Why We Disagree with The New York Times • Hacker News Board

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#121

Post by phlo » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

In this specific instance, the Times article might be overblown.

They specifically mention that they were able to use BlackBerry Hub with a reporter's account to query Facebook data. The article never states whether BB Hub connects to Facebook directly, or whether it receives data from a BlackBerry-operated service.

The latter case is clearly user-hostile. If BlackBerry (the company) can read user data and Facebook claims not to allow 3rd-party access, then that is bad, and it should be treated as a breach of the user's trust.

The former case is more complex. As a user, I care a great deal that I can access Facebook using my choice of browser, whether that's Chrome, Firefox or Edge. I shouldn't be limited to the top three either. Some users may prefer a browser that works with their screen readers, others may prefer the built-in browser in their smart TV, and others yet might prefer a unified messaging app, like BB Hub.

The distinction between what happens locally or in the cloud is often unclear, and it's not getting any better. Chrome on Android wants to accelerate mobile connections by routing them through a compressing proxy. I can get an extra-secure version of chrome from authentic8 to protect against malware, with the caveat that it runs in their datacenter.

I feel that the tech industry in general, and Facebook in particular are struggling to tell users what happens with their data. Sometimes it's because things actually are complicated, and sometimes just to hide obvious overreach. The obvious blowback: complaints, strict regulation and mistrust. As the people who build and run systems, we should strive to do better. Regain the trust lost by past mistakes, and get back to the point where one could realistically apply hanlon's razor to reports of user surveillance.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#122

Post by JackCh » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #71

Liquix wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the argument is that saying "I promise not to murder someone" does not in any way prevent said party turning around and murdering someone - signing a contract does not prevent these companies from violating the terms of the contract.

> signing a contract does not prevent these companies from violating the terms of the contract. So whats the point of any legal agreement then?

The law does not prevent anybody from murdering you with an axe. The law forbids people to murder you with an axe.

Once you understand the distinction there, you will understand the answer to your question.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#123

Post by fakescience » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

sideshowb wrote: post #107

jacobsheehy wrote: post #2

It reads like a long defensive argument, "how else did you expect us to make huge sums of money"? It is exactly as tone-deaf and legalese as you would expect. There is no new information here; Facebook says legal contracts actually protect your data so it can't go anywhere, "just trust us", etc. > These partners signed agreements that prevented people’s Facebook information from being used for any other purpose than…

> Facebook has acted on this and intentionally made hundreds of thousands of people fall into a depression, just to see if they could, and then they bragged about it. That's interesting. Do you have a link to source?

Likely referring to this article [1].

However, the claim that they made "hundreds of thousands of people fall into a depression" is pretty exaggerated - FB demonstrated it could influence the mood of users via changes to the algorithm, but the overall effect size was small (Cohen's d = 0.001).

I am very critical of FB and this type of research, but don't know if anyone became depressed over the experiment. It's possible, but wasn't demonstrated.

[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#124

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #108

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am asking why the consequences of breaking a contract don't matter in this specific case Technically speaking, no contract was broken. When users signed up for Facebook, they clicked a button pursuant to which Facebook indemnified itself from everything under the sun. (It is unclear how enforceable those terms are. EULAs, for example, aren't very enforceable in the U.S. [1].) Facebook did agree not to do these th…

> Technically speaking, no contract was broken. When users signed up for Facebook, they clicked a button pursuant to which Facebook indemnified itself from everything under the sun. I am referring to this > These partners signed agreements not users.

It is difficult to say anything about the partners' agreements without seeing them. The problem these agreements exist in the first place. Instead of Facebook writing a Windows Phone app, they had Microsoft write the app and paid Microsoft with users' data.

The difference would be ignored if it hadn't been replicated in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. People are reasonably concerned about how much data Facebook is giving these third parties and how diligently it's ensuring they aren't retaining it.

These concerns are heightened by the existence of these agreements contradicting with (a) the FTC consent decree and (b) Zuckerberg's statement to Congress. It may also be material in the ongoing biometrics lawsuit in Illinois.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#125

Post by mcguire » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

"Contrary to claims by the New York Times, friends’ information, like photos, was only accessible on devices when people made a decision to share their information with those friends."

Hasn't FB had a history of assuming the decision was positive if the user didn't opt out, through a difficult procedure?

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#126

Post by arcbyte » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

mlb_hn wrote: post #64

Facebook's making the distinction between allowing a device to offer Facebook-like services (which require Facebook functionality) and third-party apps that suck up all your friend data. On the one hand, Facebook's got a point, that if you want to be able to use Facebook on a device without going through the Facebook app or the website the device needs to be able to authenticate onto some sort of API. On the other ha…

The fact that "data made it to device maker servers" is a stupid, meaningless point. Of course it hit their servers. And it should hit their servers. It's idiots who don't know what they're writing about causing hysteria among idiot's who don't know what they're reading in order to sell advertising dollars.

And the whole time they're pointing at facebook as the corrupt ones.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#127

Post by CaptainZapp » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

asciimo wrote: post #100

_red wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Signed agreements do not prevent your information from being used in other ways. That's insane, literally. The real insanity is with the users. FB did the most obvious thing. The user-base somehow magically thought they were providing all those free services because they were nice guys. It was obvious to anyone since the beginning that FB was a clearinghouse for private data trading. How else could the model remotel…

Obvious to some. When consumers receive a valuable service or product for free, with no obvious strings attached, they consume it. I don't think most people would preoccupy themselves with the provider or manufacturer's business model. You are savvy, and that's good. But others deserve consideration and protection.

It's rather simple:

If something's too good to be true it's practically always neither good nor true.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#128

Post by fixermark » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

It is, of course, useful to remember that "These partners signed agreements that prevented people’s Facebook information from being used for any other purpose" was ostensibly the back-stop against the mass-harvesting undertaken by Cambridge Analytica, also.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#129

Post by paradroid » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

People don't read terms of service. In using your phone who knows what you agreed to let your phone company do with your FB data.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#130

Post by kmonsen » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #50

Facebook’s response seems perfectly reasonable to me. - Obviously in order to integrate FB functionality into a Mobile OS UI requires an API to render the data being displayed. - If your phone has a home screen widget which shows friend data, obviously that friend data came from a Facebook API call. - If you type your Facebook username and password into a settings dialog in order to enable that home screen widget to…

Device manufacturers can also of course trivially bypass any way facebook tries to hide this data from them as well if they really want to. They control the OS and it's implementation, nothing can be hidden if they really badly want to get it.