Facebook suspends 'tens of thousands' of apps in privacy review
San Francisco, Sep 20: Facebook said on Friday it suspended "tens of thousands" of apps on its platform as a result of its review on privacy practices launched following the scandal involving Cambridge Analytica.
The review was launched in 2018 after revelations that the political consultancy hijacked personal data on millions of Facebook users and included attorneys, external investigators, data scientists, engineers, policy specialists and others, according to a Facebook statement.
The suspensions are "not necessarily an indication that these apps were posing a threat to people," said a statement from vice president of partnerships Ime Archibong, adding that some "did not respond to our request for information."
Archibong said the investigation "has addressed millions of apps. Of those, tens of thousands have been suspended for a variety of reasons while we continue to investigate."
The huge social network became the subject of intense scrutiny after acknowledging in 2018 that Cambridge Analytica misappropriated personal data on tens of millions of Facebook users as part of its work for Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
Subsequently, Facebook said it would begin reviewing all apps on the platform to determine how they used data and if they respect its privacy rules.
"In a few cases, we have banned apps completely," Archibong said. "That can happen for any number of reasons including inappropriately sharing data obtained from us, making data publicly available without protecting people's identity or something else that was in clear violation of our policies.
"One app banned was called myPersonality, which shared information with researchers and companies with only limited protections in place, and then refused our request to participate in an audit."
A year ago, Facebook said it had banned some 400 apps including one called myPersonality, which according to Archibong "shared information with researchers and companies with only limited protections in place," and refused to accept an audit.
Facebook said a recent agreement on privacy with the US Federal Trade Commission -- which included a record USD 5 billion fine -- calls for additional oversight on app developers.
It "requires developers to annually certify compliance with our policies," Archibong said. "Any developer that doesn't go along with these requirements will be held accountable."
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Congress using hijab issue to pacify minority anger, alleges Karnataka LoP R Ashoka
Bengaluru: Leader of Opposition in the Assembly R. Ashoka has accused the Congress government of using the hijab issue to placate what he described as discontent among minority voters after the Davanagere by-election.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Ashoka alleged that the state government, instead of addressing issues such as price rise, corruption, farmers’ distress and law and order, was attempting to retain its minority vote base by reviving the hijab issue.
Referring to the 2022 dress code introduced by the BJP government, which prohibited hijab in schools and colleges, Ashoka said the Karnataka High Court had upheld the policy and emphasised the importance of discipline in educational institutions.
He questioned the Congress government’s move to revisit the issue and asked whether setting aside the court-backed policy to benefit one community could be described as secularism.
Ashoka further alleged that while the government was willing to permit hijab, it continued to prohibit saffron shawls.
He accused the government of dividing students on religious lines rather than treating schools and colleges as spaces of equality.
Drawing a comparison with Mamata Banerjee’s government in West Bengal, Ashoka claimed that excessive appeasement politics had harmed the state and warned that the Congress in Karnataka could face a similar political response.
He said voters in Karnataka would teach the Congress a lesson for what he termed “vote-bank politics” and for compromising constitutional and judicial principles.
