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

261–270 of 285 posts

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

#261

Post by igivanov »

olympus wrote: post #169
gnode wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>prosecute someone for being gay (Russia).

where do you get this outlandish nonsense from?

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

#262

Post by zeth___ »

Declanomous wrote: post #202
prolikewhoa wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish the USA would stop calling people conspiracy theorists for critical thinking, especially as we see more what used to be 'conspiracy theories' actually come to fruition. It actually hinders critical thinking and is a bad path to go down.

The problem is that a lot of people that complain about actual issues, like Facebook stalking, also try telling people about a lot of things that are totally conspiracy theories. On top of that, as someone with experience in database marketing, people act as if they are being personally spied on. If you are tracking 800k people and you have 20 employees, the issue isn't really having another person looking at your da…

The issue is that the difference between the "The government conducts unethical surveillance." and "The government is spying on me." has essentially disappeared.

When everything is remembered forever anything you've done can be retroactively traced backed to you when you become a person of interest.

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

#263

Post by bogomipz »

hodder wrote: post #233
bogomipz wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But unless you have some clairvoyant powers you don't actually know that. The fallout from this is still forthcoming.

True. I do not. It is pure conjecture, backed historical examples I provided. Could this be different? Absolutely. I could flip your comment though. Unless you have some clairvoyant powers you don't actually know that "Fallout from this is forthcoming". There may be no further negative fallout from this.

>"I could flip your comment though. Unless you have some clairvoyant powers you don't actually know that "Fallout from this is forthcoming"

There are at a number of significant events in FB's future being hauled in front of Congress in the US, being hauled in front of Parliament in the UK, the FTC investigation, numerous state attorney general's investigations and of course shareholder lawsuits.

I think its fair to say that the fallout is not yet done.

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

#264

Post by zeth___ »

rickycook wrote: post #260
xienze wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about we fix this so that no future politicians can benefit from this kind of targeted advertising - both liberal and conservative? I’d be fine with it, but the first step is admitting that yes, Obama benefited from harvested social media data as well. No one wants to do that, this is all a Trump thing as far as the media, and therefore the general public, is concerned.

the big difference being that the obama data was harvested via an app branded by obama campaign with the specific purpose being to help the obama campaign... vs a quiz app unrelated to politics where participants were paid small amounts to use, and thus pull data on their social network the first is explicitly political; the second is actively hiding their intentions *edit: also they used the data very differently. o…

A distinction without a difference.

By their own words the Obama Campaign ingested the whole social graph because the single person they targeted could bring in the information of all their friends:

Facebook 2012 election had the ability

for people to opt in the Obama campaign

like rocked this right we got people to

opt in and the privacy policies at that

time on Facebook were that if they opted

in they could tell us who all their

friends were

[...]

but we were actually able

to ingest the entire social network

social network of the US that's on

Facebook which is most people most

people where this gets complicated is

that freaks Facebook out right so they

shut off the feature well the

Republicans never built an app to do

that so the data is out there you can't

take it back right so the Democrats have

this information so when they look at a

voter file and someone comes to them

they can immediately be like oh here are

all the other people that they know and

here are people that they can help us

persuade because they're really good

friends with this person the Republicans

do not have that information and will

not get that information

https://youtu.be/g0c-OSVQcAA?t=19m15s

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

#265

Post by musage »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #132
fortythirteen wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had a nickel for every time someone called me paranoid or a conspiracy theorist for mentioning this before last week, I'd have a ton of nickels. I should feel better now that people of aware of the nefariousness of this type of data collection, but I feel worse. The general public is being fed this as "Russia" and "Trump", and not getting the real, horrifying, surveillance state truth of what's going on. I'm les…

But... don't you remember how cool Obama was? He loved his blackberry!

http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-market...

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

#266

Post by losteric »

prolikewhoa wrote: post #232
losteric wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America has three types of "conspiracy theorists" * Logically consistent in niche fields that could be verified if more information was public (Room 641A); these should really just be called "theories" * Harmless garbage ideas perpetuated by dumb people (flat earthers); these theories deserve open ridicule * Propaganda created by intelligent people with the intent of causing harm (Uranium One); these should simply be…

Can you elaborate on Uranium One being 'libel'? As far as I know from reading the Wiki, this went to a Congressional Investigation.

Libel: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression

The "Uranium One conspiracy theory" was a libelous attack on a political candidate. That attack is a prime example of legitimate conspiracies.

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

#267

Post by olympus »

igivanov wrote: post #261
olympus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>prosecute someone for being gay (Russia). where do you get this outlandish nonsense from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#National...

"Under the statute it is effectively illegal to perform any of the following in the presence of minors: hold gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships"

"The law subjects Russian citizens found guilty to fines of up to 5,000 rubles and public officials to fines of up to 50,000 rubles."

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

#268

Post by olympus »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #229
olympus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

(and then in the UK you sue for discrimination based on sexuality).

Right, but that is only if they discriminate based on what they had recorded about you. A company recording whether they think you are gay based on your location information isn't doing anything illegal until they discriminate against you with that information. There are things that a company can do (like advertising) that doesn't meet the bar of discrimination that they can still legally do with their inference about your sexual preference (or whatever else they infer about you from your data).

Advertising "gay" products to you based on the fact that your cell phone spends a lot of time in close proximity to a gay bar probably doesn't meet the bar for a discrimination lawsuit.

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

#269

Post by bitumen »

igivanov wrote: post #261
olympus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>prosecute someone for being gay (Russia). where do you get this outlandish nonsense from?

Of course just being gay isn’t a crime in glorious motherland, but promoting homosexuality is. That’s so broad that it includes being openly gay, or standing up for your rights if you’re gay. It’s sort of like saying that it’s not illegal to be alive, it’s just illegal to breath.

Typically thuggish laws from a state run by its own intelligence services-cum-mafia.

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

#270

Post by TangoTrotFox »

olympus wrote: post #267
igivanov wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>prosecute someone for being gay (Russia). where do you get this outlandish nonsense from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#National... "Under the statute it is effectively illegal to perform any of the following in the presence of minors: hold gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships" "The law subjects Russian citizens found guilty to fines of up to 5,000 rubles and public officials to fines of up to 50,000 rub…

You didn't answer his question. Those are laws against promoting homosexuality - not being homosexual.
Post reply on HN