Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Labels

About Me

Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts

Beware of Pig Butchering Scams That Steal Your Money

Beware of Pig Butchering Scams That Steal Your Money

Pig butchering, a term we usually hear in the meat market, sadly, has also become a lethal form of cybercrime that can cause complete financial losses for the victims. 

Pig Butchering is a “form of investment fraud in the crypto space where scammers build relationships with targets through social engineering and then lure them to invest crypto in fake opportunities or platforms created by the scammer,” according to The Department of Financial Protection & Innovation. 

Pig butchering has squeezed billions of dollars from victims globally. Cambodian-based Huione Group gang stole over $4 billion from August 2021 to January 2025, the New York Post reported.

How to stay safe from pig butchering?

Individuals should watch out for certain things to avoid getting caught in these extortion schemes. Scammers often target seniors and individuals who are not well aware about cybercrime. The National Council on Aging cautions that such scams begin with receiving messages from scammers pretending to be someone else. Never respond or send money to random people who text you online, even if the story sounds compelling. Scammers rely on earning your trust, a sob story is one easy way for them to trick you. 

Another red flag is receiving SMS or social media texts that send you to other platforms like WeChat or Telegram, which have fewer regulations. Scammers also convince users to invest their money, which they claim to return with big profits. In one incident, the scammer even asked the victim to “go to a loan shark” to get the money.

Stopping scammers

Last year, Meta blocked over 2 million accounts that were promoting crypto investment scams such as pig butchering. Businesses have increased efforts to combat this issue, but the problem still very much exists. A major step is raising awareness via public posts broadcasting safety tips among individuals to prevent them from falling prey to such scams. 

Organizations have now started releasing warnings in Instagram DMs and Facebook Messenger warning users about “potentially suspicious interactions or cold outreach from people you don’t know”, which is a good initiative. Banks have started tipping of customers about the dangers of scams when sending money online. 

Want to Leave Facebook? Do this.

Want to Leave Facebook? Do this.

Confused about leaving Facebook?

Many people are changing their social media habits and opting out of many services. Facebook has witnessed a large exodus of users deserting the platform after the announcement in March that Meta was terminating the independent fact-checking on its platform. However, fact-checking has been replaced with community notes, letting users make changes to potentially false/misleading information. 

Users having years of photos and posts on Facebook are confused about how to collect their data before removing their accounts. If you also feel the same problem, this post will help you delete Facebook permanently, while taking all your information on the way out. 

How to remove Facebook?

For users who do not want to be on Facebook anymore, deleting their account is the only way to completely remove yourself from the platform. If you are not sure, deactivating your account allows you to have some life off of Facebook without account deletion. 

Make sure to remove third-party Facebook logins before deleting your account. 

How to leave third-party apps?

Third-party apps like DoorDash and Spotify allow you to log in using your Facebook account. This lets you log in without remembering another password, but if you’re planning on deleting Facebook, you have to update your login settings. That is because if you delete your account, there will not be another Facebook account for the user to log in through. 

Fortunately, there is another simple way to find which of your sites and applications are connected to Facebook and delete them before removing your account. Once you disconnect from other websites and applications from Facebook, you will need to adjust how you login to them. 

Users should try specific applications and websites to set new passwords or passkeys or log in via a single-service sign-on option, such as Google. 

How is deactivating different than deactivating a Facebook account?

If you want to stay away from Facebook, you have two choices. Either delete your account permanently, or you can disable it temporarily to deactivate it. 

GDPR Violation by EU: A Case of Self-Accountability

 


There was a groundbreaking decision by the European Union General Court on Wednesday that the EU Commission will be held liable for damages incurred by a German citizen for not adhering to its own data protection legislation. 

As a result of the court's decision that the Commission transferred the citizen's personal data to the United States without adequate safeguards, the citizen received 400 euros ($412) in compensation. During the hearing conducted by the EU General Court, the EU General Court found that the EU had violated its own privacy rules, which are governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 

According to the ruling, the EU has to pay a fine for the first time in history. German citizens who were registering for a conference through a European Commission webpage used the "Sign in with Facebook" option, which resulted in a German citizen being a victim of the EU's brazen disregard for the law. 

The user clicked the button, which transferred information about their browser, device, and IP address through Amazon Web Services' content delivery network, ultimately finding its way to servers run by Facebook's parent company Meta Platforms located in the United States after they were pushed to the content delivery network. According to the court, this transfer of data was conducted without proper safeguards, which constitutes a breach of GDPR rules. 

The EU was ordered to pay a fine of €400 (about $412) directly to the plaintiff for breaching GDPR rules. It has been widely documented that the magnitude and frequency of fines imposed by different national data protection authorities (DPAs) have varied greatly since GDPR was introduced. This is due to both the severity and the rigour of enforcement. A total of 311 fines have been catalogued by the International Network of Privacy Law Professionals, and by analysing them, several key trends can be observed.

The Netherlands, Turkey, and Slovakia have been major focal points for GDPR enforcement, with the Netherlands leading in terms of high-value fines. Moreover, Romania and Slovakia frequently appear on the list of the lower fines, indicating that even less severe violations are being enforced. The implementation of the GDPR has been somewhat of a mixed bag since its introduction a year ago. There is no denying that the EU has captured the attention of the public with the major fines it has imposed on Silicon Valley giants. However, enforcement takes a very long time; even the EU's first self-imposed fine for violating one person's privacy took over two years to complete. 

Approximately three out of every four data protection authorities have stated that they lack the budget and personnel needed to investigate violations, and numerous examples illustrate that the byzantine collection of laws has not been able to curb the invasive practices of surveillance capitalism, despite their attempts. Perhaps the EU could begin by following its own rules and see if that will help. A comprehensive framework for data protection has been developed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 

Established to protect and safeguard individuals' data and ensure their privacy, rigorous standards regarding the collection, processing, and storage of data were enacted. Nevertheless, in an unexpected development, the European Union itself was found to have violated these very laws, causing an unprecedented uproar. 

A recent internal audit revealed a serious weakness in data management practices within European institutions, exposing the personal information of EU citizens to the risk of misuse or access by unauthorized individuals. Ultimately, the European Court of Justice handed down a landmark decision stating that the EU failed to comply with its data protection laws due to this breach. 

As a result of the GDPR, implemented in 2018, organisations are now required to obtain user consent to collect or use personal data, such as cookie acceptance notifications, which are now commonplace. This framework has become the foundation for data privacy and a defining framework for data privacy. By limiting the amount of information companies can collect and making its use more transparent, GDPR aims to empower individuals while posing a significant compliance challenge for technology companies. 

It is worth mentioning that Meta has faced substantial penalties for non-compliance and is among those most negatively impacted. There was a notable case last year when Meta was fined $1.3 billion for failing to adequately protect European users' data during its transfer to U.S. servers. This left them vulnerable to American intelligence agencies since their data could be transferred to American servers, a risk that they did not manage adequately. 

The company also received a $417 million fine for violations involving Instagram's privacy practices and a $232 million fine for not being transparent enough regarding WhatsApp's data processing practices in the past. This is not the only issue Meta is facing concerning GDPR compliance, as Amazon was fined $887 million by the European Union in 2021 for similar violations. 

A Facebook login integration that is part of Meta's ecosystem was a major factor in the recent breach of the European Union's data privacy regulations. The incident illustrates the challenges that can be encountered even by the enforcers of the GDPR when adhering to its strict requirements.

Meta Removes Independent Fact Checkers, Replaces With "Community Notes"


Meta to remove fact-checkers

Meta is dumping independent fact-checkers on Instagram and Facebook, similar to what X (earlier Twitter) did, replacing them with “community notes” where users’ comments decide the accuracy of a post.

On Tuesday, Mark Zuckerberg in a video said third-party moderators were "too politically biased" and it was "time to get back to our roots around free expression".

Tech executives are trying to build better relations with the new US President Donald Trump who will take oath this month, the new move is a step in that direction.  

Republican Party and Meta

The Republican party and Trump have called out Meta for its fact-checking policies, stressing it censors right-wing voices on its platform.

After the new policy was announced, Trump said in a news conference he was pleased with Meta’s decision to have  "come a long way".

Online anti-hate speech activists expressed disappointment with the shift, claiming it was motivated by a desire to align with Trump.

“Zuckerberg's announcement is a blatant attempt to cozy up to the incoming Trump administration – with harmful implications. Claiming to avoid "censorship" is a political move to avoid taking responsibility for hate and disinformation that platforms encourage and facilitate,” said Ava Lee of Global Witness. This organization sees itself as trying to bring big tech like Meta accountable.

Copying X

The present fact-checking program of Meta was introduced in 2016, it sends posts that seem false or misleading to independent fact-checking organizations to judge their credibility. 

Posts marked as misleading have labels attached to them, giving users more information, and move down in viewers’ social media feeds. This will now be replaced by community notes, starting in the US. Meta has no “immediate plans” to remove third-party fact-checkers in the EU or the UK.

The new community notes move has been copied from platform X, which was started after Elon Musk bought Twitter. 

It includes people with opposing opinions agreeing on notes that provide insight or explanation to disputed posts. 

We will allow more speech by lifting restrictions on some topics that are part of mainstream discourse and focusing our enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations. We will take a more personalized approach to political content, so that people who want to see more of it in their feeds can.

No More Internet Cookies? Digital Targeted Ads to Find New Ways


Google Chrome to block cookies

The digital advertising world is changing rapidly due to privacy concerns and regulatory needs, and the shift is affecting how advertisers target customers. Starting in 2025, Google to stop using third-party cookies in the world’s most popular browser, Chrome. The cookies are data files that track our internet activities in our browsers. The cookie collects information sold to advertisers, who use this for targeted advertising based on user data. 

“Cookies are files created by websites you visit. By saving information about your visit, they make your online experience easier. For example, sites can keep you signed in, remember your site preferences, and give you locally relevant content,” says Google.

In 2019 and 2020, Firefox and Safari took a step back from third-party cookies. Following their footsteps, Google’s Chrome allows users to opt out of the settings. As the cookies have information that can identify a user, the EU’s and UK’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) asks a user for prior consent via spamming pop-ups. 

No more third-party data

Once the spine of targeted digital advertising, the future of third-party cookies doesn’t look bright. However, not everything is sunshine and rainbows. 

While giants like Amazon, Google, and Facebook are burning bridges by blocking third-party cookies to address privacy concerns, they can still collect first-party data about a user from their websites, and the data will be sold to advertisers if a user permits, however in a less intrusive form. The harvested data won’t be of much use to the advertisers, but the annoying pop-ups being in existence may irritate the users.

How will companies benefit?

One way consumers and companies can benefit is by adapting the advertising industry to be more efficient. Instead of using targeted advertising, companies can directly engage with customers visiting websites. 

Advances in AI and machine learning can also help. Instead of invasive ads that keep following you on the internet, the user will be getting information and features personally. Companies can predict user needs, and via techniques like automated delivery and pre-emptive stocking, give better results. A new advertising landscape is on its way.

Supreme Court Weighs Shareholder Lawsuit Against Meta Over Data Disclosure

 

The U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating on a high-stakes shareholder lawsuit involving Meta (formerly Facebook), where investors claim the tech giant misled them by omitting crucial data breach information from its risk disclosures. The case, Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, centers around the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where a British firm accessed data on millions of users to influence U.S. elections. While Meta had warned of potential misuse of data in its annual filings, it did not disclose that a significant breach had already occurred, potentially impacting investors’ trust. During oral arguments, liberal justices voiced concerns over the omission. 

Justice Elena Kagan likened the situation to a company that warns about fire risks but withholds that a recent fire already caused severe damage. Such a lack of disclosure, she argued, could be misleading to “reasonable investors.” The plaintiffs’ attorney, Kevin Russell, echoed this sentiment, asserting that Facebook’s omission misrepresented the severity of risks investors faced. On the other hand, conservative justices expressed concerns about expanding disclosure requirements. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether mandating disclosures of all past events might lead to over-disclosure, which could overwhelm investors with excessive details. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested the SEC, rather than the courts, might be better positioned to clarify standards for corporate disclosures. 

The Biden administration supports the plaintiffs, with Assistant Solicitor General Kevin Barber describing the case as an example of a misleading “half-truth.” Meta’s attorney, Kannon Shanmugam, argued that such broad requirements could dissuade companies from sharing forward-looking risk factors, fearing potential lawsuits for any past incident. Previously, the Ninth Circuit found Meta’s general warnings about potential risks misleading, given the company’s awareness of the Cambridge Analytica breach. The Court held that such omissions could harm investors by implying that no significant misuse had occurred. 

If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs, companies could face new expectations to disclose known incidents, particularly those affecting data security or reputational risk. Such a ruling could reshape corporate disclosure practices, particularly for tech firms managing sensitive data. Alternatively, a ruling in favor of Meta may uphold the existing regulatory framework, granting companies more discretion in defining disclosure content. This decision will likely set a significant precedent for how companies balance transparency with investors and risk management.

Facebook, Nvidia Push SCOTUS to Limit Investor Lawsuits

 




The US Supreme Court is set to take two landmark cases over Facebook and Nvidia that may rewrite the way investors sue the tech sector after scandals. Two firms urge the Court to narrow legal options available for investment groups, saying claims made were unrealistic.


Facebook's Cambridge Analytica Case

The current scandal is that of Cambridge Analytica, which allowed third-party vendors access to hundreds of millions of user information without adequate check or follow-up. Facebook reportedly paid over $5 billion to the FTC and SEC this year alone due to purportedly lying to the users as well as to the investors about how it uses data. Still, investor class-action lawsuits over the scandal remain, and Facebook is appealing to the Supreme Court in an effort to block such claims.

Facebook argues that the previous data risks disclosed were hypothetical and therefore should not have been portrayed as if they already had happened. The company also argues that forcing it to disclose all past data incidents may lead to "over disclosure," making the reports filled with data not helpful but rather confusing for investors. Facebook thinks disclosure rules should be flexible; if the SEC wants some specific incidents disclosed, it should create new regulations for that purpose.


Nvidia and the Cryptocurrency Boom

The second is that of Nvidia, the world's biggest graphics chip maker, which, allegedly, had played down how much of its 2017-2018 revenue was from cryptocurrency mining. When the crypto market collapsed, Nvidia was forced to cut its earnings forecast, which was an unexpected move for investors. Subsequently, the SEC charged Nvidia with $5.5 million for not disclosing how much of its revenue was tied to the erratic crypto market.

Investors argue that the statements from Nvidia were misleading due to the actual risks but point out that Nvidia responds by saying that such misrepresentation was not done out of malice. However, they argue that demand cannot be predicted in such an ever-changing market and so would lead to unintentional mistakes. According to them, the existing laws for securities lawsuits already impose very high standards to deter the "fishing expedition," where investors try to sue over financial losses without proper evidence. Nvidia's lawyers opine that relaxing these standards would invite more cases; henceforth the economy is harmed as a whole.


Possible Impact of Supreme Court on Investor Litigation


The Supreme Court will hear arguments for Facebook on November 6th, and the case for Nvidia is scheduled for Nov 13th. Judgments could forever alter the framework under which tech companies can be held accountable to the investor class. A judgement in favour of Facebook and Nvidia would make it tougher for shareholders to file a claim and collect damages after a firm has suffered a crisis. It could give tech companies respite but, at the same time, narrow legal options open to shareholders.

These cases come at a time when the trend of business-friendly rulings from the Supreme Court is lowering the regulatory authority of agencies such as the SEC. Legal experts believe that this new conservative majority on the court may be more open than ever to appeals limiting "nuisance" lawsuits, arguing that these cases threaten business stability and economic growth.

Dealing with such cases, the Court would decide whether the federal rules must permit private investors to enforce standards of corporate accountability or if such responsibility of accountability should rest primarily with the regulatory bodies like the SEC.


Big Tech Prioritizes Security with Zuckerberg at the Helm

 


Reports indicate that some of the largest tech firms are paying millions of dollars each year to safeguard the CEOs of their companies, with some companies paying more than others depending on the industry. There has been a significant increase in the costs relating to security for top executives, including the cost of monitoring at home, personal security, bodyguards, and consulting services, according to a Fortune report.

There was a lot of emphasis placed on securing high-profile CEOs, considering the risks they could incur, according to Bill Herzog, CEO of LionHeart Security Services. Even though it has been two months since Meta cut thousands of jobs on its technical teams, its employees are still feeling the consequences. 

The Facebook core app is supported by employees in many ways, from groups to messaging, and employees who have spent weeks redistributing responsibilities left behind by their departed colleagues, according to four current and former employees who were asked to remain anonymous to speak about internal issues. 

Many remaining employees are likely adjusting to new management, learning completely new roles, and - in some cases - just trying to get their heads around what is happening. The cost of security services offered by LionHeart Security Services is $60 per hour or more, which could represent an annual budget of over $1 million for two guards working full-time. 

In terms of personal security for Mark Zuckerberg, Meta has invested $23.4 million in 2023, breaking the lead among the competitors. The amount of $9.4 million is comprised of direct security costs, while a pre-tax allowance of $14 million is reserved for additional security-related expenses that may arise in the future. 

The investment by Alphabet Inc. in 2023 will amount to about $6.8 million, while Tesla Inc. has paid $2.4 million for the security services of its CEO Elon Musk, in 2023. Additionally, other technology giants, such as NVIDIA Corporation and Apple Inc. have also invested heavily to ensure the safety of their CEOs, with the two companies spending $2.2 million and $820,309, respectively, in 2023. 

In recent years, tech companies have become more aware of the importance of security for their top executives. Due to the increasing risks associated with high-profile clients, the costs of these services have increased as a result of the increase in demand. The fact that these organizations have invested significant amounts of money into security measures over the years makes it clear that they place a high level of importance on the safety of their leaders, which is reflected in their significant investments in these measures. 

The article also highlights the potential risks that are involved in leading a major tech company in today's world, due to technological advancements. Since Zuckerberg joined Meta's platforms over a decade ago, he has faced increasing scrutiny to prove he is doing what is necessary to ensure the safety of children on its platforms. Facebook's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, apologized directly to parents who have complained their children are suffering harm due to content on Meta's platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, during a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

This apology came after intense questioning from lawmakers about Meta’s efforts to protect children from harmful content, including non-consensual explicit images. Despite Meta’s investments in safety measures, the company continues to face criticism for not doing enough to prevent these harms. Zuckerberg's apology reflected both an acknowledgement of these issues and his willingness to accept responsibility for them. 

However, it also highlighted the ongoing challenges Meta faces in addressing safety concerns in the future. In a multifaceted and complex answer to the question of whether Mark Zuckerberg should step down as Meta's CEO, there are many issues to consider. It is important to point out that there are high ethical concerns and controversy surrounding his conduct that have seriously compromised the public's trust in the leadership of the country. 

Meta has been well positioned for success due to his visionary approach and deep insight into the company which has greatly contributed to the success of the organization. What is important in the end is what will benefit the company's future, that is what matters in the end. However, if Zuckerberg can demonstrate that he is in fact trying to address ethical issues, as well as make the platform more transparent, and if he can prove it well and truly, then he might do well to keep the position at Meta, despite the fears that he may lose it. 

The business may require a change in leadership if these issues persist, which will lead to the restoration of trust, which will enable the business to maintain a more sustainable and ethical outlook.