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

Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 152 posts

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#131

Post by taormina »

kingbirdy wrote: post #115
brightball wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've really never understood the point of using credit scores when hiring. I completely understand it when making decisions on actually loaning money, leasing agreement, etc...

If you're hiring someone who would have access to valuable information that could be sold, who would have information before the market, or who could potentially be paid to sabotage the company, it's important to ensure the candidate has good credit so they're less likely to do those things, since they at least wouldn't feel a financial pressure to do so and would only do it out of greed.

I feel like "compensate them appropriately" should be the actual solution to this problem.....

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#132

Post by save_ferris »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #121

“We’re surprised by HUD’s decision, as we’ve been working with them to address their concerns and have taken significant steps to prevent” ad discrimination, the company said in a statement. It added that it had been negotiating with the housing agency over the issue, but that the talks had broken down because federal officials were seeking access to too much user information “without adequate safeguards.” Interestin…

Could definitely see this. They could also be trying to prevent setting a data-sharing precedent that other Federal agencies will look to utilize.

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#134

Post by munk-a »

kingbirdy wrote: post #115
brightball wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've really never understood the point of using credit scores when hiring. I completely understand it when making decisions on actually loaning money, leasing agreement, etc...

If you're hiring someone who would have access to valuable information that could be sold, who would have information before the market, or who could potentially be paid to sabotage the company, it's important to ensure the candidate has good credit so they're less likely to do those things, since they at least wouldn't feel a financial pressure to do so and would only do it out of greed.

There are real enforceable legal salves you can take for these purposes included targeted NDAs (as opposed to the less enforceable "Don't talk about our stuff") that makes it really easy to prove wrong doings - additionally there are forms of business insurance out there to cover the short term sudden costs of corporate espionage/sabotage.

Basically, trusting in the person to be trustworthy because equifax is giving you a big thumbs up with a stupid grin on their face is a stupid idea. Just set up protections for your company, properly utilize the practice of minimum access and call it a day.

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#135

Post by throwaway5752 »

save_ferris wrote: post #132
throwaway5752 wrote: post #121

“We’re surprised by HUD’s decision, as we’ve been working with them to address their concerns and have taken significant steps to prevent” ad discrimination, the company said in a statement. It added that it had been negotiating with the housing agency over the issue, but that the talks had broken down because federal officials were seeking access to too much user information “without adequate safeguards.” Interestin…

Could definitely see this. They could also be trying to prevent setting a data-sharing precedent that other Federal agencies will look to utilize.

Yes - I just submitted a related article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19516173) that has additional details on the data access request and reports that the investigation has spread to Twitter and Google.

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#136

Post by praneshp »

munk-a wrote: post #130
SamReidHughes wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

National security reasons if you're a government or contractor, and likewise financial security reasons if you're a corporation.

The former is valid, the latter I disagree with strongly. Specifically... Too bad. There are costs and risks in employment and employees are exposed to lots of risks that can result in health issues, sudden termination (layoff) and a myriad of other problems, the slight risk an employer accepts when hiring new employees and investing in training absolutely can be offset by insurance (employers can get targeted insura…

Is it typically free to invoke that insurance? Typically my driving insurance goes up if I make a claim. (Assuming someone stealing from you is not your fault)

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#137

Post by munk-a »

randyrand wrote: post #71
bilbo0s wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. > or cause to be made... Key words here. Sure, the government should be going after individual advertisers too, but selective prosecution or not, Facebook is clearly in violation.

How did Facebook cause this to be made? The wording implies that it's meant to address the administrators that demanded such an ad be made. The ones who decided to make it. Who caused it to be made. Facebook is just the hardware store in this sense. They provide tools. And you make the billboard. They did not cause this to be made. edit: They still may be responsible for publishing it, which is illegal. I would think…

Providing the tools to specifically do terrible things makes you liable.

This comes up rather often but the "disruptor economy" style business that try and replace existing things that are burdened by regulations and other boring things with shiny new things with Vue, rounded corners, blinking lights and a lack of those regulations are, in fact, totally responsible for their failure to adhere to those regulations.

I feel like D&D and friends are ultimately partially to blame here, and their long (and wonderful, I'm not knocking table top RPGs) history of encouraging pedantic rules lawyering. The US legal code isn't like a tabletop RPG where if nothing specifically says your Thri-Kreen can't quadra-wield bastard swords with monkey grip then go ahead - when laws fail to specifically address situations then the courts are present to try and sanely interpret the intent of the original law and apply it to the new situation.

That's sort of like how murder is illegal, instead of it being illegal to hit someone on the head with a garbage can, hit someone on the head with a tire iron, hit someone on the head with a crow bar... "Murder" isn't an action you can take without a lot of abstract assumptions.

So perhaps Facebook is like a hardware store that sells the...

  Burgler Bundle - a complete set of a ski-mask, crow bar, knife and lockpick set
  (do note "Burgler Bundles" are not intended for burglery, theft, larceny
  or other crimes, by purchasing the markers of the "Burgler Bundle"
  are hereby absolved of responsibility for any law breaking committed)
Trying to manufacture or sell that in the store would probably get you arrested (unless done in a valid parody form I guess?) similarly Facebook set up tools here to make it absolutely trivial to break some laws "Oh but we didn't realize we were breaking any laws officer" - welp, that's why newspapers and such have legal departments that review ads being placed in them, skipping that step to save money doesn't absolve you from guilt.

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#138

Post by munk-a »

praneshp wrote: post #136
munk-a wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The former is valid, the latter I disagree with strongly. Specifically... Too bad. There are costs and risks in employment and employees are exposed to lots of risks that can result in health issues, sudden termination (layoff) and a myriad of other problems, the slight risk an employer accepts when hiring new employees and investing in training absolutely can be offset by insurance (employers can get targeted insura…

Is it typically free to invoke that insurance? Typically my driving insurance goes up if I make a claim. (Assuming someone stealing from you is not your fault)

I can't answer this with confidence, I suspect it would go up if you made a claim similar to other insurances. Though car insurance is a weird racket so business interruption insurances may not be able to get away with it.

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#139

Post by aaomidi »

Kalium wrote: post #128
aaomidi wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there direct evidence this is true or is it just a "common sense" thing that makes sense but might very well be false?

Before I or others go looking for such, what would you consider an acceptable standard of direct evidence?

I honestly don't have an opinion on it. It just seems something that's repeated and accepted often and I'm being skeptical is all.

I will probably look into it myself too! So whatever you can add to the discussion is great :)

Re: Facebook Accused by HUD of Housing Bias Over Use of Targeted Ads

#140

Post by modernthumb »

kingbirdy wrote: post #115
brightball wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've really never understood the point of using credit scores when hiring. I completely understand it when making decisions on actually loaning money, leasing agreement, etc...

If you're hiring someone who would have access to valuable information that could be sold, who would have information before the market, or who could potentially be paid to sabotage the company, it's important to ensure the candidate has good credit so they're less likely to do those things, since they at least wouldn't feel a financial pressure to do so and would only do it out of greed.

Credit scores aren't an indicator for morals. Do you really have so much faith in the current credit system that you'd be willing to turn someone from a job they're otherwise qualified. The argument could be totally flipped on it's head. It's important to hire someone with a bad credit score (using it as a measure of wealth apparently) because they will value their job more and not do anything to risk losing it.
Post reply on HN