91–100 of 248 posts
Ok, so those partnerships were basically allowing Samsung and others to build Facebook app on their phones (i.e. allowing alternative client). Would this means that it will be criminal to allow companies to create alternative clients? That is really interesting development.
To be clear, we built the 'Facebook experience' for our device because only we really could. During this era, APIs were a disaster of a mess, moreover, the special API that made the device so special was not available to the public. Ironically it was our internal APIs that were making the special sauce!
For this purpose, Facebook provided users of the app we designed access to their own profiles. Obviously, this is a fairly wide API and it had to be made available specially for users of our app.
At no time did we ever have access to FB users private information. At no time did anyone even remotely suggest anything inappropriate or nefarious. There were simply no moral or legal discussions on this front because it was moot.
The situation, net, was akin to Facebook having hired a 3rd party to design an app for them, giving that app the internal FB API necessary to function, and then distributing the app.
This isn't an issue of 'times have changed' or 'looking back we'd have done something different' rather - I can affirm that there was simply no bad acting, no breach of individuals accounts, and no undue risk to individuals accounts.
Obviously this situation is very specific, and that conditions will have varied.
If FB was truly giving Bing special access without people's consent - this is a big problem.
The Cambridge issue - well - this is a tricky one because Cambridge merely took advantage of the API's the entire world had access to. There was little if any discussion of the inherent problems with those APIs, and when it looked like maybe they were being abused, Facebook did the right thing and closed them. They even went ahead and investigated Cambridge to ensure the data was gone, and Cambridge presented them with evidence that it had been deleted. I think in this case Facebook was a responsible actor.
Clearly there are more situations to consider, but we should be thoughtful in terms of how we approach newly released information and not get caught up with the mob.
Personally, I loathe the koolaid mob that built Facebook up, but I'm equally loathe the hate mob wanting to take them down.
Wholesale surveillance of individuals by internet companies has to stop. And that includes Google.
It has always been the advertisers that are asking for the sort of tooling that can be taken advantage of during the election cycle. If you don’t think Russia should be able to manipulate the black voting populace then maybe it’s worth thinking about whether Unilever should be able to specifically target and market axe body spray in the same fashion. The tools only exist because advertisers are paying for them. Blami…
Ok, so those partnerships were basically allowing Samsung and others to build Facebook app on their phones (i.e. allowing alternative client). Would this means that it will be criminal to allow companies to create alternative clients? That is really interesting development.
Eh, no. Dig deeper.
When another comment is wrong, please explain why so we can all learn. Alternatively, it's always an option not to post.
No indication of what the charges are? The closest thing in the article is: > the partnerships seemed to violate a 2011 consent agreement between Facebook and the F.T.C which doesn't seem like it would be criminal? Does the US actually have criminal laws regarding selling data? Any educated guesses on what's actually going on?
Attorney here! Violation of a consent decree can result in criminal contempt-of-court charges. See 18 U.S.C. section 401 ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401 ). See also United States v. Schine, 125 F. Supp. 734 (W.D.N.Y. 1954).
No indication of what the charges are? The closest thing in the article is: > the partnerships seemed to violate a 2011 consent agreement between Facebook and the F.T.C which doesn't seem like it would be criminal? Does the US actually have criminal laws regarding selling data? Any educated guesses on what's actually going on?
Attorney here! Violation of a consent decree can result in criminal contempt-of-court charges. See 18 U.S.C. section 401 ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401 ). See also United States v. Schine, 125 F. Supp. 734 (W.D.N.Y. 1954).
How might this affect an FCC or breakup conversation?
At this point it is just an investigation. Nobody has been charged with anything. They have to find a law Facebook has broken first, and presumably establish enough evidence that they expect to succeed at a trial.
Do you have any idea what charges these may be? IFAIU, there're no laws which make it criminal to share information.
But of course there's always the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act which is so broad that it could potentially apply to just about anything anyone has ever done via an internet connection.
Wholesale surveillance of individuals by internet companies has to stop. And that includes Google.
It has always been the advertisers that are asking for the sort of tooling that can be taken advantage of during the election cycle. If you don’t think Russia should be able to manipulate the black voting populace then maybe it’s worth thinking about whether Unilever should be able to specifically target and market axe body spray in the same fashion. The tools only exist because advertisers are paying for them. Blami…
That's such a poor excuse. Lead by example.
Facebook isn't doing anything worse than what Acxiom and other data brokers have been doing for decades. None of it is criminal without any general purpose data protection laws. This is just pitchfork populism.