A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#41

Post by lucb1e » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

xseven wrote: post #37

I wish all the articles had an unbiased TLDR attached to it. I came here for the clickbait, not the story!!

Dude realized "hey, you own your content, not Facebook, even after you post it on Facebook. So with users' consent, I can download their data from Facebook and display it on my own website, right?" Thus he wrote something where people would enter their Facebook and other social network logins, and the site would aggregate their data. Basically a cross-platform social network.

Facebook was the only website to respond at all. They sued them for downloading data. (You own it, but when you try to get it out, you can't.) Facebook called it "spamming" and "hacking". The courts didn't really understand the topic (the article claims) but finally in the 9th district court the spam claim got thrown out and Facebook said they won't challenge that decision because there is still the hacking claim to be fought over.

How asking someone to give you a password for a specific purpose and then using that password for that specific purpose is hacking is beyond me. But then the article is fairly one-sided so I don't know the full story. The legal battle continues.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#42

Post by kbenson » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

Vachani is based in Brazil, where life is more affordable. He flies into San Francisco a lot, though, in an ongoing effort to stay in the tech biz.

So, open question, how much cheaper does it have to be in Brazil to make it worthwhile to live there because it's cheaper, if you are flying into SF a lot? I mean, I know SF is expensive, but presumably if you are willing to make ~$600 flights on a regular basis, you would be willing to commute a few hours. Within two hours of SF, things aren't exactly cheap, but they are cheap relative to SF. How much cheaper does Brazil have to be (living in at least a moderately sized city) for this to effective, assuming he flies into SF 8 times a year?

This of course ignores other reasons he may want to live in Brazil (such as family), because that wasn't how it was presented.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#43

Post by War_Machine » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #13

Orin Kerr is the country's leading attorney on Computer Crime Law(1) and The Volokh Conspiracy writers are a powerhouse in Constitutional Law generally. Its almost certainly too late for Vachani and Power Ventures; Facebook have destroyed them, and any ruling is only symbolic, but for the rest of us, a correct ruling is essential for the future of a free Internet. Here is Orin Kerr writing about Power Ventures: https…

After Power's IP addresses were blocked by Facebook, couldn't Power use the user as proxy to access Facebook instead? In other words, have the user (through some Power provided tool I suppose) access Facebook and feed Power the information it wants to send.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#44

Post by tn13 » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 5:15 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #42

Vachani is based in Brazil, where life is more affordable. He flies into San Francisco a lot, though, in an ongoing effort to stay in the tech biz. So, open question, how much cheaper does it have to be in Brazil to make it worthwhile to live there because it's cheaper, if you are flying into SF a lot? I mean, I know SF is expensive, but presumably if you are willing to make ~$600 flights on a regular basis, you woul…

Given the lawsuites it might make sense to stay out of USA too.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#45

Post by krissara » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 5:19 PM UTC

achow wrote: post #15

Because of this I discovered the book 'Chaos Monkeys' and immediately bought it! The top Amazon review decided it for me.. Amazingly accurate coverage of Facebook's internal culture, the good, the bad, and the ugly. (Plus much, much more!) https://www.amazon.com/review/R2GQCWUZKVOY10/ref=cm_cr_dp_ti...

Its been on my to read list as well. We need more insight into the business practices of big tech companies like FB and Google, that control so much wealth.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#46

Post by blackbagboys » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 5:19 PM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #44

kbenson wrote: post #42

Vachani is based in Brazil, where life is more affordable. He flies into San Francisco a lot, though, in an ongoing effort to stay in the tech biz. So, open question, how much cheaper does it have to be in Brazil to make it worthwhile to live there because it's cheaper, if you are flying into SF a lot? I mean, I know SF is expensive, but presumably if you are willing to make ~$600 flights on a regular basis, you woul…

Given the lawsuites it might make sense to stay out of USA too.

If you are interfacing with U.S.-based entities or your data crosses servers located in the U.S., you can be sued in a U.S. courts; at best, you'll increase the complexity of the case and the difficulty collecting on a judgment issued against you, but certainly not to the extent that a major corporation like Facebook would be at all deterred.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#47

Post by mcherm » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 5:24 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #36

Sacho wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, what payout? The 9th circuit essentially ruled that his attempts to access Facebook servers after the cease-and-desist letter were illegal. Unless I'm reading this wrong, he lost, and is criminally liable.

Facebook brought a malicious action under the CANSPAM act when it had no basis for doing so. That action, in part, resulted in the loss of Vachani's business and livelihood. Facebook will need to compensate for the loss they caused.

> it had no basis for doing so

Several lower level judges disagreed with you. Although I think that the CANSPAM act ought not apply, there is no basis to claim that this was clearly settled law being ignored to make this into a malicious action.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#48

Post by Dragonai » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

achow wrote: post #15

Because of this I discovered the book 'Chaos Monkeys' and immediately bought it! The top Amazon review decided it for me.. Amazingly accurate coverage of Facebook's internal culture, the good, the bad, and the ugly. (Plus much, much more!) https://www.amazon.com/review/R2GQCWUZKVOY10/ref=cm_cr_dp_ti...

This book looks fascinating. Thanks for reinforcing the OP's author's opinion on it, I think I'll check it out!

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#49

Post by komali2 » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #36

Sacho wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, what payout? The 9th circuit essentially ruled that his attempts to access Facebook servers after the cease-and-desist letter were illegal. Unless I'm reading this wrong, he lost, and is criminally liable.

Facebook brought a malicious action under the CANSPAM act when it had no basis for doing so. That action, in part, resulted in the loss of Vachani's business and livelihood. Facebook will need to compensate for the loss they caused.

"Will need to be persuaded to compensate," i.e., sued, which will take probably 2-5 years to complete because it will be cheaper to bill lawyers than payout potentially millions to Vachani.

A big problem with our legal system is that it favors those with more money in every way - the rich can lever more cases, better cases, more often. They can afford to appeal at every level, to pay lawyers to look for hundreds of little loopholes. And they are essentially immune to being sued because not only can nobody afford to even begin procedures, once they do, all the more enriched party needs to do is fend off attacks long enough for their opponents' funds to run out.

Re: A Man Who Stood Up To Facebook

#50

Post by sctb » Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 5:40 PM UTC

happyslobro wrote: post #14

sctb wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fuck Zuck. Please don't include this in comments on Hacker News.

I will phrase it differently in the future, but I stand by the sentiment.

That phrasing is certainly more incendiary than other possibilities, but just a watered-down version of that sentiment is problematic too: it doesn't teach us about anything other than how you feel, which is not part of our shared reality that is the basis of conversation. That's why we ask that comments not only be civil, but substantive, so that they're contributing to the discussion.