證據(jù)顯示Facebook事先對數(shù)據(jù)泄露隱患知情

Facebook was informed that the app at the centre of a massive data leak could sell user data to third parties, according to documents seen by the Financial Times, raising fresh questions about how the company protects its users’ data.

根據(jù)英國《金融時報》(Financial Times)看到的文件，F(xiàn)acebook曾被告知，一款App可能會把用戶數(shù)據(jù)出售給第三方。該App正是此次大規(guī)模數(shù)據(jù)泄露事件的焦點。這引出了關于Facebook如何保護用戶數(shù)據(jù)的新問題。

The social network was sent terms and conditions for the second version of the survey app, which pulled user data that was then leaked to Cambridge Analytica, the data analytics firm. These contradicted Facebook’s own platform policies, according to Chris Wylie, the former Cambridge Analytica employee turned whistleblower.

Facebook曾收到該款調(diào)查性App第二版的條款和條件文件，正是該App收集用戶數(shù)據(jù)并泄露給了數(shù)據(jù)分析公司劍橋分析(Cambridge Analytica)。劍橋分析的一名前雇員、后來出面揭發(fā)的克里斯•懷利(Chris Wylie)表示，這些條款和條件與Facebook自己平臺的政策相抵觸。

But the social network relied on an automated process to accept updates, so no employee at Facebook may have seen the app’s new policy, which disclosed that it could sell and transfer the data.

但是，F(xiàn)acebook使用一個自動程序來接受更新，因此其員工可能都沒看到該App的新政策，其中寫明了它可能會向第三方出售和傳輸數(shù)據(jù)。

The first version of the app, which was reviewed by Facebook, said the opposite: it claimed to be a “research program” and said “users will be informed that the data will be carefully protected and never used for commercial purposes”, the social network said. 經(jīng)過Facebook審核的該App第一版政策與此相反：據(jù)Facebook表示，該App自稱是一款“研究程序”，并稱“用戶將得知這些數(shù)據(jù)將得到謹慎保護，永遠不會被用于商業(yè)用途”。

But the Financial Times has seen a copy of a document submitted to the company by Aleksandr Kogan, the academic who built the survey app that ran on the social network. The data collected via the app was passed on to Cambridge Analytica and used to gather the information of up to 50m users.

但是，英國《金融時報》看到了由開發(fā)該App的學者亞歷山大•科根(Aleksandr Kogan)提交給Facebook的文件的復印件。通過該App收集的數(shù)據(jù)被傳給了劍橋分析，曾經(jīng)收集了多達5000萬用戶的信息。

In the document, Global Science Research, Mr Kogan’s company, outlined terms and conditions that asked users for permission to collect information, including their likes and status updates as well as those of their Facebook friends. The terms stated that the company would have the right to “edit, copy, disseminate, publish, transfer, append or merge with other databases, sell, license . . . and archive your contribution and data”.

在該文件中，科根的全球科學研究公司(Global Science Research)列出了條款和條件，其中要求用戶允許其收集信息，包括用戶的點贊、狀態(tài)更新及Facebook上好友的信息。條款稱，該公司將有權“對你發(fā)表的內(nèi)容和數(shù)據(jù)進行編輯、復制、傳播、發(fā)布、傳輸、加入或并入其他數(shù)據(jù)庫、出售、授權……以及歸檔”。

Mr Wylie told the Financial Times in an interview that Facebook “didn’t really do anything to safeguard the data”, adding that the terms and conditions raised questions about why Facebook agreed to an app that explicitly broke its rules.

懷利在接受英國《金融時報》采訪時稱Facebook“實際上沒有采取任何措施來保護數(shù)據(jù)”，并稱這些條款和條件引出了一個問題：Facebook為何允許這樣一款明確違反其規(guī)定的App在其平臺上發(fā)布?

“There were a lot of apps at the time that were pulling lots of data — including from friend networks — and Facebook wasn’t exactly proactive in asking questions or finding out where that data went,” he said. “It is sort of an existential question for Facebook: do they want to be a data-harvesting company or do they want to be a community of users?”

“當時有很多App都在收集大量數(shù)據(jù)——包括從用戶的朋友關系網(wǎng)收集的數(shù)據(jù)——而Facebook并沒有主動詢問或調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)去向，”他表示，“對于Facebook來說，這是一個關乎其存在屬性的問題：他們想成為數(shù)據(jù)收集公司，還是想成為用戶社區(qū)?”

Facebook said its policies in 2014, when Mr Kogan collected the data, prohibited app developers from selling, licensing or purchasing any data obtained from Facebook or its services. The terms and conditions also prohibited apps from transferring data “to any ad network, data broker or other advertising or monetisation-related service”.

Facebook表示，2014年科根收集數(shù)據(jù)時，它的政策禁止App開發(fā)者出售、授權或購買從Facebook或其服務獲得的任何數(shù)據(jù)。相關條款和條件還禁止App將數(shù)據(jù)傳輸給“任何廣告網(wǎng)絡、數(shù)據(jù)代理機構或其他廣告或商業(yè)性相關服務”。

Mr Kogan told the Financial Times he was “surprised” at being accused of breaking Facebook’s policies. “I don’t know any app whose terms of service and privacy policy comply with what Facebook says is its privacy policy,” he said. “If they really care, then why do they do nothing to enforce it?”

科根向英國《金融時報》表示，他對被指控違反Facebook政策感到“驚訝”。“我不知道哪個App的服務條款和隱私政策符合Facebook所說的它的隱私政策，”他說，“如果他們真的在乎，那么為什么不采取行動加以落實呢?”

In separate documents published by the UK parliament’s digital, culture, media and sport committee on Thursday, Mr Kogan’s company was explicit that it was operating under Facebook’s old terms of service, and he would not be able to collect the data under the new policy which came into force for all apps in 2015. The documents that Mr Wylie handed to the committee included an agreement between GSR and SCL, Cambridge Analytica’s parent company, dated June 2014. This was after Facebook had announced a change for news apps but the social network allowed a year for existing apps to adjust.

在英國議會“數(shù)字化、文化、媒體和體育委員會”周四公布的其他文件中，科根的全球科學研究公司明確指出，它按照Facebook舊的服務條款運作，如果依據(jù)2015年生效的針對所有App的新政策，他就無法收集數(shù)據(jù)。懷利提交給該委員會的文件，包括全球科學研究公司與劍橋分析母公司戰(zhàn)略通信實驗室(SCL)于2014年6月達成的一份協(xié)議。在那之前Facebook宣布了針對新聞App的政策變更，但給已有的App一年的調(diào)整期。

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, said last week that his company had “made mistakes”. “There’s more to do, and we need to step up and do it,” he said. Facebook had already tightened the rules around app developers, including putting in place a more comprehensive app review process, before the revelations.

Facebook首席執(zhí)行官馬克•扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)上周表示，他的公司“犯了錯誤”。“還有很多事情要做，我們需要站出來做這些事，”他說。在被爆料之前，F(xiàn)acebook已著手收緊了與App開發(fā)者相關的規(guī)則，包括實施一套更全面的App審查流程。

Mr Zuckerberg said when Facebook was told by The Guardian in 2015 that Mr Kogan had shared data with Cambridge Analytica, it banned the app and asked both parties to “formally certify that they had deleted all improperly acquired data”.

扎克伯格表示，2015年《衛(wèi)報》(Guardian)告訴Facebook科根把數(shù)據(jù)分享給了劍橋分析時，F(xiàn)acebook便禁止了該App，并要求雙方“正式證實他們已刪除所有不當獲取的數(shù)據(jù)”。