's stock value plunging. He seemed to achieve a measure of success: Facebook shares surged 4.5 per cent for the day, the biggest gain in two years. Zuckerberg told the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees that he has not been personally interviewed by Mueller's team, but "I know we're working with them." He offered no details, citing a concern about confidentiality rules of the investigation. Earlier this year Mueller charged 13 Russian individuals and three Russian companies in a plot to interfere in the 2016 presidential election through a social media propaganda effort that included online ad purchases using US aliases and politicking on U.S. soil. A number of the Russian ads were on Facebook. During yesterday's at-times-contentious hearing, Zuckerberg said it had been "clearly a mistake" to believe the data-mining company Cambridge Analytica had deleted user data that it had harvested in an attempt to sway elections. He said Facebook had considered the data collection "a closed case" because it thought the information had been discarded. Facebook also didn't alert the Federal Trade Commission, Zuckerberg said, and he assured senators the company would handle the situation differently today. He began a two-day congressional inquisition with a public apology for the way Facebook handled the data-mining of its users' data. He took responsibility for failing to prevent Cambridge Analytica, which was affiliated with Donald Trump's presidential campaign, from gathering personal information from 87 million users. Separately, the company began alerting some of its users that their data was gathered by Cambridge Analytica. A notification that appeared on Facebook for some users Tuesday told them that "one of your friends" used Facebook to log into a now-banned personality quiz app called "This Is Your Digital Life." The notice says the app misused the information, including public profiles, page likes, birthdays and current cities, by sharing it with Cambridge Analytica. Zuckerberg had apologized many times already, to users and the public, but this was the first time before Congress. He also is to testify Wednesday before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the Commerce Committee chairman, told Zuckerberg his company had a 14-year history of apologizing for "ill-advised decisions" related to user privacy. "How is today's apology different?" Thune asked. "We have made a lot of mistakes in running the company," Zuckerberg responded. "I think it's pretty much impossible, I believe, to start a company in your dorm room and then grow it to be at the scale that we're at now without making some mistakes." Zuckerberg said Facebook is going through "a broader philosophical shift in how we approach our responsibility as a company." He said the company needs to take a "more proactive role" that includes ensuring the tools it creates are used in "good and healthy" ways. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Zuckerberg's appearance marked the most intense hearing for a tech company since entrepreneur and businessman Bill Gates testified before Congress in March 1998. Many of the senators' questions seemed to focus on Facebook's basic functions, such as its privacy settings and what it does and doesn't do with user data. Because each of the 44 senators had just 5 minutes to ask questions, there was little time for tough follow-ups. On some subjects, that allowed Zuckerberg to tell the lawmakers that his people would get back to them with more information. In the hearings, Zuckerberg is trying to both restore public trust in his company and stave off federal regulations that some lawmakers have floated. In his opening statement, he also apologized for his company's involvement in facilitating fake news and Russian interference in the elections.

Want to ensure integrity of elections in India: Facebook's Zuckerberg

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be testifying before US lawmakers on Tuesday over data breach of user information. Zuckerberg is scheduled to appear before a joint hearing of the US Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees on Tuesday and the US House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday.

In his testimony before the Congress, Zuckerberg will attempt to blunt any possible regulatory fallout from the privacy scandal engulfing his social network.&nbsp

Besides everything, one thing that is certain is that Zuckerberg will need a considerable bracing-up for a gruelling attack from the Congressmen.

As we have our eyes set on the imminent event, here's a look at some of the probable questions Zuckerberg could be asked by the lawmakers.&nbsp

1. Should Facebook be trusted anymore?

This could be one of the most significant queries directed at the Facebook CEO. The social media giant recently surfaced as an unsafe social media platform by compromising and putting to risk the safety of personal information of millions of its users.

2. Share the extent to which user data has been compromised

The expanse of the data breach is unimaginable. According to reports, around 87 million accounts were hit with very little details on data misuse available in the public domain. Zuckerberg, most probably, would be asked to give out extensive report on the same.&nbsp

There is also little clarity on who all have access to the leaked data.&nbsp

3. What took so long for the company to act?

Reports of data breach first emerged in the year 2015, the Zuckerberg-led company took years to act on the same. Facebook CEO may have to elaborate on the same clarifying why did his company take so long to take stock of the situation.&nbsp

4. How can facebook ensure data privacy in future?

It’s not the first time when the social media giant came under fire for failing to maintain user privacy. &nbspThe recent controversy around the breach of user data has caused unimaginable damage to its users’ privacy and company's reputation. &nbsp

Zuckerberg might have to share his company's overhauled policy directed toward ensuring&nbspuser data privacy.

5. Why did Facebook not notify users more aggressively?

US lawmakers may demand Zuckerberg to clarify why exactly were the users not notified when their personal information was shared with third-party applications. The Congressmen may call for stringent, stricter regulations on Facebook asking Zuckerberg why should tougher regulations not be imposed on the company.&nbsp

Facebook recently announced that it will notify the 87 million people whose data it estimates could have been accessed by Cambridge Analytica. According to reports, Facebook could end up facing more regulations than ever before.

Zuckerberg, in his testimony, is expected to recognize a need to take responsibility and acknowledge an initial failure to understand how many people were affected.

The 33-year-old internet mogul will appear at 2:15 pm&nbsp(1815 GMT) before a joint hearing of the US Senate's Commerce and Judiciary committees on Tuesday.

Facebook came under fire in recent weeks after it said that the personal information of up to 87 million users, mostly in the United States, may have been improperly shared with political consultancy Cambridge Analytica.

Besides everything, one thing that is certain is that Zuckerberg will need considerable bracing-up to face a gruelling attack from the Congressmen

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be testifying before US lawmakers on Tuesday over data breach of user information. Zuckerberg is scheduled to appear before a joint hearing of the US Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees on Tuesday and the US House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday. In his testimony before the Congress, Zuckerberg will attempt to blunt any possible regulatory fallout from the privacy scandal engulfing his social network. Besides everything, one thing that is certain is that Zuckerberg will need a considerable bracing-up for a gruelling attack from the Congressmen. As we have our eyes set on the imminent event, here's a look at some of the probable questions Zuckerberg could be asked by the lawmakers. 1. Should Facebook be trusted anymore? This could be one of the most significant queries directed at the Facebook CEO. The social media giant recently surfaced as an unsafe social media platform by compromising and putting to risk the safety of personal information of millions of its users. 2. Share the extent to which user data has been compromised The expanse of the data breach is unimaginable. According to reports, around 87 million accounts were hit with very little details on data misuse available in the public domain. Zuckerberg, most probably, would be asked to give out extensive report on the same. There is also little clarity on who all have access to the leaked data. 3. What took so long for the company to act? Reports of data breach first emerged in the year 2015, the Zuckerberg-led company took years to act on the same. Facebook CEO may have to elaborate on the same clarifying why did his company take so long to take stock of the situation. 4. How can facebook ensure data privacy in future? It’s not the first time when the social media giant came under fire for failing to maintain user privacy. &nbspThe recent controversy around the breach of user data has caused unimaginable damage to its users’ privacy and company's reputation. Zuckerberg might have to share his company's overhauled policy directed toward ensuring&nbspuser data privacy. 5. Why did Facebook not notify users more aggressively? US lawmakers may demand Zuckerberg to clarify why exactly were the users not notified when their personal information was shared with third-party applications. The Congressmen may call for stringent, stricter regulations on Facebook asking Zuckerberg why should tougher regulations not be imposed on the company. Facebook recently announced that it will notify the 87 million people whose data it estimates could have been accessed by Cambridge Analytica. According to reports, Facebook could end up facing more regulations than ever before. Zuckerberg, in his testimony, is expected to recognize a need to take responsibility and acknowledge an initial failure to understand how many people were affected. The 33-year-old internet mogul will appear at 2:15 pm (1815 GMT) before a joint hearing of the US Senate's Commerce and Judiciary committees on Tuesday. Facebook came under fire in recent weeks after it said that the personal information of up to 87 million users, mostly in the United States, may have been improperly shared with political consultancy Cambridge Analytica.

Zuckerberg's testimony before Congress: 5 questions Facebook Chief may face

Facebook Inc Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg will strike a conciliatory tone on Tuesday in testimony before Congress in an attempt to blunt possible regulatory fallout from the privacy scandal engulfing his social network.

The 33-year-old internet mogul is scheduled to appear at 2:15 p.m. (1815 GMT) before a joint hearing of the US&nbsp;Senate's Commerce and Judiciary committees.

Zuckerberg, who founded Facebook in his Harvard University dorm room in 2004, is fighting to demonstrate to critics that he is the right person to go on leading what has grown into one of the world's largest companies.

Facebook faces a mushrooming crisis of confidence among users, advertisers, employees and investors after acknowledging that up to 87 million people, mostly in the United States, had their personal information harvested from the site by Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy that has counted US&nbsp;President Donald Trump among its clients.

Zuckerberg, who has never testified in a congressional hearing, said in written testimony on Monday that he had made mistakes and had held too narrow a view of the social network's role in society.

"Now we have to go through every part of our relationship with people and make sure we're taking a broad enough view of our responsibility," he said.

Facebook hired several outside consultants to help coach Zuckerberg, even holding mock sessions to prepare him for questions from lawmakers.

In an olive branch on Friday, Zuckerberg threw his support behind proposed legislation requiring social media sites to disclose the identities of buyers of online political campaign ads.

US&nbsp;lawmakers have discussed legislation that would strengthen data privacy protections and enforcement. Tighter regulation of how Facebook uses its members' data could affect its ability to attract advertising revenue, its lifeblood.

Some 40 senators out of the 100-member Senate sit on the two committees holding Tuesday's hearing, setting up a possibly marathon hearing.

To ease the way, Zuckerberg on Monday met some lawmakers privately, listening to their concerns before they will have a chance to interrogate him in public.

Zuckerberg appeared willing "to turn things around where he sees mistakes that have been made," Senator Bill Nelson, the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, said after meeting with the CEO.

For hearings last year about Russia's alleged use of social media to influence American politics, Facebook, Twitter Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google sent lawyers, angering lawmakers.

Facebook's previous emissary "was a silver-tongued devil" who "said nothing," Republican Senator John Kennedy said on CNBC on Monday. Kennedy said he planned to ask Zuckerberg about antitrust enforcement and its acquisition of rivals.

Zuckerberg will get a second dose of questioning on Wednesday from the US&nbsp;House Energy and Commerce Committee.

His perch atop Facebook is assured as long as he wants it, given that he remains its controlling shareholder.

But his reputation has suffered as television comedians have mocked his perceived robotic speaking patterns and allegedly cavalier attitude toward privacy.

Shares in Facebook are down more than 14 percent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke last month.

Zuckerberg said in written testimony on Monday that he had made mistakes and had held too narrow a view of the social network's role in society

Facebook Inc Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg will strike a conciliatory tone on Tuesday in testimony before Congress in an attempt to blunt possible regulatory fallout from the privacy scandal engulfing his social network. The 33-year-old internet mogul is scheduled to appear at 2:15 p.m. (1815 GMT) before a joint hearing of the US Senate's Commerce and Judiciary committees. Zuckerberg, who founded Facebook in his Harvard University dorm room in 2004, is fighting to demonstrate to critics that he is the right person to go on leading what has grown into one of the world's largest companies. Facebook faces a mushrooming crisis of confidence among users, advertisers, employees and investors after acknowledging that up to 87 million people, mostly in the United States, had their personal information harvested from the site by Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy that has counted US President Donald Trump among its clients. Zuckerberg, who has never testified in a congressional hearing, said in written testimony on Monday that he had made mistakes and had held too narrow a view of the social network's role in society. "Now we have to go through every part of our relationship with people and make sure we're taking a broad enough view of our responsibility," he said. Facebook hired several outside consultants to help coach Zuckerberg, even holding mock sessions to prepare him for questions from lawmakers. In an olive branch on Friday, Zuckerberg threw his support behind proposed legislation requiring social media sites to disclose the identities of buyers of online political campaign ads. US lawmakers have discussed legislation that would strengthen data privacy protections and enforcement. Tighter regulation of how Facebook uses its members' data could affect its ability to attract advertising revenue, its lifeblood. Some 40 senators out of the 100-member Senate sit on the two committees holding Tuesday's hearing, setting up a possibly marathon hearing. To ease the way, Zuckerberg on Monday met some lawmakers privately, listening to their concerns before they will have a chance to interrogate him in public. Zuckerberg appeared willing "to turn things around where he sees mistakes that have been made," Senator Bill Nelson, the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, said after meeting with the CEO. For hearings last year about Russia's alleged use of social media to influence American politics, Facebook, Twitter Inc and Alphabet Inc's Google sent lawyers, angering lawmakers. Facebook's previous emissary "was a silver-tongued devil" who "said nothing," Republican Senator John Kennedy said on CNBC on Monday. Kennedy said he planned to ask Zuckerberg about antitrust enforcement and its acquisition of rivals. Zuckerberg will get a second dose of questioning on Wednesday from the US House Energy and Commerce Committee. His perch atop Facebook is assured as long as he wants it, given that he remains its controlling shareholder. But his reputation has suffered as television comedians have mocked his perceived robotic speaking patterns and allegedly cavalier attitude toward privacy. Shares in Facebook are down more than 14 percent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke last month.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg aims to pacify US lawmakers

Facebook Inc Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg will hold meetings with some US&nbsplawmakers on Monday, a day before he is due to appear at Congressional hearings over a political consultancy's use of customer data, two congressional aides said on Sunday.

The planned meetings at Capitol Hill are expected to continue through Monday afternoon and include some lawmakers from committees before whom Zuckerberg is due to testify, said the aides, who asked not to be identified because the meetings have not been made public.

Facebook declined to comment.

Zuckerberg is scheduled to appear before a joint hearing of the US&nbspSenate Judiciary and Commerce committees on Tuesday and the US&nbspHouse Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday.

Facebook has come under fire in recent weeks after it said that the personal information of up to 87 million users, mostly in the United States, may have been improperly shared with political consultancy Cambridge Analytica.

A Facebook spokesman said on Sunday that the company plans to begin telling affected users on Monday.

London-based Cambridge Analytica, which has counted US&nbspPresident Donald Trump's 2016 campaign among its clients, has disputed Facebook's estimate of the number of affected users.

Zuckerberg is expected in his testimony to recognize a need to take responsibility and acknowledge an initial failure to understand how many people were affected, a person briefed on the matter, who asked for anonymity, said on Sunday.

Zuckerberg said in a conference call with reporters last week that he accepted blame for the data leak, which has angered users, advertisers and lawmakers, while also saying he was still the right person to head the company he founded.

On Friday, Facebook backed proposed legislation requiring social media sites to disclose the identities of buyers of online political campaign ads and introduced a new verification process for people buying "issue" ads.

The steps are designed to deter the kind of election meddling and online information warfare that US&nbspauthorities have accused Russia of pursuing, Zuckerberg said on Friday. Moscow has denied the allegations.

In February, US&nbspSpecial Counsel Robert Mueller charged 13 Russians and three Russian companies with interfering in the 2016 US&nbsppresidential election by sowing discord on social media.

Zuckerberg, on the call with reporters, said Facebook should have done more to audit and oversee third-party app developers like the one hired by Cambridge Analytica in 2014.

The planned meetings at Capitol Hill are expected to continue through Monday afternoon and include some lawmakers from committees before whom Zuckerberg is due to testify

Facebook Inc Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg will hold meetings with some US&nbsplawmakers on Monday, a day before he is due to appear at Congressional hearings over a political consultancy's use of customer data, two congressional aides said on Sunday. The planned meetings at Capitol Hill are expected to continue through Monday afternoon and include some lawmakers from committees before whom Zuckerberg is due to testify, said the aides, who asked not to be identified because the meetings have not been made public. Facebook declined to comment. Zuckerberg is scheduled to appear before a joint hearing of the US&nbspSenate Judiciary and Commerce committees on Tuesday and the US&nbspHouse Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday. Facebook has come under fire in recent weeks after it said that the personal information of up to 87 million users, mostly in the United States, may have been improperly shared with political consultancy Cambridge Analytica. A Facebook spokesman said on Sunday that the company plans to begin telling affected users on Monday. London-based Cambridge Analytica, which has counted US&nbspPresident Donald Trump's 2016 campaign among its clients, has disputed Facebook's estimate of the number of affected users. Zuckerberg is expected in his testimony to recognize a need to take responsibility and acknowledge an initial failure to understand how many people were affected, a person briefed on the matter, who asked for anonymity, said on Sunday. Zuckerberg said in a conference call with reporters last week that he accepted blame for the data leak, which has angered users, advertisers and lawmakers, while also saying he was still the right person to head the company he founded. On Friday, Facebook backed proposed legislation requiring social media sites to disclose the identities of buyers of online political campaign ads and introduced a new verification process for people buying "issue" ads. The steps are designed to deter the kind of election meddling and online information warfare that US&nbspauthorities have accused Russia of pursuing, Zuckerberg said on Friday. Moscow has denied the allegations. In February, US&nbspSpecial Counsel Robert Mueller charged 13 Russians and three Russian companies with interfering in the 2016 US&nbsppresidential election by sowing discord on social media. Zuckerberg, on the call with reporters, said Facebook should have done more to audit and oversee third-party app developers like the one hired by Cambridge Analytica in 2014.

Facebook's Zuckerberg to meet with US lawmakers Monday: Reports

Facebook says it has suspended a Canadian political consulting firm amid media reports it had ties to Cambridge Analytica, a British data mining company accused of obtaining data from up to 87 million Facebook users to sway elections.

Menlo Park, California-based Facebook says in a statement issued yesterday that AggregateIQ may have improperly received data from Facebook users. AggregateIQ will lose all Facebook access.

Cambridge Analytica was employed by Donald Trump's presidential campaign. It says it received data from 30 million users but never used it in the 2016 campaign.

Whistleblowers say AggregateIQ worked on the campaign for Great Britain to exit the European Union.

AggregateIQ says on its website it isn't part of Cambridge Analytica or parent firm SCL. It says it didn't have access to Facebook data from Cambridge Analytica.&nbsp

Menlo Park, California-based Facebook says in a statement issued yesterday that AggregateIQ may have improperly received data from Facebook users

Facebook says it has suspended a Canadian political consulting firm amid media reports it had ties to Cambridge Analytica, a British data mining company accused of obtaining data from up to 87 million Facebook users to sway elections. Menlo Park, California-based Facebook says in a statement issued yesterday that AggregateIQ may have improperly received data from Facebook users. AggregateIQ will lose all Facebook access. Cambridge Analytica was employed by Donald Trump's presidential campaign. It says it received data from 30 million users but never used it in the 2016 campaign. Whistleblowers say AggregateIQ worked on the campaign for Great Britain to exit the European Union. AggregateIQ says on its website it isn't part of Cambridge Analytica or parent firm SCL. It says it didn't have access to Facebook data from Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook suspends Canadian firm amid data mining scandal

In a recent revelation in the Facebook data sharing scandal, the social networking giant&nbsp;admitted that it has "discussed sharing user data"&nbsp;and "patient data"&nbsp;for a research project.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/87-million-user-data-improperly-shared-with-cambridge-analytica-facebook-128399">87 million user data 'improperly shared' with Cambridge Analytica says Facebook</a>

The revelation was made in a news report published by the US daily on Thursday.&nbsp;

The plan included both hospital and the social media company&nbsp;sharing data. The proposed plan also included using a process to match for individuals in both sets to prove how sharing information could improve patient care.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/facebook-data-leak-details-of-over-56-lakh-indian-users-may-have-been-shared-with-cambridge-analytica-128439">Over 5.6 lakh Indian users' details </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/facebook-data-leak-details-of-over-56-lakh-indian-users-may-have-been-shared-with-cambridge-analytica-128439">may've</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/facebook-data-leak-details-of-over-56-lakh-indian-users-may-have-been-shared-with-cambridge-analytica-128439"> been shared with Cambridge Analytica</a>

According to news reports, American College of Cardiology and Stanford University School of Medicine were among the medical institutions with whom the project was discussed.

However, the project was put on hold in March and Facebook did not share or analyze&nbsp;any user&nbsp;data.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/facebooks-major-focus-polls-in-india-us-pakistan-zuckerberg-128436">Facebook's major focus polls in India, US, Pakistan said Zuckerberg</a>

“This work has not progressed past the planning phase, and we have not received, shared, or analyzed anyone’s data,” &nbsp;Guardian reported Facebook's spokesperson as saying.

Meanwhile, as widely reported Facebook CEO <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/mark-zuckerberg-to-testify-before-us-house-commerce-panel-on-april-11-128323">Mark Zuckerberg will testify</a> before the US House Energy and Commerce Committee on April 11.

Facebook has come under fire in recent weeks after reports that the personal data of over 80 million users of the website fell into the hands of a political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica that worked for US President Donald Trump's campaign.

In a blog post on Thursday, the company admitted that it might have "inappropriately"&nbsp;shared information regarding Indian users to Cambridge Analytica.

US-based&nbsp;social networking company is also facing fine of $33 million by Brazil&nbsp;after failing to give authorities access to messages as part of a health fraud investigation.

The proposed plan also included using a process to match for individuals in both sets to prove that how sharing information could improve patient care.

In a recent revelation in the Facebook data sharing scandal, the social networking giant admitted that it has "discussed sharing user data" and "patient data" for a research project. Also read: 87 million user data 'improperly shared' with Cambridge Analytica says Facebook The revelation was made in a news report published by the US daily on Thursday. The plan included both hospital and the social media company sharing data. The proposed plan also included using a process to match for individuals in both sets to prove how sharing information could improve patient care. Also read: Over 5.6 lakh Indian users' details may've been shared with Cambridge Analytica According to news reports, American College of Cardiology and Stanford University School of Medicine were among the medical institutions with whom the project was discussed. However, the project was put on hold in March and Facebook did not share or analyze any user data. Also read: Facebook's major focus polls in India, US, Pakistan said Zuckerberg “This work has not progressed past the planning phase, and we have not received, shared, or analyzed anyone’s data,” Guardian reported Facebook's spokesperson as saying. Meanwhile, as widely reported Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will testify before the US House Energy and Commerce Committee on April 11. Facebook has come under fire in recent weeks after reports that the personal data of over 80 million users of the website fell into the hands of a political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica that worked for US President Donald Trump's campaign. In a blog post on Thursday, the company admitted that it might have "inappropriately" shared information regarding Indian users to Cambridge Analytica. US-based social networking company is also facing fine of $33 million by Brazil after failing to give authorities access to messages as part of a health fraud investigation.

Facebook discussed sharing user data for medical project: Report

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that it will take "a few years" to the fix the aftermath of the data breach scandal.&nbsp;

In an interview with an American news website, <a href="http://cmsuat.wionews.com/world/we-do-not-monetise-our-customers-tim-cook-criticises-facebook-128016">Zuckerberg</a> noted that one of the problems was that the company was "idealistic". &nbsp;

He noted that the company was focusing on the positive aspects of connecting people and "didn't spend enough time investing in, or thinking through, some of the downsides uses of the tools."

"I think we will dig through this hole, but it will take a few years. I wish I could solve all these issues in three months or six months, but I just think the reality is that solving some of these questions is just going to take a longer period of time," he noted.

The Mark-Zuckerberg-led company has come under the scanner over user data breach of close to 50 million users.

Zuckerberg recently admitted to having "made mistakes" over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. He apologised for a "breach of trust" that had occurred between Facebook and its users.

In an interview with an American news website, Zuckerberg noted that one of the problems was that the company was 'idealistic'

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that it will take "a few years" to the fix the aftermath of the data breach scandal. In an interview with an American news website, Zuckerberg noted that one of the problems was that the company was "idealistic". He noted that the company was focusing on the positive aspects of connecting people and "didn't spend enough time investing in, or thinking through, some of the downsides uses of the tools." "I think we will dig through this hole, but it will take a few years. I wish I could solve all these issues in three months or six months, but I just think the reality is that solving some of these questions is just going to take a longer period of time," he noted. The Mark-Zuckerberg-led company has come under the scanner over user data breach of close to 50 million users. Zuckerberg recently admitted to having "made mistakes" over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. He apologised for a "breach of trust" that had occurred between Facebook and its users.

I wish I could solve issues in 3-6 months; it will take few years: Zuckerberg on Facebook crisis

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently reacted to Tim Cook's criticism saying that Cook's comments on Facebook were unfounded.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Dk4iXmSZk5s" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Zuckerberg, in an interview on Monday, defended his company's business model and called Cook's comments "extremely glib", not "aligned with the truth".

Tim Cook's comments came in the wake of the ongoing Facebook data breach row. When asked how would he have handled the situation, Cook replied saying that he would not have been in such a situation in the first place.&nbsp;

Tim Cook further noted that a company can make a lot of money by monetising its customers, but "we have elected not to do that".

Zuckerberg took a defensive stance stating that not everyone one can afford to pay for a service that helps connect everyone in the world.&nbsp;

"Having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service," he told a leading American media house.&nbsp;

Cook, in a recent interview,&nbsp;pressed for more stringent regulations on social media. He questioned the practice of monetising user data by selling ads that let advertisers identify their target group of users.

Facebook, on the other hand, is an entity that thrives on selling such advertisements.

The Mark-Zuckerberg-led company has come under the scanner over user data breach of close to 50 million users.

Zuckerberg recently admitted to having "made mistakes" over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. He apologised for the "breach of trust" that had occurred between Facebook and its users.

Zuckerberg took a defensive stance stating that not everyone one can afford to pay for a service that helps connect everyone in the world

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently reacted to Tim Cook's criticism saying that Cook's comments on Facebook were unfounded. × Zuckerberg, in an interview on Monday, defended his company's business model and called Cook's comments "extremely glib", not "aligned with the truth". Tim Cook's comments came in the wake of the ongoing Facebook data breach row. When asked how would he have handled the situation, Cook replied saying that he would not have been in such a situation in the first place. Tim Cook further noted that a company can make a lot of money by monetising its customers, but "we have elected not to do that". Zuckerberg took a defensive stance stating that not everyone one can afford to pay for a service that helps connect everyone in the world. "Having an advertising-supported model is the only rational model that can support building this service," he told a leading American media house. Cook, in a recent interview, pressed for more stringent regulations on social media. He questioned the practice of monetising user data by selling ads that let advertisers identify their target group of users. Facebook, on the other hand, is an entity that thrives on selling such advertisements. The Mark-Zuckerberg-led company has come under the scanner over user data breach of close to 50 million users. Zuckerberg recently admitted to having "made mistakes" over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. He apologised for the "breach of trust" that had occurred between Facebook and its users.

We do not monetise our customers: Tim Cook criticises Facebook

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/everything-you-want-to-know-about-cambridge-analytica-36662">Cambridge Analytica</a>, the firm at the centre of Facebook users' data breach scandal, has sought one more week to respond to government's notice on whether it was involved in misuse of data to profile Indians and influence their voting behavior.

The notice had gone out to Cambridge Analytica over media reports about questionable practices attributed to the UK-based firm in its efforts to allegedly influence elections by harvesting data of Facebook users globally.

Sources privy to the development said that Cambridge Analytica has now sought an additional time of one week to send its response to the notice issued by the Indian government.

Also, the government of Nigeria is scrutinising the reports of the data mining firm Cambridge Analytica, which swiped the data of more than 50 million Facebook users to sway elections in many countries.

The affected countries include Nigeria, where Cambridge Analytica waged a campaign to perpetuate discord and hack into personal records of the then leading opposition candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, Nigeria’s Premium Times reported.

Also read:&nbsp<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/chris-wylie-left-in-2014-has-no-direct-knowledge-of-companys-practices-cambridge-analytica-126812">Chris Wylie left in 2014, has no direct knowledge of company's practices: Cambridge Analytica</a>

Cambridge Analytica and Facebook came under fire after the British firm was accused of harvesting personal information of over 50 million Facebook users illegally to influence polls in several countries.

The IT Ministry shot off notices to both <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/india-queries-cambridge-analytica-over-alleged-facebook-data-breach-36931">Cambridge Analytica</a> and Facebook on the data breach issue, giving them time till March 31, and April 7, respectively, to respond.

The government questioned Cambridge Analytica on whether it had been "engaged in any assignment to utilise data of Indians" pertaining to the recent breach, and also the entities that had used its services. Details were also sought on the methods used by the company to acquire such data and whether consent was taken from users.

An official statement issued last month had said: "Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India, has issued a notice... To Cambridge Analytica, wherein the serious breach of propriety and misuse of data intended to profile and influence voting behaviour has been highlighted".

"Was there any profiling done on the basis of such data?," the Ministry had asked the company, following reports that political parties had used the data analytics firm during elections.

Also read:&nbsp<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cambridge-analyticas-parent-company-involved-in-honor-killing-cases-in-india-reports-127122">Cambridge Analytica's parent company involved in 'honor killing' cases in India: Reports</a>

Meanwhile, Facebook users whose data was harvested by Cambridge Analytica could be entitled to more than £12,000 in compensation, according to reports.

Facebook could face costs of £625billion and be forced to pay £12,500 in damages to the people affected, reports quoted Dr Maureen Mapp as saying.&nbsp

Law and IT Minster Ravi Shankar Prasad has already<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/india-queries-cambridge-analytica-over-alleged-facebook-data-breach-36931"> warned the social media giant </a>of "stringent" action for any attempt to influence polls through data theft, and had even threatened to summon its CEO Mark Zuckerberg, if needed.&nbsp

The notice had gone out to Cambridge Analytica over media reports about questionable practices attributed to the UK-based firm in its efforts to allegedly influence elections by harvesting data of Facebook users globally

Cambridge Analytica, the firm at the centre of Facebook users' data breach scandal, has sought one more week to respond to government's notice on whether it was involved in misuse of data to profile Indians and influence their voting behavior. The notice had gone out to Cambridge Analytica over media reports about questionable practices attributed to the UK-based firm in its efforts to allegedly influence elections by harvesting data of Facebook users globally. Sources privy to the development said that Cambridge Analytica has now sought an additional time of one week to send its response to the notice issued by the Indian government. Also, the government of Nigeria is scrutinising the reports of the data mining firm Cambridge Analytica, which swiped the data of more than 50 million Facebook users to sway elections in many countries. The affected countries include Nigeria, where Cambridge Analytica waged a campaign to perpetuate discord and hack into personal records of the then leading opposition candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, Nigeria’s Premium Times reported. Also read: Chris Wylie left in 2014, has no direct knowledge of company's practices: Cambridge Analytica Cambridge Analytica and Facebook came under fire after the British firm was accused of harvesting personal information of over 50 million Facebook users illegally to influence polls in several countries. The IT Ministry shot off notices to both Cambridge Analytica and Facebook on the data breach issue, giving them time till March 31, and April 7, respectively, to respond. The government questioned Cambridge Analytica on whether it had been "engaged in any assignment to utilise data of Indians" pertaining to the recent breach, and also the entities that had used its services. Details were also sought on the methods used by the company to acquire such data and whether consent was taken from users. An official statement issued last month had said: "Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India, has issued a notice... To Cambridge Analytica, wherein the serious breach of propriety and misuse of data intended to profile and influence voting behaviour has been highlighted". "Was there any profiling done on the basis of such data?," the Ministry had asked the company, following reports that political parties had used the data analytics firm during elections. Also read: Cambridge Analytica's parent company involved in 'honor killing' cases in India: Reports Meanwhile, Facebook users whose data was harvested by Cambridge Analytica could be entitled to more than £12,000 in compensation, according to reports. Facebook could face costs of £625billion and be forced to pay £12,500 in damages to the people affected, reports quoted Dr Maureen Mapp as saying. Law and IT Minster Ravi Shankar Prasad has already warned the social media giant of "stringent" action for any attempt to influence polls through data theft, and had even threatened to summon its CEO Mark Zuckerberg, if needed.

Cambridge Analytica asks for one more week on data breach notice

Facebook Inc said on Wednesday it would end its partnerships with several large data brokers who help advertisers target people on the social network, a step that follows a scandal over how Facebook handles personal information.

The world's largest social media company is under pressure to improve its handling of data after disclosing that information about 50 million Facebook users wrongly ended up in the hands of political consultancy Cambridge Analytica.

Facebook adjusted the privacy settings on its service on Wednesday, giving users control over their personal information in fewer taps.

Facebook has for years given advertisers the option of targeting their ads based on data collected by companies such as Acxiom Corp and Experian PLC.

The tool has been widely used among certain categories of advertisers - such as automakers, luxury goods producers and consumer packaged goods companies - who do not sell directly to consumers and have relatively little information about who their customers are, according to Facebook.

"While this is common industry practice, we believe this step, winding down over the next six months, will help improve people`s privacy on Facebook," Graham Mudd, a Facebook product marketing director, said in a statement.

Shares in Acxiom traded down more than 10 percent to $25 after Facebook`s announcement after the bell. Shares in other data brokers were largely unchanged. A representative for Acxiom could not immediately be reached for comment.

Facebook declined to comment on how the change could affect its ad revenue.

Advertisers would still be able to use third-party data services to measure how well their ads performed by examining purchasing data, Facebook said.

Facebook`s website lists nine third-party data providers that it has worked with, including Acxiom, Experian, Oracle Data Cloud , TransUnion and WPP PLC .

None of the companies could immediately be reached for comment.

Facebook on Wednesday also put all its privacy settings on one page and made it easier to stop third-party apps from using personal information. Privacy settings had previously been spread over at least 20 screens, Facebook said.

Facebook said in a blog post it had been working on the updates for some time but sped things up to appease users` anger over how the company uses data and as lawmakers around the globe call for regulation.

Facebook`s shares closed up 0.5 percent at $153.03 on Wednesday. They are still down more than 17 percent since March 16, when Facebook first acknowledged that user data had been improperly channelled in 2014 via a third-party app to Cambridge Analytica, which was later hired by Donald Trump`s 2016 presidential campaign.

The data leak has raised investor concerns that any failure by big tech companies to protect privacy could deter advertisers, who are Facebook`s lifeblood and lead to tougher regulation.

SCRUTINY FROM LAWMAKERS

Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly apologised for the mistakes the company made and has promised to crack down on abuse of the Facebook platform and restrict developers` access to user information.

There is a new Facebook page - called Access Your Information - where users can see what they have shared and manage it.

"The biggest difference is ease of access in settings, which fulfils Mark Zuckerberg`s promise to make the privacy process and permissions more transparent to users," Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter said.

It was uncertain whether the changes will satisfy lawmakers.

They have announced ahead of a stringent European Union data law which comes into force in May. It requires companies to give people a "right to portability" - to take their data with them - and imposes fines of up to 4 percent of global revenue for companies breaking the law.

Lawmakers in the United States and Britain are still clamouring for Zuckerberg himself to explain how users` data ended up in the hands of Cambridge Analytica.

He plans to testify before Congress, a source briefed on the matter said on Tuesday. Facebook has said it has received invitations to testify and that it is talking to legislators.

Zuckerberg and the CEOs of Alphabet Inc and Twitter Inc have been invited to testify at an April 10 hearing on data privacy. The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee and U.S. Senate Commerce Committee have also asked Zuckerberg to appear at a hearing.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has opened an investigation into Facebook, and attorneys representing 37 states are also pressing Zuckerberg to explain what happened.

Facebook adjusted the privacy settings on its service on Wednesday, giving users control over their personal information in fewer taps.

Facebook Inc said on Wednesday it would end its partnerships with several large data brokers who help advertisers target people on the social network, a step that follows a scandal over how Facebook handles personal information. The world's largest social media company is under pressure to improve its handling of data after disclosing that information about 50 million Facebook users wrongly ended up in the hands of political consultancy Cambridge Analytica. Facebook adjusted the privacy settings on its service on Wednesday, giving users control over their personal information in fewer taps. Facebook has for years given advertisers the option of targeting their ads based on data collected by companies such as Acxiom Corp and Experian PLC. The tool has been widely used among certain categories of advertisers - such as automakers, luxury goods producers and consumer packaged goods companies - who do not sell directly to consumers and have relatively little information about who their customers are, according to Facebook. "While this is common industry practice, we believe this step, winding down over the next six months, will help improve people`s privacy on Facebook," Graham Mudd, a Facebook product marketing director, said in a statement. Shares in Acxiom traded down more than 10 percent to $25 after Facebook`s announcement after the bell. Shares in other data brokers were largely unchanged. A representative for Acxiom could not immediately be reached for comment. Facebook declined to comment on how the change could affect its ad revenue. Advertisers would still be able to use third-party data services to measure how well their ads performed by examining purchasing data, Facebook said. Facebook`s website lists nine third-party data providers that it has worked with, including Acxiom, Experian, Oracle Data Cloud , TransUnion and WPP PLC . None of the companies could immediately be reached for comment. Facebook on Wednesday also put all its privacy settings on one page and made it easier to stop third-party apps from using personal information. Privacy settings had previously been spread over at least 20 screens, Facebook said. Facebook said in a blog post it had been working on the updates for some time but sped things up to appease users` anger over how the company uses data and as lawmakers around the globe call for regulation. Facebook`s shares closed up 0.5 percent at $153.03 on Wednesday. They are still down more than 17 percent since March 16, when Facebook first acknowledged that user data had been improperly channelled in 2014 via a third-party app to Cambridge Analytica, which was later hired by Donald Trump`s 2016 presidential campaign. The data leak has raised investor concerns that any failure by big tech companies to protect privacy could deter advertisers, who are Facebook`s lifeblood and lead to tougher regulation. SCRUTINY FROM LAWMAKERS Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly apologised for the mistakes the company made and has promised to crack down on abuse of the Facebook platform and restrict developers` access to user information. There is a new Facebook page - called Access Your Information - where users can see what they have shared and manage it. "The biggest difference is ease of access in settings, which fulfils Mark Zuckerberg`s promise to make the privacy process and permissions more transparent to users," Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter said. It was uncertain whether the changes will satisfy lawmakers. They have announced ahead of a stringent European Union data law which comes into force in May. It requires companies to give people a "right to portability" - to take their data with them - and imposes fines of up to 4 percent of global revenue for companies breaking the law. Lawmakers in the United States and Britain are still clamouring for Zuckerberg himself to explain how users` data ended up in the hands of Cambridge Analytica. He plans to testify before Congress, a source briefed on the matter said on Tuesday. Facebook has said it has received invitations to testify and that it is talking to legislators. Zuckerberg and the CEOs of Alphabet Inc and Twitter Inc have been invited to testify at an April 10 hearing on data privacy. The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee and U.S. Senate Commerce Committee have also asked Zuckerberg to appear at a hearing. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has opened an investigation into Facebook, and attorneys representing 37 states are also pressing Zuckerberg to explain what happened.

Facebook cuts ties to data brokers in blow to targeted ads

data-breach

Data Breach, News on Data Breach, stories on Data Breach, articles on Data Breach, Data Breach stories at Wion, Data Breach news, Data Breach latest news