Live data from Hacker News

Forget Equifax. Facebook and Google Have the Data That Should Worry You

bloomberg.com

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: Forget Equifax. Facebook and Google Have the Data That Should Worry You

#101
post #82
post #25

I think what we're seeing are the same sorts of things that led to building codes, fire codes, licensing of architects and civil engineers. After so many building collapses, bridge collapses, or disastrous fires, people finally demanded that "build whatever you want, however you want" is not OK if you are making something for use by the general public. I think ultimately we're going to see legislation requiring licen…

It might happen but I don't think it'll work. Codes work because they deal with known, predictable, and repeated problems. You can keep improving the fire code with each disastrous fire and fire will not actively try to outsmart you next time. Security OTOH is anti-inductive because you're dealing with intelligent attackers adjusting their methods. In this environment, security code and certifications will just becom…

There are many ideas to make this workable.

How about this: Did you test your code for buffer overflows? If not, you're negligent.

Maybe you need to submit an affidavit that the code has ben tested, a log from an outside testing service (similar to a building inspector, but for code quality), or some other step to verify that something has been done. For the record, building inspections have flaws, too, but they sure help in spite of those issues!

Many other ideas, but that one is simple to communicate.

Re: Forget Equifax. Facebook and Google Have the Data That Should Worry You

#102
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, just maybe, there's a bit more at stake than just your credit rating.

Maybe I can be concerned about both at the same time. Just because Facebook and Google have damaging information about me doesn't mean Equifax doesn't. Also, I am not a homeowner, so a hit to my credit could be devastating financially. As others have said, google/facebook are opt-in. I have knowingly given them the information they have on me. Equifax is not opt-in. I have never used any of their services.

Google and Facebook are not opt in. They have your data if you browse the web and don't know enough to block/avoid their tracking techniques, or with Facebook if you just have Friends who use it. That argument is bullshit and I'm sick of hearing it.

Say you never signed up for Facebook but don't block their tracking stuff, or maybe you do block trackers but also have some friends who use facebook and have unwittingly shared a bunch of information about you. Someone can know just enough to fraudulently sign up for a Faceook profile in your name, and Facebook will helpfuly make suggestions and pre-populate bits of the profile with stuff they already know about you. That person knows a lot more about you now.

It's also not a stretch to imaging Facebook or Google profiles being used as ID for credit and other financial institutions in the future, there are already many online services which allow this and we already have things like Android Pay.

This shit's complicated, I think we're massively underestimating the risk of trusting these companies just because they haven't leaked user data. Making dismissive and oversimplified statements about it doesn't help anyone.

Re: Forget Equifax. Facebook and Google Have the Data That Should Worry You

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why does it matter if it's under legal compulsion or not. " Because we are all obliged to follow the law.

A) No we aren't. Unjust laws should be fought. I realize that this is easier said than done, but it's still true. B) They could organize it so that even when the law comes asking, they can't comply, but they don't. What matters is that they are acting insecurely, and providing data that they shouldn't be storing/providing in the first place. The law is irrelevant here.

"A) No we aren't. Unjust laws should be fought. "

In the court system, not by disobeying.

Your view of 'what is unjust' is likely completely different from the view of others.

Particularly in this case, I don't have any problem with Google or FB handing over data for individuals under investigation, wherein a Judge had provided a warrant. This is 'legal' in every sense of the term and has been for some time.

As for 'mass surveillance' - well, this was a murkier area, and has been cleared up by the Supreme Court, and I don't suspect they are doing it.

If Google does not want to hand over data to officials producing warrants, they can take it up in court, and try to get an injunction against the process of handing over. If a judge feels there is merit to the case, they will grant the injunction while the case is being resolved.

"They could organize it so that even when the law comes asking, they can't comply, but they don't."

Nope. They can organize all they want, but if the Government is well within legal limits, Google et. al. would face some serious pain. Again for 'mass surveillance' stuff (i.e. legal ambiguity a few years ago), they'd have some legal footing to fight (i.e. try for injunctions), but for other things, not so much.

Re: Forget Equifax. Facebook and Google Have the Data That Should Worry You

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This piece looks likes little more than propaganda from the credit reporting agencies. Shame on you Bloomberg." No, it's not propaganda, it's regular journalism. Google and FB are both 'large corps' whom journo bosses would be weary of offending, so no. Whenever a journalist 'names names' of big companies, they're probably doing regular journalism. The bad stuff happens when stories are suppressed to avoid upsetting…

Really, an article in the wake of the most significant data breach in the US telling me to forget about that breach and think about something else? The first two words of this title are "Forget Equifax ..." An imperative. This is exactly propaganda. >"Whenever a journalist 'names names' of big companies, they're probably doing regular journalism." What? Since when is using proper nouns a defining characteristic of "r…

There is zero possibility this is a propaganda piece for Equifax.

Bloomberg is a fairly respectable entity, they just don't do the bidding of arbitrary 'big corps' against other 'arbitrary big corps'.

As far as 'Google not advertising on Bloomberg' - my friend - Google owns the internet. Every web site on planet earth is 100% beholden to search results. Bloomberg lives and dies on Google results.

Google has been known to fuddy with search results for direct competitors, so if Bloomberg needs to be afraid of someone, it's Google - moreover - they have nothing to gain from doing a 'pro Equifax' propaganda piece.

There is corporate influence and national propaganda in journalism - but this is not it.

This is just regular journalism.

And I for one support the premise.

Equifax is irrelevant.

Google and FB together, are almost 100% of the risk. They have 'everything' on us.

Re: Forget Equifax. Facebook and Google Have the Data That Should Worry You

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) No we aren't. Unjust laws should be fought. I realize that this is easier said than done, but it's still true. B) They could organize it so that even when the law comes asking, they can't comply, but they don't. What matters is that they are acting insecurely, and providing data that they shouldn't be storing/providing in the first place. The law is irrelevant here.

"A) No we aren't. Unjust laws should be fought. " In the court system, not by disobeying. Your view of 'what is unjust' is likely completely different from the view of others. Particularly in this case, I don't have any problem with Google or FB handing over data for individuals under investigation, wherein a Judge had provided a warrant. This is 'legal' in every sense of the term and has been for some time. As for '…

I disagree with your view of fighting unjust laws, but I can agree to disagree on that one. It's a complicated issue for sure.

> Nope. They can organize all they want, but if the Government is well within legal limits

You are misunderstanding what I mean here: Google can make it so that nobody except the user can read their data, but Google chooses not to. If they did this (read: the correct/secure way), then the government can ask all they want, and Google would be unable to comply.

Re: Forget Equifax. Facebook and Google Have the Data That Should Worry You

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, an article in the wake of the most significant data breach in the US telling me to forget about that breach and think about something else? The first two words of this title are "Forget Equifax ..." An imperative. This is exactly propaganda. >"Whenever a journalist 'names names' of big companies, they're probably doing regular journalism." What? Since when is using proper nouns a defining characteristic of "r…

There is zero possibility this is a propaganda piece for Equifax. Bloomberg is a fairly respectable entity, they just don't do the bidding of arbitrary 'big corps' against other 'arbitrary big corps'. As far as 'Google not advertising on Bloomberg' - my friend - Google owns the internet . Every web site on planet earth is 100% beholden to search results. Bloomberg lives and dies on Google results. Google has been kno…

>"Bloomberg is a fairly respectable entity, they just don't do the bidding of arbitrary 'big corps' against other 'arbitrary big corps'"

Firstly there is not one "Bloomberg." There are many different Bloomberg companies and Bloomberg News regularly publishes questionable and fluffy pieces. See:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-nelson/bloomberg-news-ref...

You might also want to look up Randolph Hearst and the term Yellow Journalism if you are so naive to believe that "respectable newspapers" whatever that means don't publish propaganda. See also Judith Miller and how the NYTimes, another "respectable paper" sold the Iraq War if you're still not convinced that propaganda pieces are a real thing:

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-wa...

>"As far as 'Google not advertising on Bloomberg' - my friend - Google owns the internet. Every web site on planet earth is 100% beholden to search results. Bloomberg lives and dies on Google results."

I am not your friend and honestly you seem like a troll. Bloomberg does not need Google. Bloomberg is foremost a very successful financial services company and software company. And as distant third a media company. Bloomberg L.P does billions of dollars in revenue a year selling service to the financial industry. They do not need Google search results at all. Maybe you should read up on Bloomberg L.P a bit. So no, they don't "live and die by Google results."

Re: Forget Equifax. Facebook and Google Have the Data That Should Worry You

#107
post #25

I think what we're seeing are the same sorts of things that led to building codes, fire codes, licensing of architects and civil engineers. After so many building collapses, bridge collapses, or disastrous fires, people finally demanded that "build whatever you want, however you want" is not OK if you are making something for use by the general public. I think ultimately we're going to see legislation requiring licen…

As a FLOSS contributor/developer, I don't like this idea. Having to apply for and receive a license to write programs or modify existing ones would pretty much kill any FLOSS project not backed by a company.

In addition, how would this be enforceable? Unlike a civil engineer, where there's some amount of physical presence required in what they do, SW engineers can literally be anywhere in the world and still be productive and it seems that this system could easily be gamed.

Re: Forget Equifax. Facebook and Google Have the Data That Should Worry You

#108
I don't understand why people villinize Facebook and Google so much. If anything, they've done a fantastic job at data security. They explicitly hire security engineers and even offer bug bounties for potential issues, treating security as a priority.

I mention this all the time: What scares me is companies in the wild that consider security as a burden rather than something core to their business. We see companies even actively punishing people for finding issues in their software and going through responsible disclosure. This sort of response should be outlawed.

Equifax's breach is just a drop in the bucket compared to all the other breaches less well known companies experienced in the past. Like hey, some obscure pay system at Home Depot got hacked and someone stole my credit card, but fuck Google for tracking me online. We have this "too small to care" mentality about these business committing horrifying security transgressions until it's too late.

Re: Forget Equifax. Facebook and Google Have the Data That Should Worry You

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) No we aren't. Unjust laws should be fought. I realize that this is easier said than done, but it's still true. B) They could organize it so that even when the law comes asking, they can't comply, but they don't. What matters is that they are acting insecurely, and providing data that they shouldn't be storing/providing in the first place. The law is irrelevant here.

"A) No we aren't. Unjust laws should be fought. " In the court system, not by disobeying. Your view of 'what is unjust' is likely completely different from the view of others. Particularly in this case, I don't have any problem with Google or FB handing over data for individuals under investigation, wherein a Judge had provided a warrant. This is 'legal' in every sense of the term and has been for some time. As for '…

> In the court system, not by disobeying.

Which cannot be done, when any issues with these laws are discussed in "secret courts" [0], and where the individuals involved cannot reach out to experts in the field, because their hands are tied by gag orders.

The strength of the warrant becomes less when you recognise that FISA approves almost every request it gets. The warrant is little more than a proforma.

The structure of the current laws prevents a lawful answer to the situation.

I can't advocate breaking the law, that would be going against myself.

But neither can I advocate for the law, here, because it is failing to protect the people of the nation, from the power of the nation.

[0] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/fisa-court-explai...

Post reply on HN