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

Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 263 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#21

Post by netsharc »

Casseres wrote: post #6
Deimorz wrote: post #4

The article points out that the extremely short time limit for each senator's questions made following up on anything almost impossible, but their overall poor understanding of the topic was just as significant. It was obvious that, for a lot of the senators, the questions had been supplied to them and they didn't really understand what they were asking beyond a superficial level. They'd start out with a pretty solid…

They should have had subject matter experts asking the questions. Instead there were people had no idea what they were talking about, wasting time on shout-outs to their sons/nephews or whomever (I was only able to follow it for a minute). The CEO needed to be under oath so that lying would carry consequences, and they needed someone who could cut through the BS of how some of the answers were worded. We need more pr…

The best part was someone asked if Facebook tracks you even if you've logged out of their website. Holy shit, moment of truth for Zuck, I thought. Nope, he deflected by saying he'll get his team to get back to the senator, and then he spewed jargon ("I know websites use cookies [bla bla] for security"). Oh, he knew the answer, but he couldn't say it in front of all the cameras watching. And of-effing-course he knows what cookies are.

And also he emphasized too much how people are in control of what data they share. The better question is, what data does Facebook save that the users can't see: all the analytics, all the location tracking, all the websites they visit. I didn't volunteer that data to you, Zuck, and I can't even control whether you have that data or not! (Well ok, on desktop I have Ghostery that blocks many many tracking pixels...).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#22

Post by cm2012 »

ngcazz wrote: post #8
lwansbrough wrote: post #7

I believe writers from the Guardian would sooner hand over control of the United States to the EU rather than try to understand why the US does things differently; but I think this question bears repeating: ethically, what has Facebook done wrong? Understanding the full context of this hearing is vital to your opinion on the matter. I'm nobody with an outsider's perspective, but to me Facebook has made very few error…

The value of people's data is precisely _why_ GDPR is important. I should be able to take it away from you after I granted you temporary access to it.

Your data on FB is worth precisely one thing to them: the ability to target you with ads on FB. When you don't use FB, it's useless to them.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#23

Post by ftlio »

It was fun to watch Congress pretend like there's something to legislate here, and to watch Zuckerberg pretend like whatever legislation Facebook helps write might be a burden.

The openness to the idea of AI modulating discourse so that we don't ever have to feel uncomfortable was my favorite part.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#24

Post by notspanishflu »

gaius wrote: post #12

If a person logs out of Facebook, and Facebook continues to track them anyway, then that’s clearly violating consent, and there was a meeting where someone said “we need a way to track people who explicitly do not want to be tracked” and everyone in the room nodded.

Facebook tracks everyone, every time. Tracks users and non users. Tracks even people trying to avoid that company.

For example, the infamous pixel code.

  
			
			!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
			n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;
			n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
			t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,
			document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');
			fbq('init', '477623695968553' );			fbq('track', 'PageView');

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#25

Post by afarrell »

Casseres wrote: post #6
Deimorz wrote: post #4

The article points out that the extremely short time limit for each senator's questions made following up on anything almost impossible, but their overall poor understanding of the topic was just as significant. It was obvious that, for a lot of the senators, the questions had been supplied to them and they didn't really understand what they were asking beyond a superficial level. They'd start out with a pretty solid…

They should have had subject matter experts asking the questions. Instead there were people had no idea what they were talking about, wasting time on shout-outs to their sons/nephews or whomever (I was only able to follow it for a minute). The CEO needed to be under oath so that lying would carry consequences, and they needed someone who could cut through the BS of how some of the answers were worded. We need more pr…

But it would be more important for those engineers would also need to have a solid understanding of the law, which is a highly detailed and nuanced field. I think this isn't an implementable solution. Maybe you get a more-technically-knowledgable version of Ron Wyden who then sits on several subcommittees, but you're not going to get 10% of the Senate to be software engineers. After all, one could just as easily say that we need more senators who are nurses, petroleum engineers, hydrological engineers, pilots, soldiers, teachers, tax accountants, actuaries...

I think a better solution would be either:

1) When elected officials run for office, they explicitly state who their go-to advisor for internet and technology matters is. That way, they are not so reliant on the technical advice of lobbyists. The flaw in this is that now those advisors' opinions on unrelated matters are subject to scrutiny. I can easily imagine a scandal because it turns out that some senator's advisor said something dumb about abortion 5 years prior to an election. I'd like to say "well, don't judge the advisor on things unrelated to their area of expertise", but where do you draw that boundary? Is someone's opinion on domestic violence or prostitution really irrelevant to how they advise a senator on FOSTA?

2) The UK has been framing the House of Lords as a council of experts for a while now. I don't know how well it actually works as one though.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#26

Post by listenallyall »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #9

These are the same elected officials that approved ISPs selling usage data? The same officials that were silent when Snowden released what he had? Etc. Do I trust MZ and FB? Yes, as much as I trust Uncle Sam. Hint: Not much. The sham is on us. Again.

+1. Zuckerberg should have pointed out exactly who voted for the renewal of the FISA surveillance program in Jan. "Look, if an American citizen is angry enough and chooses to never share any more data with Facebook, s/he has that right and the ability. With the NSA/CIA/FBI/TSA/Homeland Security/traffic cameras/license plate readers/stingrays, there is no opt-out. Period."

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#27

Post by nerdponx »

netsharc wrote: post #21
Casseres wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should have had subject matter experts asking the questions. Instead there were people had no idea what they were talking about, wasting time on shout-outs to their sons/nephews or whomever (I was only able to follow it for a minute). The CEO needed to be under oath so that lying would carry consequences, and they needed someone who could cut through the BS of how some of the answers were worded. We need more pr…

The best part was someone asked if Facebook tracks you even if you've logged out of their website. Holy shit, moment of truth for Zuck, I thought. Nope, he deflected by saying he'll get his team to get back to the senator, and then he spewed jargon ("I know websites use cookies [bla bla] for security"). Oh, he knew the answer, but he couldn't say it in front of all the cameras watching. And of-effing-course he knows…

Stop using Ghostery and switch to uBlock Origin.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#28

Post by 5555624 »

frankharv wrote: post #18
5555624 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you signed up for Facebook, was there a screen that said, "Facebook will take all the information you provide, regardless of format or intent, and monetize it as much as possible, as well as share it with government agencies"? You knew this going in. Many people know this and don't have Facebook account. A lot of people did not know this and are just finding out -- that's where the "outrage" comes out. (A fourth…

What part of "Private Message" do you not understand. These data rapers were stealing peoples "Private Messages" The term "Private Message" is not complicated. They stole peoples data straight up. Data thieves. What they do is hide behind these screens you defend. Written by scumbag lawyers to not be understood or clear.

I have an understanding of "Private Message." Probably the same as you. Does Facebook have the same understanding? No.

If Facebook said, "Facebook will take all the information you provide, regardless of format or intent, and monetize it as much as possible, as well as share it with government agencies," I would read that as there is no such thing as a "private message" on Facebook, since it says, "all the information your provide."

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#29

Post by Hasknewbie »

ijafri wrote: post #13

i guess it's about time, all state level elected bodies, should dedicate 5-10% seats ... at least ... on an extremely specialised profession basis, such as software, medical etc ... look most of these guys are lawyers by profession that's massively over represented in all houses everywhere .... why just we can't ....

This is a flawed view based on the premise that elected officials would somehow be incapable of grasping the concept of "having special advisers". You might be interested to know that Hong Kong has a system similar to what you're describing. It's not working out to well (hint: one's expertise is useful only in narrow cases, while corporatist self-interest applies all the time).

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook hearing was a sham

#30

Post by gizzlon »

Hasknewbie wrote: post #20

Another needlessly strident and self-righteous article from The Guardian, that says one useful thing (the hearing is too short), followed by paragraphs of "and they are allowing this Zuck guy to SPEAK at a HEARING can you BELIEVE this? iamoutragediamoutraged." There are so many important points to cover on this topic for a mass readership to whom most of this is new (as in: a new threat they often don't quite yet und…

I would not call this an "article from The Guardian"
Post reply on HN