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

Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 285 posts

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#161

Post by Moru »

thu0nt345tnu wrote: post #113
mtgx wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Collecting a "type of data" tells you almost nothing about what the company collecting it could do or is going to do with that data. I think regulation around this idea may be most effective. Companies should have limits on what they can do with the data by default. If they want to use it for more, then they should not only offer a much greater degree of transparency but they should have to abide by much high…

I don't believe that telling the user what use will be made of their data will be in any way effective. Many companies are very honest and up front about it. The problem is that the information is just too technical for a user to understand, so they ignore. They have no choice because there's no way for them to understand it anyway. Even if all companies were required to and did comply with a law like that and fully…

In the end it just doesn't matter if the user understands or not. Most people just don't care either way until it hits them personally. When the violent ex boyfriend manages to track you down even though you have a secret identity just because a mutual friend visited and unknowingly got your location on some social app.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#162

Post by jumpman500 »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #76
jumpman500 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. Once you get your photos off of Facebook I think you can leave really easily. You can still message all your important friends through sms or your chosen chat app. Snapchat exists as an alternative for casual photo sharing. Reddit or Twitter for posting news, memes or funny videos. I think people exaggerate the importance of Facebook. Young people can adapt to new technology quickly. I know I was able t…

Young people might be able to adapt to new technology quickly, but they also have some of the strongest social pressures to remain on the technology all their friends are at. The difference between being in the "cool" message group and someone having to message you separately is a much bigger hurdle for them to face than where all your photos go.

Kinda agree. I can at least see how dating apps lock people in; most apps require a Facebook account. However, I also think there's a lot of reasons to not want to be instantly connected to everyone you know on Facebook. Annoying invites to political events you don't want to attend. Weird people/Sexual predators/Stalkers messaging you.

People can adapt. In my fantasy football group we used to do Facebook messages until me and another friend dropped Facebook. Now we do group messages or groupme. People you care about will find a way to contact you.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#163

Post by geofft »

vkou wrote: post #145
debt wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm less worried that the Trump campaign used CA" But, and maybe someone can clarify, every single intelligence agency has come out and said that there was some interaction between Russia and Trump and, more specifically, between Facebook and Russia. And it's been proven Facebook is directly implicated in both the Trump campaign and Russian election meddling. We hold the ability to vote in free elections as pretty a…

How much interaction is there, during, prior, or after election time, between the political or intelligence arms of the USA, and the politicians of any country in which the USA chooses to meddle in? If we were so worried about the integrity of democracy, we wouldn't have our fingers in so many other ones. You've just described soft power.

US interference in other countries' elections is absolutely wrong. It is because it is wrong that I feel justified as a US citizen saying that other countries' interference in our elections is wrong, too.

If the citizens of Iran or Vietnam or Korea or Iraq have a right to be upset at a lack of political self-determination, so do I. Punishing the people of a country for the actions of the leaders they did not meaningfully choose is exactly why US interference is wrong.

And it is because I as an individual care about democracy that I oppose the actions of both my leaders and anyone else to override democracy.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#164

Post by Consultant32452 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #152
debt wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm less worried that the Trump campaign used CA" But, and maybe someone can clarify, every single intelligence agency has come out and said that there was some interaction between Russia and Trump and, more specifically, between Facebook and Russia. And it's been proven Facebook is directly implicated in both the Trump campaign and Russian election meddling. We hold the ability to vote in free elections as pretty a…

> But, and maybe someone can clarify, every single intelligence agency has come out and said that there was some interaction between Russia and Trump No, they say (in the public assessment) that Russia intervened to favor Trump, not that there was interaction between Russia and the Trump campaign. Now, there's been at least one guilty plea from the Mueller investigation specifically referencing interaction, but that'…

It's worth noting they ALSO say Russia intervened against Trump. There's at least two anti-Trump rallies alleged to have been organized by Russia.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#165

Post by bobthepanda »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #97
lumberjack wrote: post #68

>Foremost among these tools is enforcement action against companies that fail to honor their privacy promises This is the crux of the issue. The problem is that when Facebook asks for "location information", the consequences of this are not being conveyed to the user. The user might think, "ah they want my location for the weather recommendations and event suggestions in my neighbourhood". They do not realise how som…

The consequences of using a store loyalty card are not known to the general public either. Yet all transactional information is sold off to third party data brokers and aggregated into profiles where they keep track of you in minute detail. It isn't exactly fair that Facebook is going to be punished while the rest of the industry hides behind its fine print.

Whataboutism - corporation edition?

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#166

Post by Mahn »

kchoudhu wrote: post #63

If Zuckerberg has any game at all, he will welcome this investigation, 'educate' the regulators, and then build a regulatory moat around Facebook that no one can breach. The big four banks did this after 2009, and they are even more entrenched and systematically important than they were before. Expect Facebook to borrow liberally from their playbook.

Zuckerberg did an interview on CNN last week and basically alluded to what you are saying: http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/22/technology/regulation-politi...

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#167

Post by smokeyj »

lambda_lover wrote: post #147
fogzen wrote: post #119

How were any of you damaged by Facebook ads, exactly? Why the outrage now and not before, when Obama (and everyone else) used targeted advertising? This whole outrage over privacy is disingenuous. It’s painfully obvious the outrage is about Donald Trump being elected president, not personal information used to target ads.

While I definitely believe that the motivation behind this latest media surge is suspect, do you really think people aren't justified in being upset about Facebook's abuse? Maybe the outrage is simply because Facebook was new and people weren't aware of the dangers in 2008 and 2012? People don't have to be "damaged" by something to object to it. How do human rights abuses in third world countries "damage" you, exactl…

More like we should care about privacy but don't. This is the place that considers Snowden a traitor and Obama (the dragnet drone king) a God.

We can pretend that "omg we always cared about data", but that's not the truth. We just hate Trump so much that we're willing to see Zuck for the snake he is. I guess that's not the worse outcome.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#168

Post by Consultant32452 »

debt wrote: post #159
dragonwriter wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, and maybe someone can clarify, every single intelligence agency has come out and said that there was some interaction between Russia and Trump No, they say (in the public assessment) that Russia intervened to favor Trump, not that there was interaction between Russia and the Trump campaign. Now, there's been at least one guilty plea from the Mueller investigation specifically referencing interaction, but that'…

"not that there was interaction between Russia and the Trump campaign." The FBI strongly disagrees with that statement. Facebook has been proven to be used as one of the tools to achieve those ends.

Could you provide a citation? OP's comment mirrors my understanding. My understanding is that Russia acted both for and against Trump, though primarily for. But that is different than those efforts being coordinated by the Trump campaign.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#169

Post by olympus »

gnode wrote: post #144
lumberjack wrote: post #68

>Foremost among these tools is enforcement action against companies that fail to honor their privacy promises This is the crux of the issue. The problem is that when Facebook asks for "location information", the consequences of this are not being conveyed to the user. The user might think, "ah they want my location for the weather recommendations and event suggestions in my neighbourhood". They do not realise how som…

Does anybody know what the legal situation (in US or under the GDPR) is for data derived from inferences? E.g.: if he visits this nightclub he's gay, or if she goes to this clinic she's having an abortion. As the subject never told you, but rather you speculated it, it could be argued you don't know, and you don't have to record it in explicit terms. It also raises significant concerns about the accuracy, and whether…

It's not illegal to record whether you think someone is gay. It's probably immoral if you hand that data over to a country that will prosecute someone for being gay (Russia).

I'm not aware of any US protections unless they came along with recently passed legislation, but the GDPR had some recourse for European citizens. They are now guaranteed a right to explanation and a right to correct the data. So if a person is given a higher health insurance premium, they are allowed to ask for an explanation. If the answer is "Google thinks you're gay, so we're raising your premium," the person is allowed to correct the information, basically saying, "I'm not gay, so please lower my premiums to what they were."

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#170

Post by vkou »

dragonwriter wrote: post #156
vkou wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much interaction is there, during, prior, or after election time, between the political or intelligence arms of the USA, and the politicians of any country in which the USA chooses to meddle in? If we were so worried about the integrity of democracy, we wouldn't have our fingers in so many other ones. You've just described soft power.

> How much interaction is there, during, prior, or after election time, between the political or intelligence arms of the USA, and the politicians of any country in which the USA chooses to meddle in? Probably a level which should induce intense concerns in citizens of those countries if they already had a democracy to protect in the first place. But thanks for the textbook display of Whataboutism.

No, what I've described is a textbook example of blatant hypocrisy.

Whataboutism is pointing at an unrelated problem, to divert attention from your problem. "But what about African Americans getting beaten!" to draw attention from bread lines and GULAGs - that sort of thing.

This is an incredibly related problem. The two cannot be discussed in isolation. This is quite literally, one of the top countries for 'interference in democratic elections' having an issue with its election being interfered with by a foreign power (In a relatively[1] minor way.)

Notice how none of the talking heads or politicians are taking a principled stance against interference with elections - they are just taking a stance against interference with their elections.

[1] Relatively, in terms of impact, effort expended, size of the United States.

Post reply on HN