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

Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 487 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#371

Post by alchemism »

Panjam wrote: post #222
misiti3780 wrote: post #41

"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"

I get the distinct impression that Zuckerberg has been briefed to say "I'll get back to you on that", on anything that might be controversial. Probably some wisdom in that as it defuses a lot of emotion that could arise if certain information comes out in this setting. But it's also disingenuous, even if it avoids a lynchmob for now.

Also coached well on “That is a very interesting question, Senator.”

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#372

Post by justinator »

Teichopsia wrote: post #227
justinator wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scenario is this: say my wife is a first generation Italian and I am the CEO of a really great new car company. If someone says, "This is a great car, I could never say, seeing an ITALIAN making such a car!" I would be embarrassed for the person saying this, as they don't know my family history (maybe I don't look Italian, I look like a viking, if one was to guess - which you shouldn't), and to be perfectly hones…

what does it matter? If the intent was from a good place, just let it go.

I'm kind of the opinion that when you're brought up to a hearing in D.C. about some pretty serious shit, any pleasantries like this are merely there in an attempt to manipulate the person being questioned.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#373

Post by chenning »

stephenr wrote: post #351
chenning wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would also argue that a healthy dose of tech illiteracy (if that's what you want to call it) is precisely what we need in this situation. Tech minded people will always find a way to decide in favor of technology. They are loyal to the technology. We need people who can look at all of this from the unbiased perspective.

> Tech minded people will always find a way to decide in favor of technology. I’m pretty tech minded, and I fucking abhor Facebook and Google for the way they behave as a matter of business. Don’t assume that because you might feel inclined to give tech a pass because it’s tech, that others would too.

Fair enough. I shouldn't have used the word "always".

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#374

Post by enraged_camel »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #300
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree. Several controversial questions were dodged by saying his team would follow up. While it's attractive to paint politicians as incompetent buffoons, let's not forget each of them has their own staff and understands what it means to delegate to your staff and not have answers immediately on hand that only a staff expert would understand.

I'm pretty sure both of you are correct. There was a large amount of tech illiteracy on display but, at the same time, Mark dodged TONS of questions and spoke indirectly like a professional. That entire testimony was very unsatisfying, in my opinion.

>>That entire testimony was very unsatisfying, in my opinion.

The goal was not satisfaction. The goal was to allow the Senators to be able to tell their constituents they did something about the Facebook problem, to the vast majority of whom "Congressional hearing" will sound serious and consequential.

edit: The downvotes tell me that most people don't understand how these committees work. Here's a hint: they have no teeth. Nothing will happen as a result of this hearing.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#375

Post by Silhouette »

Blahah wrote: post #358
bithive123 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I really do not think this is accurate. I have been in a courtroom when a file was described as 'deleted' and then an expert witness 'recovered' the 'deleted' file, which was entered as evidence. Delete is a technical word that has a specfiic meaning. Unlike most language, technical terms are (to some degree) clearly defined and should not change over time or with common usage. Whether people misinterpret the word ar…

Delete is a technical word that has a specfiic meaning.

Respectfully, if that were true, we wouldn't all be having this discussion.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#376

Post by neom »

18pfsmt wrote: post #203

Some 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.

I'm pretty sure that he asked if someone found bias in an algorithmic implementation would they qualify for the bug bounty program? Mark deflected by saying devops? (maybe i'm confused)

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#377

Post by 908087 »

alchemism wrote: post #371
Panjam wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the distinct impression that Zuckerberg has been briefed to say "I'll get back to you on that", on anything that might be controversial. Probably some wisdom in that as it defuses a lot of emotion that could arise if certain information comes out in this setting. But it's also disingenuous, even if it avoids a lynchmob for now.

Also coached well on “That is a very interesting question, Senator.”

Every time he said that or "This is a very important question", the honest way to finish the sentence would have been "..which I'm not going to provide an answer to".

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#378

Post by SmirkingRevenge »

btown wrote: post #79
misiti3780 wrote: post #41

"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"

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…

Browser fingerprinting is already alright, even without world-class data centers with several server rooms the size of football fields, and world-class AI experts tuning those many rooms of servers to intelligently track and classify people online.

Cookies are almost certainly irrelevant to FB's ability to track people, and Zuck certainly knows it.

His response there was an unequivocal lie.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#379

Post by rhizome »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #261
drexlspivey wrote: post #158

I 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?

He is not under oath in this case.

You're always under oath in front of Congress, but if they don't swear you in you can't be prosecuted for perjury in that testimony.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress

#380

Post by jimmy1 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #258
nopriorarrests wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population Just in case, FB ARPU in US in Q4 2017 was $27. People who talk about "i ready to pay 10$ per year if im not tracked and not exposed to ads" _seriously_ underestimate FB money-printing ability. Think about it, FB makes almost as much as NFLX per US user (admittedly in Q4, the hottest quarter in advertising), but you dont need to…

If someone comes along with a service that fulfills the same niche that Facebook does, charges $9/month, and has a guaranteed (audited) enforcement of personal privacy ... I'd do it. I like being connected to my family & some friends. The problem is getting from zero to critical mass with that model. Though I guess that doesn't stop a lot of other companies with less plausible revenue sources from getting seemingly e…

> The problem is getting from zero to critical mass with that model.

But you just said you just need your family and some friends. That doesn't sound like critical mass is needed. Just convince your family and some friends to join with you, and enjoy the service together. Then your friends can invite their friends and family, and so on and so forth.

Post reply on HN