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

171–180 of 507 posts

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#171

Post by JustSomeNobody »

notacoward wrote: post #159
nakedrobot2 wrote: post #3

Good for them, thank you! The sooner facebook is controlled and broken up into pieces, the better. They are a massive net negative on civilization. Do you work at Facebook? Shame on you.

Yes, I do work at Facebook. I'm not going to get into some protracted argument about whether that makes me a bad person, or already was, but I'd like to give you something to think about. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we can neatly divide tech workers into good and bad. Likewise for companies. All categories are non-empty, and certain to remain so. What's the optimal assignment of workers to companies? Is…

I'd say the HN response is, no, you can't be good and work at FB.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#172

Post by breischl »

johnnyfaehell wrote: post #67
breischl wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no particular love for FB or what they've done with data, but these I don't understand why either of those points is particularly controversial or even unusual. > Facebook used data provided by the Israeli analytics firm Onavo to determine which other mobile apps were being downloaded and used by the public. It then used this knowledge to decide which apps to acquire or otherwise treat as a threat Checking out…

> 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…

Even if it was the User's data and not FB's (which is argued downthread a bit...) there's nothing that requires Facebook to make it accessible to other companies. There is real cost in creating an API, running it, managing it, etc.

One could also argue that the User already has all their own data, they just didn't collect it very well. So really they're trying to use FB as their data collection platform - which FB is free to do or not, as they choose.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#173

Post by ryanwaggoner »

manfredo wrote: post #153
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…

> Let's remember this is not Facebook's data, this is their users' data. No, it's not - short of a change in law it is Facebook's data. Facebook collected, maintained , and analyzed the data. It's their data, the fact that their users allowed Facebook to collect it does not change that fact. GDPR allows users to view the data Facebook collected about them. If users want manually request their data from Facebook and p…

Seriously, it's mind-blowing to me that people can't make this distinction. I should be able to ask the library for a record of the books I've checked out. But that doesn't imply that they should hand those records out to whoever wants them, or that they need to make them available for anyone but me, even if I think it'd be more convenient for someone else to pick them up for me.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#174

Post by [deleted] »

notacoward wrote: post #159
nakedrobot2 wrote: post #3

Good for them, thank you! The sooner facebook is controlled and broken up into pieces, the better. They are a massive net negative on civilization. Do you work at Facebook? Shame on you.

Yes, I do work at Facebook. I'm not going to get into some protracted argument about whether that makes me a bad person, or already was, but I'd like to give you something to think about. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we can neatly divide tech workers into good and bad. Likewise for companies. All categories are non-empty, and certain to remain so. What's the optimal assignment of workers to companies? Is…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#176

Post by ryanwaggoner »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #169
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Let's go with the tortured metaphor. Popular art museums generally run with allowing entry without requiring membership. They make up for that by collecting donations or entry fee, running a comparatively expensive cafe, and ensuring everyone leaves via the gift shop. They might heavily promote, and employ people to individually sell memberships, or give free membership in exchange for monthly gift shop and offers sp…

I added the membership bit just to make the whole "rejection of competitors" part make more sense.

They don't plant a bug in your pocket without knowledge, or consent to learn what other art museums and galleries you are visiting to assess if they are a worthy target of restriction or takeover. They don't insist on knowing your entire contact list and SMS history just to look at the pictures. They don't ban employees of other galleries and museums from visiting. Not least because 9 times out of 10 they would not know if they worked for a different city's gallery.

I'm not defending all of Facebook's practices. In particular, any surreptitious attempt to collect sensitive user data without permission, or in violation of permission, is terrible. We might differ on what constitutes "sensitive user data" or "permission" but whatever.

Regardless, that's not what we're actually talking about here, and if the museum in question did ask for user consent to a full cavity search before going through, I don't think that actually changes the calculus of what's fair for them to provide to their competitors.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#177

Post by e40 »

evilzuku wrote: post #33
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…

Nothing says evil more than preparing reactive PR to bury your competitors. And the nonchalant way his response sends chills down my spine. These people will suffocate innovation just to win.

> These people will suffocate innovation just to win.

I don't like Zuck, but come on, you just described every CEO in America, that when they have a choice they will do this.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#178

Post by johnnyfaehell »

manfredo wrote: post #153
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…

> Let's remember this is not Facebook's data, this is their users' data. No, it's not - short of a change in law it is Facebook's data. Facebook collected, maintained , and analyzed the data. It's their data, the fact that their users allowed Facebook to collect it does not change that fact. GDPR allows users to view the data Facebook collected about them. If users want manually request their data from Facebook and p…

> If users want manually request their data from Facebook and provide it to competing apps they can.

Actually, for a lot of it they can't. The GDPR downloads are incomplete and are missing lots of data like many other GDPR downloads.

And in some cases these aren't competing, they just aren't making Facebook money so Facebook denies them access and tells them what they need to do to add Facebook to process so they can get access.

And if I can tell Facebook to delete something and they have to do it, they do not own it. Facebook are not in control of the data, they have access to it, but they can't share it without permission, they can't sell it without permission, they can't do alot of things. This, to me, means they do not own the data.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#179

Post by aaaaaaaaaab »

sbhn wrote: post #52
breischl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've wondered that too. My inexpert, unresearched guess is that people are scared of darkness, because we don't see too well. Hence black is a scary/bad color, and blacklists are the things to avoid. Brightness is good - you can see, it's usually warm, etc. Hence whitelist. But like I said, total off-the-cuff guess, take it for what it's worth.

Good response, i thought it was left over terminology from segregation times. You may be right

I want this to be satire

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#180

Post by steve_gh »

kodablah wrote: post #121

So, FB gave some companies preferential access after removing it for devs, they surreptitiously collected phone data after given permission to, used cross-business analytics for M&A or competition info, was choosy and chatty about who got what data and its value. I agree there are clear immoralities at play, especially with collecting phone call info, but not sure that it is worthy of a government inquiry of such siz…

WRT doing business in the UK.

You need to understand that this is a highly unusual situation.

Part of the UK Parliamentary system is that there are "Select Committees"on MPs, whose job is to review and hold to account the performance of government bodies and departments. They may also review areas of national interest within their remit, and invite witnesses to give evidence to them.

For example, there have been significant problems with a rail timetable change recently, and the Transport Select Committee invited the heads of various rail companies to give evidence. You don't not turn up - an invitation from a select committee to give evidence has the same sort of weight as a court summons to give evidence.

So Zuck was invited to give evidence to the Digital Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee (DCMS), investigating the impact of Fake News on politics. Twice (at least). Both times he sent a minion.

DCMS then set up a Grand Committee hearing, with parliamentarians from a bunch of other countries (Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Ireland, Latvia, Singapore and UK), and invited Zuck. Again, no show.

So basically, since Zuck gave a whole bunch of governments the finger, the Uk government used its powers to collect relevant evidence.

I would suggest that unless you are a) the CEO of a Unicorn, or b) Currently suing a Unicorn and c) that Unicorn is giving the finger to a government

You need have no fear of doing business in the UK

Post reply on HN