I have a feeling it was not explained deliberately so that the general public wouldn't know what it was and that what the legal definition of what meta data was could be expanded when required.
No I get they shouldn’t have had access to the data, I’m just at a loss as to what harm they could have done with it. I haven’t heard even so much as a theory truth be told.
It doesn't mean they either know, or don't know. It means their PR isn't willing to fully disclose the exact nature because if they confirm customer data was nicked, class actions will start off rather promptly, and if they say it certainly wasn't, they're seen as over-reacting.
Not a bad assumption to be fair. Even if they don't actively share specific financial data, there isn't a good way to be able to verify and audit what exactly a Meta 'page counter' pixel is doing (and what Meta is doing with that data).
Regardless of the details it's an area that needs A LOT more regulatory scrutiny.
The part you’re missing is that they don’t tell you how they did the attribution, and there are good reasons for this. You’re assuming that you know what they know.
Absent further information, it's not clear that anything novel was revealed: it's likely this was already public information, and that the AG has merely lowered the bar to (automatically) accessing it.
Probably some ridiculous claim that "at the time of the founding, they had no way of knowing how readily accessible data would be." Surely, finding 100x the information with 1/100th the effort compared to then must be 4A-compliant.
reply