Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees • Hacker News Board

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#191

Post by avoidit » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 5:00 AM UTC

Someone I know closely worked at Facebook in its heyday, but it has been a while since he left. I asked him around 2014 (he had just left the company) "So what do you think about the way Facebook handles privacy issues?" His response was not defensive at all. Rather, it was a very curious "FB is one of the most open cultures you can ever work in. Any employee can ask any question of anyone at the highest levels and expect to get a honest answer". My thought was "So you didn't have anything to ask questions about?". He was actually a pretty nice fellow, so I stopped asking anything else at that point.

But I remember thinking that it was a very funny, cult-member like response. And you can test this too. Ask your friends who work at FB and I bet you will get some pre-programmed response very similar to that.

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#192

Post by mehrdadn » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 5:06 AM UTC

renaudg wrote: post #188

mehrdadn wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You request access, and justify it with something like "I need it to debug issue #123". Someone manually oks/disallows it, and there's asynchronous reviews of these requests to double check. My guess is the intern lied about what they're using it for. OK so an insider can just lie and access whatever they want. Heck, they can even tell the truth! Just find a bug that's exhibited in a particular profile and use that…

> Whatever Google does. I don't know the details. Oh come on. You admit having no idea what Google does either, but surely that must be better than Facebook because you said so, until an FB insider replied and brought down your narrative. Is it that hard to say "ok well, I stand corrected then" instead ?

> Oh come on. You admit having no idea what Google does either, but surely that must be better than Facebook because you said so

No, you are seemingly deliberately misquoting me. I said I "don't know the details", not "I have no idea". I know enough to feel fairly confident in what I've said. But if you don't believe me you're more than welcome to believe otherwise.

> until an FB insider replied and brought down your narrative. Is it that hard to say "ok well, I stand corrected then" instead ?

Stand corrected about what narrative? Everything I am (and hopefully also you are) reading right here [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] quite clearly says malicious employees can access user data, but will be fired if this is discovered, which is consistent with what I've said. (But don't actually bother replying if you want a response—I have no interest in responding after your comment.)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16675664

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16675503

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16675649

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16675739

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16675968

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#193

Post by spc476 » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 5:09 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #190

spc476 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of an apocryphal story (can't find a reference but it appears to be reasonable): FCC was investigating the sale of illegal tv satellite descrambers when they confiscated a unit. Upon investigation, it was found to have been manufactured by IBM! Further investigation revealed it was manufactured at a secure IBM facility used for top-secret ("need-to-know", etc.) type projects. The manager responsible had sp…

[Edit: sorry, never mind. Thanks for the story!]

Unfortunately no. I spent several minutes trying to find a link, but could not find one. That's why I labeled it apocryphal.

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#194

Post by helloindia » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 5:10 AM UTC

avoidit wrote: post #191

Someone I know closely worked at Facebook in its heyday, but it has been a while since he left. I asked him around 2014 (he had just left the company) "So what do you think about the way Facebook handles privacy issues?" His response was not defensive at all. Rather, it was a very curious "FB is one of the most open cultures you can ever work in. Any employee can ask any question of anyone at the highest levels and e…

Nobody mentions the elephant in the room, because elephant in the room feeds the people in the room.

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#195

Post by tbrock » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 5:13 AM UTC

ramphastidae wrote: post #86

tbrock wrote: post #40

I respect Facebook and their engineering chops as much as the next person, they are truly world class programmers, but how the holy hell is everyone daydreaming that they don’t work for an advertising company? You sell and use people’s data to get money: this is the business plan. Full stop. Connecting people can definitely be lucrative and useful in other ways but facebooks particular implementation is impression ba…

Because they’re paid well. Very well. Everyone I know that works at FB for 2+ years is making 300-500k (including stock) and already owns or is on their way to purchasing a home. That makes it a lot easier to ignore the reality of FB. Meanwhile chumps like me that consider the ethics of their employer will be renting forever. I honestly don’t blame them.

To be clear, I'm not criticizing or holier than thou —- I'd work there in a heartbeat without complaint and love it.

The part I don't get is that it seems everyone who does work there is in shock and awe that this is going on. SHOCKED!

It's comical to the point of parody.

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#196

Post by renaudg » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 5:15 AM UTC

anonytrary wrote: post #155

seattle_spring wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't sell your data. Your actions and data are used to put you into categories, and advertisers pay to show their ads to people associated with those categories. No one is given direct access to your data. This strategy is not unique to Facebook-- it's how Google, Yahoo, and other major advertising-based tech companies work.

At the end of the day, your data goes into a black box, gets jumbled around and then sold. To suggest this is different than "selling your data" is pedantic and misleading. For Sheryl to deny this "selling of data" reveals her concern with words and reception over real actions and effects.

No, it's not a pedantic distinction at all and it's actually the "selling people's data" narrative that's misleading, not the other way round.

Facebook does not sell user data, it sells targeted ad space which is the exact opposite business model.

Their competitive edge in this business purely relies on being the only entity in the world who can target so well, precisely because they hold onto that data like a treasure.

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#197

Post by renaudg » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 5:18 AM UTC

avoidit wrote: post #191

Someone I know closely worked at Facebook in its heyday, but it has been a while since he left. I asked him around 2014 (he had just left the company) "So what do you think about the way Facebook handles privacy issues?" His response was not defensive at all. Rather, it was a very curious "FB is one of the most open cultures you can ever work in. Any employee can ask any question of anyone at the highest levels and e…

I worked at Facebook even longer ago than that.

What makes you assume it's got to be a pre-programmed, cult-member like response and cannot believe that this is the actual work culture ?

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#198

Post by renaudg » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 5:24 AM UTC

heurist wrote: post #150

colordrops wrote: post #6

What could they possibly do to fix things that wouldn't destroy their business model?

Their business model does not rely on third parties accessing private user information.

Agreed, it's quite the opposite in fact : their business model relies on jealously guarding private user information to remain the only entity in the world who can sell highly-targeted ads

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#199

Post by ubernostrum » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 5:25 AM UTC

sulam wrote: post #129

specialist wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who watches the watchers? #1 - There's always a back door. I did some medical records stuff for a while. I looked myself up, just to confirm for myself how trivial it was to do. Yup, there I was. Which is why I insist that all data at rest is encrypted. (I have yet to win this argument.) #2 - Our "portal" product had access logs for auditing. Plus permissions, consent trees, delegation. The usual features. Alas. We a…

HITRUST CSF is a framework for auditably proving HIPPA compliance. It prescribes controls such as encrypting data at rest. If you have a business relationship with a company which provides you PHI without explicit user consent you must have an agreement (a BAA) with the third party which puts them under the same requirements (backed up with third party audits). Everything you’re describing sounds like it’s either inc…

I've worked in health care a couple of times now. And while the companies I've worked for have gone well beyond the minimum required for legal compliance, the scary bit really is the sorts of things you could, if you were lazy enough, do and still legally be compliant.

Re: Zuckerberg Takes Steps to Calm Facebook Employees

#200

Post by avoidit » Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 5:27 AM UTC

renaudg wrote: post #197

avoidit wrote: post #191

Someone I know closely worked at Facebook in its heyday, but it has been a while since he left. I asked him around 2014 (he had just left the company) "So what do you think about the way Facebook handles privacy issues?" His response was not defensive at all. Rather, it was a very curious "FB is one of the most open cultures you can ever work in. Any employee can ask any question of anyone at the highest levels and e…

I worked at Facebook even longer ago than that. What makes you assume it's got to be a pre-programmed, cult-member like response and cannot believe that this is the actual work culture ?

Ok, perhaps you are the best person to ask.

1. What was Mark Zuckerberg's response when people asked him if Facebook might be overstepping bounds in terms of data collection (shadow profiles)?

2. What did the company employees think of the backlash over their beacon project?

3. When Facebook told the EU that they cannot match FB user profiles and WhatsApp user profiles to create a single profile (remembering that they would be fined), what was the general consensus among employees? Did they know that FB had lied? Were they still OK with that? If they were, was there not a single person expressing dissent?