{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/61e878a1419a9b0013b27134/644b03b45de6ea0011077be8?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"An Interview with Meta’s Chief Privacy Officers","thumbnail_width":200,"thumbnail_height":200,"thumbnail_url":"https://open-images.acast.com/shows/undefined/1642625091768-3ba901c505852d077e44a35fab2cfb73.jpeg?height=200","description":"<p>In 2018, news broke that Facebook had allowed third-party developers—including the controversial data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica—to obtain large quantities of user data in ways that users probably didn’t anticipate. The fallout led to a controversy over whether Cambridge Analytica had in some way swung the 2016 election for Trump (spoiler: it almost certainly didn’t), but it also generated a <a href=\"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/07/ftc-imposes-5-billion-penalty-sweeping-new-privacy-restrictions-facebook\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">$5 billion fine imposed on Facebook by the FTC</a> for violating users’ privacy. Along with that record-breaking fine, the FTC also imposed a number of requirements on Facebook to improve its approach to privacy.&nbsp;</p><p>It’s been four years since that settlement, and Facebook is now Meta. So how much has really changed within the company?&nbsp;For this episode of <em>Arbiters of Truth</em>, our series on the online information ecosystem, <em>Lawfare</em> Senior Editors Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic interviewed Meta’s co-chief privacy officers, Erin Egan and Michel Protti, about the company’s approach to privacy and its response to the FTC’s settlement order.</p><p>At one point in the conversation, Quinta mentions a class action settlement over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. You can read more about the settlement&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/19/facebook-class-action-settlement-privacy/\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">here</a>. Information about Facebook’s legal arguments regarding user privacy interests is available&nbsp;<a href=\"https://theintercept.com/2019/06/14/facebook-privacy-policy-court/\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">here</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/3676/Motion-to-Dismiss-Amended-Complaint-261-1.pdf\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">here</a>, and you can find more details in the judge’s ruling&nbsp;<a href=\"https://casetext.com/case/in-re-facebook-inc-consumer-privacy-user-profile-litig\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">denying Facebook’s motion to dismiss</a>.</p><p><em>Note: Meta provides support for </em>Lawfare<em>’s Digital Social Contract paper series. This podcast episode is not part of that series, and Meta does not have any editorial role in </em>Lawfare<em>.</em></p>","author_name":"Lawfare & University of Texas Law School"}