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

281–290 of 436 posts

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

#281

Post by briandear »

magnusss wrote: post #248
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Additionally, this information about Cambridge Analytica came out months ago. Minor nit: Years ago. The name Cambridge Analytica was being circulated in hacker circles since at least mid-2016. Thus far, the only new revelation was the Channel 4 reporting [1]. Security nerds have been complaining about Facebook's business model for years and it fell upon deaf ears. Suddenly, the public gives a shit and I don't under…

Nothing changed. What happened in many of these cases (Weinstein, Facebook) is that the story was thoroughly researched and reported in depth by a team of professional journalists working for the New York Times. My only point (if there is one) is that, despite the massive proliferation of blogs and amateur media, it often takes a professional, salaried reporter to bring an important story into the public eye.

> the story was thoroughly researched and reported in depth by a team of professional journalists working for the New York Times

No. It was Ronan Farrow that originally broke the story. The NY Times took their sweet time before going after someone that was an ultra-major Democrat party donor. The Weinstein story was rejected by multiple "professional" news outlets.

The "professional" journalists working for the NY Times KNEW about the Weinstein story as far back as 2004, but spiked it under pressure from various Hollywood interests. Professional journalists aren't supposed to spike stories for political reasons and that's exactly that the Times did in 2004.

Weinstein's office in Tribeca was right downstairs from the Tribeca Film offices. It was on the 3rd floor. Spend a few hours in that building and you could probably have heard a dozen stories in whispered tones about Harvey. Some professional journalist from the NY Times should have had this story years ago. A high school journalist could have written this! And Kevin Spacey? Anyone who in Hollywood would have known about Spacey as far back as 2004, or perhaps earlier. It was an "open" secret. So open that it was a joke. It started becoming more "known" when Spacey was working with Sam Mendes on American Beauty in 1999.

Give me a fucking break. Professional journalists sat on this story, ignored it or conspired to crush it. It took a rookie, Ronan Farrow, trying to make a name for himself while on a personal mission against that horrible abuser Woody Allen for this to all break.

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/russell-crowe-ma...

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

#282

Post by nerfhammer »

FireBeyond wrote: post #187
threeseed wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cambridge Analytica took data from a third party app against the terms and conditions and has alleged to have wilfilly lied both to Facebook and congressional committess about what they did with the data. They absolutely deserve most of the blame.

How is CA legally bound to Facebook because of Terms and Conditions between Facebook and that app? Like you said, third party app - there was no agreement between Facebook and CA?

It sounds like CA and FB had other contracts for other stuff, given other news that FB has banned CA and related from other stuff.

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

#283

Post by briandear »

Retra wrote: post #241
nopriorarrests wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's funny. Titles for two articles, both are easy to google: 1. How Obama’s Team Used Big Data to Rally Voters (MIT Technology Review, 2012) 2. How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of Millions (NYT, 2018) No bias here.

The bias there is largely do to the differences in behaviors and histories of the parties involved. It's one thing for a charity group to run a donation center, and a wholly different thing for a life-long con artist to do it. It is a rationally induced bias.

You're saying that it's ok for the media to attempt to influence people if you happen to agree with the message?

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

#284

Post by ineedasername »

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 is exactly my thought. Being able to see detailed data about "friends" of the person who opted in, when the friend did not opt in with a "but don't use it" caveat, smacks of a :wink: :wink: and :nudge: :nudge: letting facebook sell data without permission after painting a thin veneer of deniability over it.

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

#285

Post by jimsmart »

gowld wrote: post #50
threeseed wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cambridge Analytica took data from a third party app against the terms and conditions and has alleged to have wilfilly lied both to Facebook and congressional committess about what they did with the data. They absolutely deserve most of the blame.

There's "willfully lied" and there's "played the game by the unwritten rules"

...and then there's admitting (on film) to using bribes and sex workers to entrap politicians, amongst other illegal shennanigans. I can totally understand why Facebook suddenly want to distance themselves from Cambridge Analytica.

https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...

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

#286

Post by cryoshon »

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…

they were destroying evidence, of course.

hopefully the people responsible will go to prison for interfering with the investigation.

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

#287

Post by jjeaff »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #227
hueving wrote: post #221

>who started his campaign on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Mexican-Americans were murderers and rapists. This is blatantly false. Where did you get this idea and why doesn't it raise a red flag for being so rediculous when you repeat it?

Here's the original quote from his speech in 2015: > When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best ... They're sending people that have lots of problems...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. "They're rapists." is pretty self-explanatory. "And some, I assume, are good people." is indicative of Trump's sense of the scale of "good" versus "…

That's a disingenuous transcript. "They're rapists" is much more likely to be, "their rapists". And it makes a big difference. (as in, "...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, their rapists.") In other words, they aren't sending their best, they are sending drug dealers, criminals, rapists, etc.

That's completely different than that transcript's implication, which would be like saying, "they aren't sending their best, they are sending their drug dealers, their criminals, and all of them are rapists as well."

Unless you aren't a native speaker, I'm inclined to believe that you are being willfully disingenuous by spreading that the latter was what he meant to say.

Trump has enough insanity that no one needs to make up stuff to make him look bad.

This is just like the other stupid "bigly" meme. Even linguists have had to weigh in to agree that he was saying "big league" not bigly. Again, his grammar and syntax is elementary enough that we don't have to make crap up.

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

#288

Post by ineedasername »

mikepurvis wrote: post #251
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donald Trump is a cartoon-villain figure of sorts -- Biff Tannen from Back to the Future was based on Trump.

Source for the lazy: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/23/back-to-the-fut...

OMFG I can't believe that was a true comment, I thought it was just a tongue in cheek, too on-the-nose throw comment.

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

#289

Post by jjeaff »

dictum wrote: post #234
hueving wrote: post #221

>who started his campaign on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Mexican-Americans were murderers and rapists. This is blatantly false. Where did you get this idea and why doesn't it raise a red flag for being so rediculous when you repeat it?

"When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they’re killing us economically. The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re…

"they're rapists" doesn't make sense here. I'll bet 100 to 1 he said "their rapists".

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

#290

Post by cmpxchg »

laythea wrote: post #133
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…

Authorities cannot get in until an estimated Wednesday. Tomorrow, they will apply for a warrant from the court, as they did not get sufficient answers to questions previously asked. Now Facebook has moved tonight to go into the London offices. I wonder what they are doing.

Do you have a source for this? It sounds a bit hard to believe. If the police believe that evidence was/is at risk of being destroyed (as you are implying), they could get an emergency search warrant immediately, even outside normal court hours. In the U.S., there are magistrate (warrant) judges on call overnight for exactly this type of situation; I imagine a similar system exists in the UK.
Post reply on HN