As if any of these politicians actually give a shit about the privacy of American citizens. Pure theater.
Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
51–60 of 487 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#52Wow. I didn't expect that he'd speak in favor of 'special features like facial recognition' by arguing that it's how we can be competitive with 'other regimes like China'. That seems like a comparison I'd avoid if I was facebook.
I now feel inspired to watch Dr Strangelove again. We can’t allow a mine shaft gap!
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#53"Are you a monopoly?"
"Doesn't feel that way"
(laughter)
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#54Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. He believes there is an alternative to Facebook in the way that different car manufacturers have different competitors.
Surely he can't mean this, right?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#55I guess I'm still confused about this matter. As I understand it, nothing was exploited. A company used intrinsic capabilities of the system to do a job. Are we just raising the question of whether this is an appropriate business model? I suppose that's a good discussion to have. I'm just a bit miffed that we're effectively holding another obscenities hearing while the only thing going on with the Equifax debacle is…
nothing was exploited
Assuming you're only considering the computer security definition of "exploit", I'm not totally sure why this matters.
User data was obtained via means not allowed by Facebook. Facebook realized this & didn't disclose it to the US government or its users, as required (or, at the very least questionably required) by its consent decree with the FTC. Based on this, it's not out of line for the government to question Facebook about this.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#56Mark Zuckerberg does not believe he has a monopoly. He believes there is an alternative to Facebook in the way that different car manufacturers have different competitors. Surely he can't mean this, right?
There's other ways to communicate with other people online, you see? That's overlap! /s
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#57As if any of these politicians actually give a shit about the privacy of American citizens. Pure theater.
Terry Crews 2020:
Not the President we need, but the one we deserve.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#58"Is it true facebook can track user browsers even after they are logged out of facebook?" Zuck: "I need to get back to you on that"
There's so many "I need to get back to you on that".
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#59I guess I'm still confused about this matter. As I understand it, nothing was exploited. A company used intrinsic capabilities of the system to do a job. Are we just raising the question of whether this is an appropriate business model? I suppose that's a good discussion to have. I'm just a bit miffed that we're effectively holding another obscenities hearing while the only thing going on with the Equifax debacle is…
The way Cambridge Analytica's got its data was a little nefarious...as I understand it, they obtained data through ways Facebook discouraged (but still enabled).
Whether you consider that an 'exploit' or not is subjective. It's certainly not an 'exploit' in the more common infosec sense.
But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald Trump. It's political.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lack of strong followup questions is the best indicator that there is very little about this hearing that is spontaneous and not defined in advance. As I write this, Ms Cantwell starts her questioning and it is a markedly different style. Interesting
How could Zuckerberg know less than Wikipedia about Palantir considering Thiel's involvement with both FB and Palantir? He seems to merely know of the existence of Palantir.
To be fair, Wikipedia knows a lot more than me, too.