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

Facebook's seized files published by MPs

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 507 posts

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#141

Post by echelon »

jerf wrote: post #76
sbhn wrote: post #28

Thx for link. Everytime i read the word ‘whitelist’, i think, havn’t they caught up with the times, thats racist, whitelist. Why does white suggest good?

"White" as symbolizing purity or goodness and "black" for contamination or evil is used by a wide variety of cultures around the world, only a minority of which happens to consist primarily of people with un-melanined skin. If you think "whitelist" and "blacklist" is racist, just wait until you find out about Yin and Yang.

We're changing instances of whitelist and blacklist to "allowlist" and "blocklist" similar to the conversion of master and slave to "primary" and "replica".

Edit: it's interesting that I'm being downvoted. What a weird world this is.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#142

Post by johnnyfaehell »

elliekelly wrote: post #128
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR, and even the former 1998 Data Protection Act disagrees. Ts&Cs can't override statute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Data_...

I’m pretty sure Facebook has made a substantial investment in structuring their data flow & server locations with the specific intention of avoiding the reach/responsibilities of GDPR.

Yes, and during so actually broke the law and didn't succeed either.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#143

Post by notahacker »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #133
notahacker wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A world in which data monopolies and platform companies selectively withdraw much smaller companies' access to their services based on whether they wish those companies to fail or not probably isn't one which optimally promotes innovation and economic growth though.

Facebook is not a data monopoly, unless you take "data monopoly" to mean "has a set of a data that no one else does", in which case everyone is a data monopoly.

Nobody else has a comparable dataset on a comparable scale. Microsoft wasn't the only company supplying operating systems in the 1990s either.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#145

Post by ryanwaggoner »

AlexandrB wrote: post #95
tpush wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really interesting stuff in there. > Facebook email 24 January 2013 > Justin Osofsky – ‘Twitter launched Vine today which lets you shoot multiple short video segments to make one single, 6-second video. As part of their NUX, you can find friends via FB. Unless anyone raises objections, we will shut down their friends API access today. We’ve prepared reactive PR, and I will let Jana know our decision. > MZ – ‘Yup, go…

What's really striking is how user-hostile this conversation is. Forget about whether the user wants to share their data or not - it's all about what Facebook wants to do. In this case, that's snuffing competition by denying access, in the case of Cambridge Analytica, it's sharing data for purposes of shady data "research".

If you own a grocery store and there's a guy on the other side of town who is cheaper, the people who come to your store because it's more convenient would love for you to be forced to just give away half your space to your competitor. Doesn't mean it's "user hostile" to refuse to do so.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#146

Post by steve_gh »

criddell wrote: post #79
makomk wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger problem is that, as I understand it, all of these documents were obtained from someone suing Facebook who had access to them as part of a lawsuit against Facebook under a court order that required them to be kept confidential.

That makes me wonder if a confidentiality agreement should ever include sharing that information with the government? Maybe NDAs from publicly traded companies should always exempt sharing with elected officials?

Might work under US law, but not under UK law. In the UK Parliament is sovereign.

Yesterday, Parliament forced the Government to publish it's confidential legal advice on the impact of the proposed Brexit deal - they had previously pushed through a motion of a type called a "humble address" - basically a petition to the Queen (who is the head of state, and nominally in control of the Government), asking for the documents to be published. When the Government tried to wriggle out of it, there was a debate, followed by a vote on a motion that the Government was in contempt of Parliament (kind of like Contempt of Court, but more so). The Government lost, and immediately published the papers.

So be in no doubt, the UK Parliament (and a bunch of others), are all really p*ssed off with FB and other tech companies giving them the runaround. They are fighting back with the weapons they have, which turn out to be pretty toothy.

I guess that if you broke an NDA saying "You may not release this data to a government" you might get sued in a US court, but would a jury convict?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#147

Post by bduerst »

jerf wrote: post #76
sbhn wrote: post #28

Thx for link. Everytime i read the word ‘whitelist’, i think, havn’t they caught up with the times, thats racist, whitelist. Why does white suggest good?

"White" as symbolizing purity or goodness and "black" for contamination or evil is used by a wide variety of cultures around the world, only a minority of which happens to consist primarily of people with un-melanined skin. If you think "whitelist" and "blacklist" is racist, just wait until you find out about Yin and Yang.

Conversely, "Keeping you in the black" is an inverse sentiment for the use of the word.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#148

Post by anticensor »

ddalex wrote: post #85
johnnyfaehell wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility - they can not work with other apps for any reason, or no reason at all. And this is a particularly ironic thing to point out, considering that the main thrust is complaining that they _did_ share data with other apps. So it's bad if they do share data, but also bad if they don't? To me, this would be Facebo…

> is not Facebook's data Look at the T&Cs sometime. Once you upload something, it's theirs. Once they sniff something off your phone, it's theirs. Once you look at something in another tab while FB is open, it's theirs.

> Once you upload something, it's theirs. Once they sniff something off your phone, it's theirs. Once you look at something in another tab while FB is open, it's theirs.

According to Facebook TOS, you own the data but grant them an open-ended licence to use said data.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#149

Post by Calloggs »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #124
johnnyfaehell wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility - they can not work with other apps for any reason, or no reason at all. And this is a particularly ironic thing to point out, considering that the main thrust is complaining that they _did_ share data with other apps. So it's bad if they do share data, but also bad if they don't? To me, this would be Facebo…

Facebook won't grant Influencer Marketing Companies access to their API even though the user (The Influencer) wants them to have the data so they can get paid based on the views, shares, comments, and likes of the posts they've been contracted for. User has a legit desire to share that data to the point where they will take screenshots, GDPR deletions, etc to fulfil the need for that data to be shared. Facebook's rea…

Your metaphor is good, but misses the part where this art museum has either bought or forced downsizing/closure on all other competitive museums. That forces artists to choose this museum or one that it owns if they want any recognition/income from the work they do (this museum certainly isn't paying them for the work).

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#150

Post by ionised »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #133
notahacker wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A world in which data monopolies and platform companies selectively withdraw much smaller companies' access to their services based on whether they wish those companies to fail or not probably isn't one which optimally promotes innovation and economic growth though.

Facebook is not a data monopoly, unless you take "data monopoly" to mean "has a set of a data that no one else does", in which case everyone is a data monopoly.

That's not what a monopoly is.
Post reply on HN