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

Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 95 posts

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#11

Post by bluetwo »

prolikewhoa wrote: post #4

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…

Citizens of the United States have rights when they engage in consumer behavior.

Yes, you have to expect anything you do on the web can get leaked, but that's not what this is about.

This is about buying a cheap alarm clock and finding out it's recording videos of you and your girlfriend and selling them online.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#12

Post by IBM »

prolikewhoa wrote: post #4

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…

The public doesn't care about appropriate capital ratios for "too big to fail" banks either, and yet Dodd-Frank passed.

The internet industry may be banking on this blowing over, but I wouldn't be so sure. Especially if the tech industry can't provide a unified front (see Tim Cook calling for privacy regulation).

GDPR has already arrived in the EU, and it will serve as a model for anyone campaigning for privacy legislation in the US. Politicians will respond to the outrage with Facebook/Google's behavior around data privacy, it doesn't matter that the public can't articulate what the response should be at a policy-making level.

And it doesn't matter that these internet companies' Terms of Service allowed everything that was done or not. This isn't a legal issue, this is a political issue. What people think they're agreeing to is more important than what they actually agreed to when it comes to legislative responses.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#13

Post by downandout »

prolikewhoa wrote: post #4

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…

I’m just hoping that in the next election cycle, both candidates are afforded the same amount of outrage over the Facebook data they use. Because the hypocrisy revealed by the outrage over Trump’s use of years old data vs. the celebration of Obama’s vastly more extensive use is appalling and shows the very worst of partisanship.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#14

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

IBM wrote: post #12
prolikewhoa wrote: post #4

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…

The public doesn't care about appropriate capital ratios for "too big to fail" banks either, and yet Dodd-Frank passed. The internet industry may be banking on this blowing over, but I wouldn't be so sure. Especially if the tech industry can't provide a unified front (see Tim Cook calling for privacy regulation). GDPR has already arrived in the EU, and it will serve as a model for anyone campaigning for privacy legis…

I think that the parallel is Snowden. Before then, people largely shrugged at the tech community’s assertions about government dragnets. Now the assumption of a dragnet is taken as a granted.

This moment for Facebook, I think, is that same moment for the private sector.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#15

Post by matte_black »

proofbygazing wrote: post #10
matte_black wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But privacy and security are not "cool", and never will be. People like transparency, people are drawn to dangerous things. Hiding shit behind closed doors or being super paranoid is not cool, and will not get you fans. The only security most people need is herd security. As long as your data can blend into a mass of other people's data to the point where you're just an anonymous face in the crowd, there's no harm. S…

> The only security most people need is herd security. As long as your data can blend into a mass of other people's data to the point where you're just an anonymous face in the crowd, there's no harm. Sure, if you're some important individual who can be compromised by someone motivated enough you might have something to be afraid of, but most people never rise to that level of importance. Well, yeah, maybe, but the K…

So then is there a problem? Probably not. Just a way to grab headlines.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#16

Post by mehrdadn »

downandout wrote: post #13
prolikewhoa wrote: post #4

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…

I’m just hoping that in the next election cycle, both candidates are afforded the same amount of outrage over the Facebook data they use. Because the hypocrisy revealed by the outrage over Trump’s use of years old data vs. the celebration of Obama’s vastly more extensive use is appalling and shows the very worst of partisanship.

The outrage is over the illegal data sharing and how that was made possible, which happened in only one of those two cases.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#17

Post by jlmorton »

bluetwo wrote: post #11
prolikewhoa wrote: post #4

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…

Citizens of the United States have rights when they engage in consumer behavior. Yes, you have to expect anything you do on the web can get leaked, but that's not what this is about. This is about buying a cheap alarm clock and finding out it's recording videos of you and your girlfriend and selling them online.

> This is about buying a cheap alarm clock and finding out it's recording videos of you and your girlfriend and selling them online.

Not really, no. It's more like buying an alarm clock with an integrated video calling feature which will also optionally integrate with your home's existing audio/visual systems, if the user explicitly agrees to the very clear, plain-english description of the feature.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#18

Post by downandout »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #7
prolikewhoa wrote: post #4

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…

> The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1]. > Shareholders know this Facebook trades 20% down from its highs and lower, to trend, than its peers [2]. [1] https://www.axios.com/exclusive-poll-facebook-favorability-p... [2] https://m.nasdaq.com/symbol/fb/re…

But I’ll bet usage statistics are right in line with their norms. It’s true that the deluge of headlines from liberal media sites this week has hurt their public image, and it at least cracks open the door to a competitor possibly having some success in attracting users. I’m not sure what that competitor would look like, but it would have to be vastly different than today’s concept of a social network.

But the point is that if usage stays normal, this hasn’t affected anything at all other than the fact that people don’t feel as warm and fuzzy toward Facebook as they once did.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#19

Post by downandout »

mehrdadn wrote: post #16
downandout wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m just hoping that in the next election cycle, both candidates are afforded the same amount of outrage over the Facebook data they use. Because the hypocrisy revealed by the outrage over Trump’s use of years old data vs. the celebration of Obama’s vastly more extensive use is appalling and shows the very worst of partisanship.

The outrage is over the illegal data sharing and how that was made possible, which happened in only one of those two cases.

Neither case was illegal, but Obama’s was far more invasive. What makes it so much worse is that Obama accessed 4x as many profiles as Kogan did, and they did it with Facebook’s blessings. This enabled them to keep the data current, while Trump’s dataset was both far smaller and years older than Obama’s by the time it was used.

Sadly, there are still no apologies for the gross invasion of privacy that Zuckerberg authorized Obama to commit against ~200 million people, ~199 million of whom never authorized Obama to take their information. I hope one is forthcoming, but I won’t hold my breath.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#20

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

bmarquez wrote: post #8
prolikewhoa wrote: post #4

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…

Yes. This is all over HN and Reddit, but when I try to introduce my friends to Signal (or encryption in general), they shrug and say they have nothing to hide. Hate to say it, but the general public needs Kim Kardashian or some tastemaker to make privacy and security "cool".

Jennifer Lawrence?

I can’t think of any other mainstream celebrity whose public image/history is as tied with privacy and internet security.

Post reply on HN