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

381–390 of 436 posts

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

#381

Post by imron »

RpFLCL wrote: post #92
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.

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…

> What did most people think Facebook was doing.

Most people think Facebook is a convenient way to keep in touch with family and friends, and most of my friends and family are bemused that I don't have a FB account, and think that any concerns I have about privacy are overblown.

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

#382

Post by notreallyauser »

karmelapple wrote: post #89
chatmasta wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The man makes some extremely reasonable points. I just wrote a comment along the same lines. I'm glad to see there is some common sense at Facebook. Stamos always seemed a bit too rational to be working at a company like that. I worry what will happen to Facebook after he leaves; they were lucky to have him. Also, I think the real problem here is that the media is attempting to politicize the term "breach," and secur…

How would you define the term breach? Is it fair to use the term breach from the perspective of the user whose data has been acquired? Or is breach only in reference to what the company that collected the data intended to do with it? There’s also seemingly two types of breaches at play: 1. The idea of a security breach, where a company gets “hacked” 2. The idea of a breach of trust, where people had given a company d…

I don't understand why people (apart from Facebook, who surely want to change the story) are being pedantic about the use of "breach" or "data breach" by the journalists.

In lay usage the term "breach" seems fine in the article -- (typical definition: an act of breaking a law, promise, agreement, or relationship) -- as the data seems to have been retained and transferred contrary to a legally enforceable agreement -- albeit one that wasn't enforced.

Even the wikipedia definition of "data breach" covers it as we have unauthorized use ("A data breach is a security incident in which sensitive, protected or confidential data is copied, transmitted, viewed, stolen or used by an individual unauthorized to do so.")

Most reported data breaches are where data is stolen -- easier to prove, harder to cover up, etc -- but that doesn't mean this wasn't a breach or data breach. To satisfy the infosec crowd, the reporting could've been clearer to repeatedly make the distinction that this was unauthorised use and not data that was unlawfully obtained from Facebook in the first instance, but I don't thing the reporting is wrong.

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

#383

Post by jrimbault »

roywiggins wrote: post #302
jimsmart wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps part of what's changed is that just a few weeks back Cambridge Analytica claimed — in writing, to the UK Parliament — that they did not harvest profiles from Facebook: "On 8 February 2018 Mr Matheson implied that Cambridge Analytica "gathers data from users on Facebook." Cambridge Analytica does not gather such data." — Letter from Alexander Nix, CEO, Cambridge Analytica, to the Chair of the Committee, 23 Feb…

They also testified to Parliament that they had no business in Russia, and an ex-founder (who left on bad terms, admittedly) has since come out and said that when he was still there, they were sending a Russian oil company information about how to target American voters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-ana...

Question from a [mostly] ignorant person (me, about these subjets):

Why would russian intelligence use an oil company as a shell ? Does Russia sell oil to the US ? If so do they market directly to individuals in the US ?

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

#385

Post by rmc »

switch007 wrote: post #363
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…

ICO cracking whip, lol. Let's not pretend the ICO has unlimited funds, people and legal resources to install the fear of God in to companies. Like many other departments and organisations, it's been badly hit by "austerity" measures. It's mostly funded by organisations that process data, plus some grants from the Ministry of Justice for Freedom of information work, the latter affected by "significant reductions ... f…

The GDPR is mostly the same EU data protection law, but one new part is that civic organisations/NGOs/consumer organisations are allowed to sue the companies to enforce privacy law.

So the ICO might do nothing. But Max Schrem's new org NOYB might.

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

#386

Post by rmc »

lsh123 wrote: post #168
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…

Just curious, what authority does FB have to have the personnel in CA offices? Why didn't CA simply call the cops to get them out?

Maybe CA & FB are friends here and looking after each other.

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

#387

Post by mistermann »

watwut wrote: post #376
mistermann wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PS: And the democrats weaponize starry eyed, well-intentioned young progressive millennial and gen-xers. Why do you think the Russia-did-everything story sells so well when they were a bit player at most? Sorry to burst your bubble, but everyone is in on it .

Democrats are moving to the center (e.g. right) while conservatives move further right. Meanwhile, young progressive millennial and gen-xers are trying to move democrats to the left and are in large power struggle. Not the same.

Spoken like a true believer.

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

#388

Post by laythea »

cmpxchg wrote: post #290
laythea wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I seen the lady in charge of the regulator (not police) on Channel 4 news (here in UK), stating that she will likely be in on Wed and they cant walk in right now.

See for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43465700

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

#389

Post by Cheezmeister »

nerfhammer wrote: post #310
ineedasername wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes & no: Facebook doesn't sell the data itself, but they do give it away when a user agrees when using an app or service mediated by Facebook. That seems to be what happened here: Users took a personality survey, and their data along with the data of their friends made its way to CA.

The "data" that you could get was just like what people listed in their profile page under "Interests" and things like that though. Which maybe tells you something, but not quite like home address and a list of political preferences

No, those things are in a different section of your Facebook profile.

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

#390

Post by dictum »

jjeaff wrote: post #287
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree on the bigly-level stuff (it's very similar to the facile jokes about George W. Bush being dumb) but this quote specifically is clear cut. Of course Trump is not calling Mexico/Mexicans rapists (though he does disparage Mexico shortly before it) but he was calling most Mexican-Americans criminals and rapists: since the ones Mexico sends into the US are "their rapists" and Mexico isn't "sending their best", it stands to reason that the resulting Mexican-American population, for Trump, is overwhelmingly comprised of criminals and rapists.
Post reply on HN