Mishandling of information by Facebook

Introduction
Facebook is currently, and in the recent faces, one of the problems it has never imagined to befall it. According to an expert on information and communications law and Policy professor Olivier Sylvain, the way Facebook is treating the user’s data is unwanted, among other things. Facebook is one of the most earning companies globally, but the decline in their earnings might come as a shock to many, including its uses. The enormous earning they are currently getting is linked with business involving mishandling the users’ data without the users’ consent (Ayaburi & Treku, 2020). This unwanted act has been realized, and whistleblowers such as professor Olivier have raised the alarm under the 47 U.S.C.230(c)(2) of the communication Decency Act of 1996 involving internet companies that includes Facebook, Google, and money that have been noted to be using user data in a very wrong and illegal way. The professor later linked the Cambridge Analytica saga to the inappropriate use of user data received from another company once the data is contracted to the second party.
Cases of data mishandling
Once again, the privacy missteps of Facebook come with a hefty price tag. The social media giant announced Wednesday that it had reached a $550 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit over its facial-recognition apps.  Months after the company received a $5 billion fine from the Federal Trade Commission over its data privacy policies after the Cambridge Analytica fiasco (Venturini & Rogers, 2019). According to attorneys involved in the suit, the deal is the highest cash settlement ever for a pri. It may be a shock to many of its 2 billion users worldwide to see Facebook in its current financial and legal predicament. Still, Sylvain has cautioned for years that a virtual iceberg awaited sites such as Facebook that received enormous profits from gathering and selling unprecedented quantities of user data with little or no oversight. Specifically, the professor raised alarms about the broad spectrum of immunity under 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(2) of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
Recently Facebook has been scrutinized for revealing information concerning some underage Instagram users (Rehman et al., 2019).  In another case, Facebook has been misusing private information belonging to the public without the users’ consent. According to the report from business insider, emails from different Facebook users were harvested during the signing up process (Venturini & Rogers, 2019). The allegations reported that Facebook collected the passwords through a popping up message that that imported users’ contacts without their permission. Due to cases of data handling by Facebook, the value of its market has dropped, upon uncertainty after a new investigation was launched.  Weeks ago, a whistleblower revealed that a political data firm could manipulate Facebook data during the 2016 elections in America.
The information led to the fallout of the world’s largest social media platform after 87 million users’ private information was accessed. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify about his organization’s inability to secure consumer data before Congress on April 11 (Lulandala, 2020). The business is “open to regulation,” COO Sheryl Sandberg has suggested. It is uncertain if these comments represent a good-faith move to strengthen potential user data policies or an effort to resurrect falling stock prices. “Zuckerberg is now out front because in ways we have not seen, this is an existential threat to the company,” Sylvain said (Ayaburi & Treku, 2020). This Company has so violated a 2011 consent decree proving to be irresponsible. The New York attorney general also was disappointed by the fact that Facebook did not give an alert to users when the data was transferred to other parties. He, therefore, launched an investigation on Cambridge Analytica that worked with Trump during the 2016 elections.
Despite Facebook’s multiple promises that the user data mishandling will reduce, it has not been fully effective. Zuckerberg promised to change the face of how the users’ privacy was going to be realized by noting that the Company was yet to check on reputation work with a platform that is safe and intimate to communications between users. It did not take long before Facebook fell victim to another privacy issue. They took the blame for mishandling millions of user’s email passwords for another platform such as Instagram.
At one moment, the U.S government decided not to file a case for Zuckerberg on what was highlighted as lethal scrutiny. Zuckerberg almost faced fines related to future violations but was lucky as the agency considered backing down from putting him under the order. Politics has been part of the mishandling of user data on Facebook. In Washington Dc, one of the senators believes that Zuckerberg should not be held responsible for what is happening on Facebook and should not be subjected to any penalty if one was to be (Ayaburi & Treku, 2020). He said holding Zuckerberg responsible is not good communication to the business managers all over the country. Some of FTC’s decision-makers have backed up this idea. Another case that Facebook mishandling of user data is apparent was filled in Ireland, but this time around involving underage users, specifically on Instagram. In this case, it was noted that they were revealed to be making email Ids and mobile contacts of users that are believed to be under 18 years. This data was realized by the U.S based data (Zhou et al., 2018, June). On the inquiry, it would be determined if Facebook is entitled to containing such information of the users while the second inquiry was based on Instagram. An Instagram inquiry will check if need the files shared are allowed in the data protection rights.
If they are found guilty, they are likely to be imposed on a fine of up to 4% of global revenue or, on the other hand, EUR 20 million depending on the higher one. Even though several government agencies’ inquiries were made on the Company’s mishandling data, it is miserable that most of the queries are pending. If they were finalized, no action has been taken worth noting (Rehman et al., 2019). This is, of course, sad as most users still find their privacy being evoked. It is even likely to rise as Facebook is now considering linking both Instagram and WhatsApp.
In 2019 the Federal Trade Commission passed that user data mishandling victims be fined an estimated amount of 5 billion U.S. The awaited fine is still in limbo as it awaits the final go-ahead from the Justice Department (Lulandala, 2020). However, it could be good news as the Justice Department’s culture is widely known in most cases never goes against the agency. It will be one of the most significant fines if it goes through, surpassing the one imposed on google in 2012. The same will be counted as one of the known strict regulatory actions during the era of Donald Trump and an indication that the U.S. government can punish one of the biggest companies in America but globally (Zhou et al., 2018, June). To date, Europe is marked as the one in the forefront to give the biggest fines and restrictions on the most significant company. Many changes have been imposed on privacy laws against other companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. Finally, Facebook users are incredibly optimistic that the judgment will, of course, come to their rescue and their privacy regained.
What happened?
Facebook’s bazaar price has since cut down $100 billion amid unwillingness to close the Central Trade Commission’s lately threw review into whether the company’s handling of user data violated a 2011 accord verdict. The New York and Massachusetts attorney generals also proclaimed a combined training into how Cambridge Analytica, which was hired by then-presidential applicant Donald Trump’s campaign, used its data and why Facebook did not affect heedful users or the municipal that their data was given over to a third party. Besides, Facebook stockholders have trooped at smallest four controls in chief court declaring, amongst other belongings, the occupational broke its fiduciary obligations by deteriorating to stop Cambridge Analytics’ original deceit of statistics and informing pretentious operators in 2015 upon first information of this stealing.
Cambridge’s analytical Epic indicates the illogicality of the administrations ancient positioned that section 230 permitted company’s in avoiding the critical positive ladders to guard user information once it thin that data to additional (Venturini & Rogers, 2019). Facebook’s role in the development of the means of sharing critical data has been seen as the keyway in which the general client information is often at the center of any deal. Facebook has in the past mishandled few gen fitting to individuals and in most of these cases allied the mishandling of the data to the flaws in the system of the group (Rehman et al., 2019). The company has also been accused of collaborating with some other small companies to mine the data and expose the client’s data to unauthorized persons an aspect which has impacted the business operation of Facebook
Association with other organization
Facebook has in the recent past also handled information in the wrong way in association with other organizations. The company’s arrangement with Amazon. Com Apple, blackberry and Samsung, consenting their major diplomacies to entrée data since the social media platforms and accounts of individuals could further expose the organization to steer fines and other major disadvantages. The consequence of the action by the company is likely to have a significant challenge on the company. For an organization that handles over a billion biodata of the global population, handling information wrongly is considered a failure in the organization’s overall success. It has had a massive negative impact on the community.
The practice, which may have taken place users’ full knowledge, drew sharp regimes from many Facebook users. For the organization, Facebook has negatively impacted the manner in which they collect and swap info. The sharing of personal customer information by various telecommunication companies such as Samsung and Apple has resulted in a state where most of the companies have had to obtain the client’s information or Facebook user without their concept. This aspect of business operation has been termed unethical by virus organization concerned with communication. Besides, most of the clients have also had to use the platforms due to the same entirely. The company has lost most of its customers due to the fraudulent handling of information, perhaps for its gain. In the last decade, the organization has significantly faced challenges associated with the mishandling of data. This has reduced its competitive advantages as compared to other organizations.
Conclusion
Modern works value communication the most. However, modern communication is based on various aspects of technology, including social media. For most of these organizations charged with communication responsibility, data handling for the client is one essential aspect of their business operations. Therefore, the success of any organization relies on how best it can handle critical data of the clients. Facebook, for example, which is the giant social media, has not been able to execute its handling of data concerning clients effectively. The organization has been caught up in various allegations of data mishandling. This aspect has significantly impacted its business operation due to the lack of the necessary trust from the clients. Due to the several instances of clients data mishandling key being the case of Cambridge Analytica case, the organization has witnessed a significant decline in its competitiveness as a result of the adverse reputation created lately
Reference
Rehman, I. (2019). Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data harvesting: What you need to know. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1-11.
Hu, M. (2020). Cambridge Analytica’s black box. Big Data & Society7(2), 2053951720938091.
Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018). Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The guardian17, 22.
Venturini, T., & Rogers, R. (2019). “API-Based Research” or How can Digital Sociology and Journalism Studies Learn from the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Data Breach. Digital Journalism7(4), 532-540.
Kozlowska, I. (2018). Facebook and data privacy in the age of Cambridge Analytica. Seattle, WA: The University of Washington. Retrieved August1, 2019.
Lulandala, E. E. (2020). Facebook Data Breach: A Systematic Review of Its Consequences on Consumers’ Behaviour Towards Advertising. Strategic System Assurance and Business Analytics, 45-68.
Ayaburi, E. W., & Treku, D. N. (2020). Effect of penitence on social media trust and privacy concerns: The case of Facebook. International Journal of Information Management50, 171-181.
Liu, L., Han, M., Wang, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2018, June). Understanding data breach: A visualization aspect. In International Conference on Wireless Algorithms, Systems, and Applications (pp. 883-892). Springer, Cham.
Kilovaty, I. (2018). Data breach through social engineering. Harvard Law Review Blog.
 
 
Order Now

Calculate a fair price for your paper

Such a cheap price for your free time and healthy sleep

1650 words
-
-
Place an order within a couple of minutes.
Get guaranteed assistance and 100% confidentiality.
Total price: $78
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, how can I help?