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

FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 221 posts

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#171

Post by gridlockd »

godelski wrote: post #136
gridlockd wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You did give them explicit permission by participating in the modern financial system. That's why I keep saying all the hypothetical privacy concerns with Facebook's Libra already are reality with the current financial system. Equifax also didn't get fined because of what they were doing, but because they were negligent in handling the data. Having said that, given the importance of consumer debt in the US economy, c…

You say that as if it already happening makes it okay. Libra is getting hounded because the flaws are visible, frankly because people are suspicious of Facebook now. But the credit agencies doing similar things that we consider unethical, but operating in the background and hidden, doesn't make it right. I remember my mother telling me as a child "just because someone else does something doesn't mean you should." I'm…

> You say that as if it already happening makes it okay.

I'm not saying "it's okay". It is what it is. I'm saying we're applying a double standard. It's like complaining about lighting a match in the middle of a wildfire.

> Because if the FTC cracks down on them then it sets a precedent to crack down on the credit agencies.

That makes no sense me. They can crack down on Libra for any number of reasons. They're clearly okay with what the credit bureaus are doing right now, why wait for Facebook to come along and do the same?

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#172

Post by tantalor »

thesausageking wrote: post #164

The head of the FTC voted against it and gave his reasoning here: https://twitter.com/chopraftc/status/1154010756079390720 One that stood out for me is complete immunity for for the execs for "known" and "unknown" violations: "Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, and other executives get blanket immunity for their role in the violations. This is wrong and sets a terrible precedent. The law doesn’t give them a special ex…

No different than the broad immunity granted to legislators and top executives in government who authorize and oversee the worst abuses of government.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#173

Post by magashna »

jkestner wrote: post #144
elliekelly wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yesterday I went to set up 2FA for MongoDB and entered my phone number in the form but then realized I could use Authy so I never hit save/submit. I’ve already gotten two text messages from them even though my account shows my phone number as “Not Set.” It really made me wonder what other shady stuff they might be doing with my and my customer’s data.

What's the /dev/null of phone numbers?

Occasionally I'll send the most relentless phishermen the number of a local FBI office

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#174

Post by repolfx »

sailingparrot wrote: post #46
watwatinthewat wrote: post #26

I don't think I agree with Facebook getting a bigger fine than Equifax. I put my own information on FB. Equifax compiled information on me without my explicit consent. Both sets of data got into hands they shouldn't. I realize that misses FB willfully doing what they did and Equifax not intending to be hacked, but for me my consent is equal or more important than what the holders of the data did after they had it. Le…

> I don't think I agree with Facebook getting a bigger fone than Equifax. The issue is Equifax not being fined adequately. Let's maybe not use that as the bar?

Are you assuming here that Equifax could absorb any size of fine?

Also, you seem to be OK with the idea that any company that gets hacked could be fined $5 billion. As being unhackable is an unachievable standard, that effectively means the FTC could bankrupt almost any company on a whim. That would be huge power in their hands and would not magically stop exploits from happening.

I think there's a big question about whether Equifax should have been fined at all. It would appear to either require mass inconsistency by regulators, or would put most US companies that rely on IT out of business.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#175

Post by repolfx »

annadane wrote: post #63

I still find Facebook has one of the most toxic cultures of any company out there. All they've ever done during their history is betray user trust, but it's ok as long as they keep 'apologizing' and then doing nothing to fix it

That's a huge over-reaction.

One reason Facebook came to dominate over older social networks was that they provided much, much better user privacy controls, they were better at keeping fake users off their networks and they kept the site more secure. Before Facebook social networks didn't have APIs and thus didn't have permissions - everything just scraped the (always public) profile pages.

Moreover many of the things they're being rapped for here aren't even betraying user trust. I believe the only time they've ever asked for passwords for third party services is to import friend lists. That's a useful and optional feature. If a mail provider doesn't have an OAuth style API, how else is it meant to work?

I know everyone has decided it's cool to bash Facebook because they're big and use advertising. But when I look at the actions of the FTC here, I wonder how on earth such trivial things turned into such a huge fine. Advertising doesn't kill anyone, and targeted advertising is much preferable to the noisy punch-the-monkey type of barrel scraping ads the internet used to be filled with. If they use a phone number to better target ads to me (presumably regionally) how is this any different to using my IP address? At worst it means I see more local businesses. Yeah, if they'd had some small print somewhere, a few people would have cared. Most wouldn't and we know this because they use WhatsApp which already gives Facebook your phone number. Big deal?

I just can't get worked up about these trivial "evils" that mostly exist for my own convenience, or which are irrelevant given the set of services me and all my friends use i.e. Facebook gets the same data anyway voluntarily. Why am I the only one?

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#176

Post by dmitrygr »

jkestner wrote: post #144
elliekelly wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yesterday I went to set up 2FA for MongoDB and entered my phone number in the form but then realized I could use Authy so I never hit save/submit. I’ve already gotten two text messages from them even though my account shows my phone number as “Not Set.” It really made me wonder what other shady stuff they might be doing with my and my customer’s data.

What's the /dev/null of phone numbers?

Rejection Hotline (605) 475-6968

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#177

Post by godelski »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #41
watwatinthewat wrote: post #26

I don't think I agree with Facebook getting a bigger fine than Equifax. I put my own information on FB. Equifax compiled information on me without my explicit consent. Both sets of data got into hands they shouldn't. I realize that misses FB willfully doing what they did and Equifax not intending to be hacked, but for me my consent is equal or more important than what the holders of the data did after they had it. Le…

> Who did worse, the friend sharing the data I gave to them, or the stranger who got it without permission? I honestly don't know which answer here is supposed to be the obviously correct one.

I feel like the patent is suggesting the theft is the worse one. But I feel like almost everyone would agree that the friend, who you willingly gave the picture to, is the worse person because they betrayed your trust.

I just don't get the analogy.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#178

Post by pteraspidomorph »

thorwasdfasdf wrote: post #170
thfuran wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If I'm worried about Facebook's use of my data the answer is simple: stop using Facebook. Don't forget to stop using every website that embeds facebook buttons (or block the scripts). It's not exactly easy to prevent facebook from gathering information either.

just log out and wipe your cookies/localstorage.

This is insufficient; they fingerprint your devices and collect data on your habits even if you are logged off (not to mention cross reference with their other services). Use effective blocking extensions with up to date blocking lists to block their endpoints entirely, and then get on your knees and pray your friends and family don't share too much information about you without your consent.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#179

Post by kllrnohj »

zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #70

Does it bother anyone else that Facebook is being fined $5 billion while Equifax, a company with a history of anti-consumer activity and privacy violations going back decades, the company that congress was forced to enact the Fair Credit Reporting Act to contain, and who gave away all the personal information for over a hundred million people through its own negligence, was fined a mere $650 million? Do you get the i…

Intent matters. Equifax's breach was a breach - they were attacked. They didn't intentionally post personal information publicly. It was behind a really shitty lock, but it was behind a lock. Facebook's was not, they knowingly & willingly did the things they are being fined for doing.

It bothers me that Equifax exists and is as shitty as it is. But it doesn't bother me at all that intentional maliciousness is punished harsher than incompetent negligence. The degree of the crime matters, too, of course, but this wouldn't be entirely dissimilar to the idea that homicide is a harsher sentence than involuntary manslaughter.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#180

Post by rainyMammoth »

It's sad that their stocks are still up after the announcement.

It is also sad that Facebook is still seen as a somewhat prestigious employer. Some of my friends still brag about working there as if it was the pinnacle of their tech career.

Post reply on HN