Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

nothing was exploited

Assuming you're only considering the computer security definition of "exploit", I'm not totally sure why this matters.

User data was obtained via means not allowed by Facebook. Facebook realized this & didn't disclose it to the US government or its users, as required (or, at the very least questionably required) by its consent decree with the FTC. Based on this, it's not out of line for the government to question Facebook about this.




>User data was obtained via means not allowed by Facebook

That's what I'm asking. 1) Is it alleged that CA found a flaw in FB's design and 2) did something illegal with it? I've seen accounts alluding to that, but that makes me think that it is entirely by design and it's just be framed negatively for the greatest political impact.


It's illegal for foreign nationals to make direct or indirect contributions to US politics. So the line that has to be drawn is one connecting that law to the CA scandal and its alleged use to drive the strategies of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

I don't know for sure if Facebook can be seen as being complicit in breaking US election law. I think their issues are completely domestic as it stands right now. But I'm not a lawyer.


It's all fascinating. How do we reconcile a facebook bot account that may be, at best, loosely tied to Russia, according to some speculators with a foreign national and intelligence officer, Richard Steele, compiling a op report on the Republican presidential candidate?


Ahh, the phantom downvotes. Would you like to address my point? Why is it okay that a foreign national campaigns for one candidate and another foreign national campaigns for another?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: