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

“Facebook are going to monetize encrypted messaging by consolidating metadata”

threader.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 105 posts

Re: “Facebook are going to monetize encrypted messaging by consolidating metadata”

#81

Post by bilbo0s »

opportune wrote: post #70
eitland wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Facebook outrage mob reminds me of my slashdot days when everyone referred to Microsoft as Micro$oft. The fight against old Microsoft is a win-win success story (for now, I'm keeping an eye on all big players and so should everyone else.) Microsoft is nicer and I think more profitable than ever. They don't call our code or favourite OS cancer anymore but actively support us. My understanding is even a lot of MS…

It took Microsoft a top-level executive change (Satya) to fix itself. Facebook shows no signs of an executive change until Mark retires and devotes himself to full time philanthropy so the world doesn’t remember him as evil (who else does that remind you of...)

The truth is MS never fixed itself, it just got too fat and lazy for any of us to care anymore.

Re: “Facebook are going to monetize encrypted messaging by consolidating metadata”

#83

Post by ascagnel_ »

chronid wrote: post #73
bad_user wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest I can't remember a time when the stories on Facebook were good. I can remember such a time for Google. I can even remember such a time for Microsoft, back when people stayed in line for Windows 95. I was 13 back then and got my first computer. Sure, investors were pleased with Facebook's rapid growth and people liked it because its UI didn't suck like MySpace. But Facebook has always been morally bankrup…

In 2008 and 2012 FB got praised for being the platform that Obama used to win the elections - I remember multiple articles about it (and someone from the Obama campaign later admitted that they did the same thing that got the CA scandal started). In that period of time there were also multiple newspapers writing that "privacy is dead, and it's a good thing". There was not a lot of discussion about privacy when they b…

I think it’s less to due with the direct choices FB has made or even their impact on the election, but that FB’s complete and total lack of awareness of how their actions have impacted the world. It wasn’t Trump winning that did it, it was that Trump won with the assistance of data that Facebook was unable to properly protect.

Facebook has lost the trust of the public in ways that other major tech firms haven’t.

Re: “Facebook are going to monetize encrypted messaging by consolidating metadata”

#85

Post by stevenicr »

riazrizvi wrote: post #4

Surveillance on the general public is bought by employers/businesses not security services. Yet all these articles keep mentioning law enforcement. 90% of people don’t care if the NSA/FBI are mining their communication for criminal activity. They would care if they realized it affected their job offers, they would care if they realized it means lower wages, less competition, less political freedom. The USA has long a…

I agree with most of the sentiment of your comment here, however I do not think 90% is accurate. I have no polls to point to, but thinking about how certain demographics are seemingly deathly afraid of patrol police in general these days, and given that many people have some friend or family member that may be going through a bad phase, I think it would be more like 50% if you included something like "knowing that metadata from your phone and net devices can be used to spy on your friends and family, do you think it's no big deal if a long list of agencies has unfettered access to your data?

Something like that.

I agree that we need to educate people more about how things like jobs, loans, and other things can be affected by data trails easily gobbled up by many different apps and devices.

In my small amount of speaking to people, it seems to me that people older than 35 don't worry about hackers or fbk, or three letter agency spy on all their pics and messages. However most of them pause when I explain that apps like messenger can steal all of their kids' pics in the background, services like instagram sell me pics off their kids phones for a few cents, and there are some pervs at whichever agency and computer company that can access all of their kids stuff for example.

To me the biggest concern about recording and storing all this information is the ability of corps and guv agencies being able to rewind time and pressure would be powerful public figures or other people into doing shady things in order to keep that recorded data in cold storage and off the next leak that ends up in the wild and reported in whatever-news.

So there are many educational points with all this that people should be educated about.

When I mention that divorce lawyers may have a field day with the flirting pms / dms that their friends may have sent and that have been stored by zucks servers, I often get "wow never thought of that" - which of course could be used to change financial futures, kids custoday, etc.

Then of course the marketers using data to get you to do things, and banks selling your debit card data about sexual purchases and such. There are many important things to consider when it comes to privacy.

How meta data alone can be used to infer relationships and such can be damaging with serious legal consequences beyond the marketing sales.

If polls were run with a little info added about how data can be used. I would hope that less than 50% of people don't care.

Re: “Facebook are going to monetize encrypted messaging by consolidating metadata”

#86

Post by finaliteration »

opportune wrote: post #70
eitland wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Facebook outrage mob reminds me of my slashdot days when everyone referred to Microsoft as Micro$oft. The fight against old Microsoft is a win-win success story (for now, I'm keeping an eye on all big players and so should everyone else.) Microsoft is nicer and I think more profitable than ever. They don't call our code or favourite OS cancer anymore but actively support us. My understanding is even a lot of MS…

It took Microsoft a top-level executive change (Satya) to fix itself. Facebook shows no signs of an executive change until Mark retires and devotes himself to full time philanthropy so the world doesn’t remember him as evil (who else does that remind you of...)

Does that mean they’ll have to go through a “Steve Ballmer” phase first?

Re: “Facebook are going to monetize encrypted messaging by consolidating metadata”

#87

Post by stevenicr »

code_duck wrote: post #43
nobody271 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, for a chat conversation you would want something faster than steganography. But if you will notice I did not propose a solution for encrypted chat. I proposed a solution for making encryption easier to use, yes? I hope that debaffles you a little. Steganography alone is just security through obscurity? I guess I'm not sure which algorithm you are thinking of but regardless it's very easy to encrypt your data be…

“I think steganography is an excellent way to deliver encrypted messaging to consumers.” is in your prior post. If you are not using stegonagraphy for the obscurity aspect, why use it at all? Why not just encrypted plaintext that can be decrypted? Stegonagraphy is intended to conceal that a message is being sent at all, other than the apparent message of an image. If my recipient and I are both using Cool Stegonagrap…

Certainly for most things I would prefer whatever encryption in transit and whatever data is received is destroyed after viewing. Some people think snapchat is like that, and it's a big reason that many people use it like they do.

However I can imagine some use cases where others would want to keep say a kinky fantasy story someone wrote to them, but need to keep it in a form that if discovered may be difficult to discern that it was a naughty message at all.

Like the "calculator app" that many of the younger folks are using to hide nudes... you'd have a "cool cat memes with friends app" - with some of the images shared having extra data embedded...

some parents and others are getting smarter about seeing the most used apps on a phone, so they are able to question why someone used "hidden locker calculator" 8 hours each day. If you had "cat meme share" being used 8 hours a day, you could open said app and show your parents/lover/ whoever the funny memes.. and they may not know that extra info could be embedded for example.

This may save some people doing bad things, but may also save some people from being outted about their

Re: “Facebook are going to monetize encrypted messaging by consolidating metadata”

#88

Post by stevenicr »

remarkEon wrote: post #40

Guys, just delete your Facebook. One of the underrated benefits is not bothering to read articles like this because it doesn't effect you ... since you deleted your Facebook.

I wish it was that easy.

What other people do on fbook and whatsapp and messenger does affect me. I need articles and discussions like this so I can try to educate those who use those services.

If I could somehow make it so fbook would auto remove my name from any messages, delete any pictures with me uploaded by anyone, and ignore (not store) my name and phone number when it takes the contacts off of friends phones for example . Do not store the location of my residence if one of my friends is messaging their "whatever" from my place. I don't want to be associated with location sharing of whatever people are doing on their phone.

- I'd gladly file whatever 'right to be forgotten / never known' request with fbook.

In the meantime, we need to know as much as possible as to what this beast is doing with data.

Re: “Facebook are going to monetize encrypted messaging by consolidating metadata”

#89

Post by opportune »

finaliteration wrote: post #86
opportune wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took Microsoft a top-level executive change (Satya) to fix itself. Facebook shows no signs of an executive change until Mark retires and devotes himself to full time philanthropy so the world doesn’t remember him as evil (who else does that remind you of...)

Does that mean they’ll have to go through a “Steve Ballmer” phase first?

Probably when Sandberg takes over
Post reply on HN