"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"
“No, not wittingly”
Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
321–330 of 487 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But the real issue here is that Facebook was complicit in electing Donald Trump. It's political. This bit is really terrifying to me. I don't support Trump, but the idea that we're going to make it even harder for "unapproved" political candidates should make everyone's skin crawl.
I thought the issue was that foreign actors were able to use Facebook to push for their candidate of choice, not that Trump was "unapproved" (why do you use quotes? that phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the comment you're responding to).
This was all happening at the time when Obama was over in France campaigning for his preferred candidate. Why is that not considered equally improper?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Anyone could replace it, there is nothing actively stopping them from doing so. Sure there is; all of the people on FB already. The fact that the software can be replicated is not the only consideration. If, in practice, they have a virtual monopoly due to user lock in then it's a reasonable debate to have. I'm certainly out of my depth on the legal end of this, but your definition is far too simplistic.
> virtual monopoly due to user lock in But users aren't locked in. They have not paid a yearly fee which still has 11 months left, they don't have to pay a fee to leave, and they don't have to pay a fee to join the other network. Users can come and go as they please, and there are alternatives they can use, if they choose. If they don't want to use the other network because their friends aren't on it, that's just the…
Sure they are. I could go to some other social service... but literally no one I know will be there. In my mind, that's a form ot lock in. I'm not saying FB is evil because it has a large user base, but for many there really is no alternative. Note that MZ ducked this question in the hearing and there is a reason they bought whatsapp (and that reason isn't "talented developers")
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#324Some poor Senator just went on a rabbit hunt to discuss FB's bug bounty program. Who are these Congressional staffers? Tech illiteracy is on full-display; we're not even talking 'power-users' (who were on UseNet, btw), these people are lost. Zuckerberg had to be gracious and say his team would follow-up on many things that it was clear the Senator didn't even understand. This is supposed to be our smart chamber.
The Senate is not supposed to be the "smart chamber" but the chamber that lessens the House's power to vote for the vagaries of the moment. This is also why the Senate but not the House confirms appointments and approves treaties.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
Define deleted. Do you mean the data itself is purged, or simply marked as deleted and rendered inaccessible? If you mean purged, then do you also mean that it is zeroed off of the disk by a multiple low-level pass? This would be hard to prosecute for perjury as the definition of "deleted" can be construed in many ways.
This is the sort of word game that surely wouldn't last ten seconds in any courtroom. "Did you delete the data or not?" "Yes, we deleted the data." "Then how is it that we're all sitting here looking at it?" This modern fiction of pretending something is deleted just because someone set a flag called "deleted" has about as much relevance to actual deletion as the evil bit in an IPv4 header has to actual Internet secu…
But the reality is that is exactly what is happening when you delete a file. It sets a flag as deleted in the file system. The data reminds there until overwritten. Computers have worked this way since forever. Also if you look at the definition of delete it matches this. To remove by striking out or canceling, not to remove all remove all traces.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook doesn't delete all cookies (for instance, there's an `sb` cookie still set) in their logout response. They may choose not to do anything with the cookies that remain, but the technical answer to the question is yes. And even if they currently did delete all cookies, there's nothing from preventing them from introducing cookies that do remain. Zuck knows this is generally feasible - he's a talented software e…
This is all supposed to be politically scary and demonstrative of the fact that very few people actually knows what is going on. Which all the more scary to me because these are the people who are supposed to understand what's going on so they can have proper oversight. This entire issue reminds me of the time the supreme court tried to wrap their brains around the (finger quotes) "the cloud". What's really sad is th…
...with just 500 likes the social network can
insinuate more of your personality than your
lover.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#327And he brought a booster seat! It’s hard to believe a billionaire has such thin skin that he cares a whit about what people think about his height.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the sort of word game that surely wouldn't last ten seconds in any courtroom. "Did you delete the data or not?" "Yes, we deleted the data." "Then how is it that we're all sitting here looking at it?" This modern fiction of pretending something is deleted just because someone set a flag called "deleted" has about as much relevance to actual deletion as the evil bit in an IPv4 header has to actual Internet secu…
But the reality is that is exactly what is happening when you delete a file. It sets a flag as deleted in the file system. The data reminds there until overwritten. Computers have worked this way since forever. Also if you look at the definition of delete it matches this. To remove by striking out or canceling, not to remove all remove all traces.
The point people are trying to make is that properly practiced law can't be circumvented by these kinds of arguments.
If there was a requirement to do something with the data and it was not done then you failed, technical jargon and implementation details are irrelevant.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question and its answer succeed in getting Zuckerberg on record (in the Congressional Record, no less) as saying that his business model depends on advertising, with all that that implies about the relationship between Facebook and its users. Think of it as like when you're on the witness stand and the attorney asks you a question. It's not because he doesn't know the answer. It's because he wants you to say the…
Tv and newspapers is funded by advertising. Nothing shameful in that.
Depends on your values, I suppose.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress
#330I call BS on actual deleting all user data when someone deletes his account. If some whistle blower proves otherwise is he liable for prosecution for perjury?
Define deleted. Do you mean the data itself is purged, or simply marked as deleted and rendered inaccessible? If you mean purged, then do you also mean that it is zeroed off of the disk by a multiple low-level pass? This would be hard to prosecute for perjury as the definition of "deleted" can be construed in many ways.
The question: "Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was 'no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton,' was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?"
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," Clinton responded.
[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/tbt-clinton-grand-ju...