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

Facebook 'unintentionally uploaded' 1.5M people's email contacts without consent

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 310 posts

Re: Facebook 'unintentionally uploaded' 1.5M people's email contacts without consent

#271

Post by will_brown »

elmo2you wrote: post #264
Rafuino wrote: post #250

So, when is the FTC going to actually bring down the hammer on FB for violating the consent agreement? There's no way this was "unintentional." At $40,000 per user per day [1], even at just one day of violation, that's a $60 billion fine FB should be liable for. "Under the settlement, Facebook agreed to get consent from users before sharing their data with third parties," so this seems to be EXACTLY in violation of t…

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I do not really see how this violates the FTC agreement, because it covers Facebook sharing user data (stored/tracked/gathered by Facebook) with third parties. However, what Facebook did is far worse than violating that agreement. Facebook gained accessed to user data on third party systems, to which they should never have had access. They gained this (unauthorized) access (at best withou…

The FTC complaint lists a number of instances in which Facebook allegedly made promises that it did not keep:

In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public.

They didn't warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance.

Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users' personal data – data the apps didn't need.

Facebook told users they could restrict sharing of data to limited audiences – for example with "Friends Only." In fact, selecting "Friends Only" did not prevent their information from being shared with third-party applications their friends used.

Facebook had a "Verified Apps" program & claimed it certified the security of participating apps. It didn't.

Facebook promised users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers. It did.

Facebook claimed that when users deactivated or deleted their accounts, their photos and videos would be inaccessible. But Facebook allowed access to the content, even after users had deactivated or deleted their accounts.

Facebook claimed that it complied with the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor Framework that governs data transfer between the U.S. and the European Union. It didn't.

Re: Facebook 'unintentionally uploaded' 1.5M people's email contacts without consent

#272

Post by cyphar »

spork12 wrote: post #265
cyphar wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who haven't seen the clip, [1]. Yes Minister is a brilliant piece of satire (though it does have a somewhat unfortunate Thatcher-esque streak when it comes to discussion of unions -- though it would've been difficult to avoid ridiculing unions in satire from the 1980s). [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y4PEqvk0Jg

Why do think ridiculing unions is bad?

I don't think ridicule is bad at all (and their episodes which were quite heavy on the union-bashing had quite a few nuggets of truth in their ridicule of middle management overruling common sense). But focusing on unions as the source of the problem is shifting the focus of criticism away from the actual source of issues -- austerity.

The workers (and thus the unions) were opposing government policies that were hurting them. Funnily enough (though unsurprisingly), strike rates as well as union membership fell under Thatcher because of her union reforms (which removed much of their bargaining power) -- and so the commonly held view of daily strikes in the 1980s (something Yes Minister capitalises on) isn't really an accurate portrayal.

By laying criticism on one and not the other, Yes Minister showed their Thatcher bias. And it's not at all a stretch to say they had a Thatcher bias -- Thatcher herself said that Yes Minister was her favourite show. So while Yes Minister was very heavily critical of the civil service, they weren't fundamentally critical of the views of the government. Thatcher was very strong on civil service reform too.

Re: Facebook 'unintentionally uploaded' 1.5M people's email contacts without consent

#274

Post by JetSpiegel »

cyphar wrote: post #272
spork12 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do think ridiculing unions is bad?

I don't think ridicule is bad at all (and their episodes which were quite heavy on the union-bashing had quite a few nuggets of truth in their ridicule of middle management overruling common sense). But focusing on unions as the source of the problem is shifting the focus of criticism away from the actual source of issues -- austerity. The workers (and thus the unions) were opposing government policies that were hurt…

Contrast to The Thick of It, a scathing critique of Blairist Third Way as business as usual sold as revolution.

Re: Facebook 'unintentionally uploaded' 1.5M people's email contacts without consent

#276

Post by the_duke »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #270
elmo2you wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I do not really see how this violates the FTC agreement, because it covers Facebook sharing user data (stored/tracked/gathered by Facebook) with third parties. However, what Facebook did is far worse than violating that agreement. Facebook gained accessed to user data on third party systems, to which they should never have had access. They gained this (unauthorized) access (at best withou…

Just stop using Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. I did, years ago, and absolutely nothing of value was lost.

While dropping Facebook and Instagram is easy, WhatsApp is much harder. It's become the main communication medium for many, including a lot of group chats.

While you can abstain, it creates all kinds of awkwardness that I'm not willing to deal with currently.

Re: Facebook 'unintentionally uploaded' 1.5M people's email contacts without consent

#277

Post by michaelmior »

Rafuino wrote: post #250

So, when is the FTC going to actually bring down the hammer on FB for violating the consent agreement? There's no way this was "unintentional." At $40,000 per user per day [1], even at just one day of violation, that's a $60 billion fine FB should be liable for. "Under the settlement, Facebook agreed to get consent from users before sharing their data with third parties," so this seems to be EXACTLY in violation of t…

I'm not sure what the law currently is, but it seems that intent shouldn't really matter that much here.

Re: Facebook 'unintentionally uploaded' 1.5M people's email contacts without consent

#278

Post by elmo2you »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #270
elmo2you wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I do not really see how this violates the FTC agreement, because it covers Facebook sharing user data (stored/tracked/gathered by Facebook) with third parties. However, what Facebook did is far worse than violating that agreement. Facebook gained accessed to user data on third party systems, to which they should never have had access. They gained this (unauthorized) access (at best withou…

Just stop using Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. I did, years ago, and absolutely nothing of value was lost.

What user do, or should do, isn't really a part of this argument. This is about Facebook violating agreements they made with governments or them violating laws. This is a subject of public prosecution. How users should respond is a different matter.

Re: Facebook 'unintentionally uploaded' 1.5M people's email contacts without consent

#279

Post by mannykannot »

carnagii wrote: post #103

18 USC 1030 (a)(4) (4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 A criminal investigation into whether or not this was really accidental would be entirely warranted here. If there was intent to access this…

Simply asking for email passwords indicates an intent to gain unauthorized access, and disguising the request as being part of a security-enhancing action eliminates all doubt.

Re: Facebook 'unintentionally uploaded' 1.5M people's email contacts without consent

#280

Post by elmo2you »

will_brown wrote: post #271
elmo2you wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I do not really see how this violates the FTC agreement, because it covers Facebook sharing user data (stored/tracked/gathered by Facebook) with third parties. However, what Facebook did is far worse than violating that agreement. Facebook gained accessed to user data on third party systems, to which they should never have had access. They gained this (unauthorized) access (at best withou…

The FTC complaint lists a number of instances in which Facebook allegedly made promises that it did not keep: In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public. They didn't warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance. Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed…

In my opinion, Facebook no doubt violated the FTC agreement and pretty much every other promise they ever made. However, that's a different matter. I do not argue against them being punished for that, but this situation appears to be a different kind of case. A violation of the law to be precise, and should be publicly prosecuted accordingly.
Post reply on HN