Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 436 posts

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#91

Post by ams6110 »

chatmasta wrote: post #29
danso wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wondering what he thought would be him doing "a better job weighing in"? It seems like his deleted tweets were apparently too honest? i.e. in arguing that there was no data breach, he argued that FB's API and TOS allowed (without oversight) for all app developers to do the kind of data harvesting Cambridge Analytics did? That was well-known by developers, but I guess it's different stating it as an official policy.

Translation, "I pissed off my boss"

If he's leaving anyway why would he really care?

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#92

Post by RpFLCL »

fooey wrote: post #42
zilchers wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seriously feel like I’m missing something here, why isn’t Facebook fully behind getting to the bottom of this? Going back even further, why was it so difficult for them to even admit they had a problem during the election? I don’t think it’s as simple as “more money,” but maybe as simple as people too close to the problem and too enamored by what they’ve created?

Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended.

This fact has me more confused than anything.

What did most people think Facebook was doing... Keeping all the data locked away an never letting anyone make use of it? The interest in that data by political entities should have been especially obvious.

Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. I remember first hearing about it on a podcast that was mostly focused on the personality profiles. [1?] However, it was open about CA optaining the data via the survey. (I'll provide a link as soon as I dig it up again). Suddenly, months later, this story is exploding in media and political rhetoric.

It makes me wonder if this isn't more about a concerted effort to force regulations to give someone control over these platforms?

After seeing what happened in the 2016 elections around the world, I'd imagine many people became interested in ensuring social media would work for them next time around.

[1] https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/wnyc/note-to-self/e/5231252... (not -the- podcast I was trying to find, but still has the info as far back as November)

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#93

Post by [deleted] »

zilchers wrote: post #37
fooey wrote: post #17

There's breaking reporting that Facebook just had personnel in the Cambridge Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121 > BREAKING: Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office.. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/9758…

I seriously feel like I’m missing something here, why isn’t Facebook fully behind getting to the bottom of this? Going back even further, why was it so difficult for them to even admit they had a problem during the election? I don’t think it’s as simple as “more money,” but maybe as simple as people too close to the problem and too enamored by what they’ve created?

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#94

Post by lawnchair_larry »

mikeyouse wrote: post #8
IBM wrote: post #5

Only thing I want to know: did he sign an NDA?

Of course he did - C-level officer close to hugely controversial issue, leaving the company in 6 months. It'll be predicated on an NDA, some sort of success metrics for the transition process, and a monster golden parachute.

Worth noting that CSO / CISO isn’t really a C-Level position. They usually report to the CIO or CTO and are leveled at VP or whatever one one or two levels below what the “real” execs are.

You’ll notice he isn’t listed as an exec in their SEC filings, which include their CEO, COO, CFO, Chief Product Officer, VP Business and Marketing Partnerships, CTO, and VP General Counsel.

That tells you a bit about how important tech companies really think security is. In fact you will often find the head of HR among that group before you’ll see a CSO.

It doesn’t matter though, as it’s incredibly rare for a CSO to actually know anything about security. Stamos is an exception. I’d wager that you can likely count the number of CSOs who have ever written an exploit on one hand.

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#96

Post by minimaxir »

daodedickinson wrote: post #64
dirtyhand wrote: post #33

CEO of Cambridge Analytica caught on camera saying they have used bribes and sex workers to entrap politicians. https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...

No different than Spez @ Reddit saying he knows the Facebook accounts of anonymous users accessing adult content and can cross-reference that with their reddit accounts when they are logged in and sell that information to third parties. Reddit probably makes more money that way than any other, but that's just my guess because they clients are loaded and include sovereign states. Tons of sites are no better, probably…

Apropos of nothing, Ellen Pao commented on how Reddit handles user data:

> In 2014, we decided not to sell reddit user data because there is no way to monitor and verify use. There is no way to ensure data is deleted/corrected. It may be on any engineer's laptop. Who had access to copy it? How do you correct or delete PII or unauth porn after it's sold?

https://twitter.com/ekp/status/975192404167831552

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#97

Post by danso »

daodedickinson wrote: post #52
fooey wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the "breaches" and "abuses" aren't breaches or abuses, it's Facebook's business model working as intended.

Exactly, and sites like Reddit make money on the same sort of thing. It wasn't controversial when Facebook and Google became arms of the Obama and then Clinton campaigns, but now more people are turning on Facebook after learning that their info was sold to the Trump campaign and companies and so on through companies like CA.

Here's a Twitter thread by someone who worked on Obama's campaign talking about her firm's use of Facebook data. It was tweeted by Julian Assange so I'm assuming it's one of the more damning examples of the Obama campaign using social media data:

https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752

https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975

This person asserts that people from Facebook gave them their blessing because FB was "on our side". However, she says that from what she knew, FB was on the other team's side too. Kind of need more specifics about who from FB said what, and what "suck out the whole social graph" means. But it's still a different situation than what CA is being accused of, which is using the guise of a quiz app to mine the social data of the quiz participants' friends.

In contrast, the Obama campaign Facebook app/outreach was explicitly connected to the Obama campaign efforts, i.e. people who signed up for the app knew they would be explicitly allowing this Obama-connected app access to info/friend data.

edit: Here's a tweet by someone on the Obama campaign, protesting angrily to a tweet by Cambridge Analytics:

https://twitter.com/mbsimon/status/975231597183229953

> I ran the Obama 2008 data-driven microtargeting team. How dare you! We didn’t steal private Facebook profile data from voters under false pretenses. OFA voluntarily solicited opinions of hundreds of thousands of voters. We didn’t commit theft to do our groundbreaking work.

Of course, we shouldn't take Obama's team at their word that absolutely everything they did was on the up-and-up. But it's important to acknowledge that there are distinct differences between what we know of their work so far compared to what has been revealed with CA.

In other words, it's fair to say that the Obama team was lauded for their "innovation" at mass usage of FB data, which they talked about publicly. It is unfair to say that what they talked about publicly is anything like what CA is currently being accused of.

edit: I more or less agree with u/makomk that @mbsimon (the staffer who tweeted angrily at CA) is not giving the most complete description of how Obama's campaign harvested FB data: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16624794

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#98

Post by jumelles »

bogomipz wrote: post #88

>"Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer..." This is quite a telling - advocating for transparency and disclosure put this individual at odds with the C0O Sheryl Sandberg. It's worth noting that Chapter 6 of Sandber…

She's the COO, not the CEO :)

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#99

Post by theseatoms »

cratermoon wrote: post #78
jstalin wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who remembers how the Obama campaign's social media analytics and strategy were breathlessly praised ?

[flagged]

Also known as, "having principles."

See also, "consistency."

Re: Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

#100

Post by nopriorarrests »

danso wrote: post #66
downandout wrote: post #35

I’m sorry but show me even 10 voters nationwide who were going to vote for Hillary, and then saw a Russian-created fake news post on Facebook and changed their vote to Trump. This Security Chief was clearly upset that his candidate lost, but blaming Facebook or the Russians is ludicrous. It seems that they attempted to influence the election, but there is zero evidence that they were successful in changing the outcom…

I don't think the argument was that Clinton voters switched to Trump. More that Clinton voters were persuaded to stay home. Which is a perfectly valid campaign strategy -- e.g. why campaign funds are so vital to a successful campaign. But political advertising is required to have disclosures. That foreign actors were allowed to push propaganda with the aim of influencing the election with the unknowing assistance of…

Frankly speaking, if someone should took the blame for Clinton voters staying home, it's traditional media. They were constantly talking how her victory is predicated, how she is supposed "to take Ohio, to take Florida, to take Wisconsin", NYT and HuffPost showing election calculators with "95% probability of Hillary winning" (Nate Silver was the only one who said that Trump has 30% chance, and he was laughed out of the room for that!).

Is it really a mystery that democratic voter turnout was low? Why they should be bothered if the victory in their pocket? And Trump voters were energized beyond belief by the exactly same message from traditional media.

Post reply on HN