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

Facebook Portal – Privacy review

foundation.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 113 posts

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#31

Post by mfer »

earino wrote: post #20

This title is somewhat problematic. It makes it sound like the portal has "privacy not included" and yet that is the name of the blog. In fact, the Portal meets the Mozilla Foundation's "Minimum Security Standards". It gets a yes for encryption, security updates, strong password, manages vulnerabilities and a privacy policy! This is honestly kind of cruddy. You can feel however you want to feel about Facebook, but th…

Security and privacy are two different but related things. Security can help some privacy issues such as encryption stopping others from snooping. It does not include first party privacy issues though.

Facebook has a history of privacy issues (hence the comment on the fine).

File under things that are always left unanswered... what about the content the device picks up when it's not in a call? Like a TV show in the background, a song playing from a different device, or something else. What is allowed but not said can be important. It would be nice to have a research outfit who tested these kinds of things.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#32

Post by JensRex »

dpcan wrote: post #7

I cannot even think of a single person in any of my networks of people who would buy this and put it in their home. It has "hell no" written all over it. It's almost arrogant or bizarre that they would try to launch such a product given how people feel about Facebook and privacy. I suppose it's simply to satisfy shareholders who think Facebook needs to compete in this market???? It's the Zune of the Living-Room Assis…

I agree, but it's not very different from Alexa or Google Home, and people are buying those, for some reason.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#33

Post by dmitriid »

wolco wrote: post #27
bogwog wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what the consequences would be if after a few years Facebook just decided to disable E2E encryption and all those privacy features, and started collecting and using all that data for advertising purposes contrary to what they're claiming now? Another $5 billion fine? $10 billion? $100 billion? If enough people buy it, it could still be a profitable endeavor. Although I'm sure we can trust Facebook not to do…

Just wait until they turn all photos public even ones deleted in the past. It is in their terms if they choose.

It was a programming mistake. Only a few accounts were affected. Inadvertently. Only 300 000 users affected. We're committed to privacy as always and in the coming year well take steps to make sure this never happens again. Our estimations were incomplete and a tad off, 270 million accounts affected, possibly more. Our users are at the center of all we do and will do everything in or power to protect their data.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#34

Post by jmiskovic »

dessant wrote: post #10
FussyZeus wrote: post #2

Saw an advertisement for this in a theater some months back. The wife and I turned to each other and said "Hell no." She isn't even that security aware, it's just... why. What is this for? What problem does this solve? Our iPhones do this already without constant surveillance and probably have superior hardware. This feels much to me like Stadia did to Google: It's a company inserting itself into a position it didn't…

Stadia is a dream come true for Google. Collecting all that personal data at scale about how people interact with virtual environments and how they react to certain situations will give them an unprecedented look into human nature. Ads and product placements is AAA games is also fairly untapped territory, this is why I'm doubtful that Google will give up on this opportunity and shut down Stadia, as some people have p…

Speaking of product placement in games, I also find it untapped and potentially huge market, not just in AAA games.

I mean, if there's a car in the game, why not make it Renault to sponsor development? It seems vastly better than obnoxious ad banners or freemium whale hunting. Is there anything morally problematic with it?

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#36

Post by sodosopa »

dmitriid wrote: post #33
wolco wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait until they turn all photos public even ones deleted in the past. It is in their terms if they choose.

It was a programming mistake. Only a few accounts were affected. Inadvertently. Only 300 000 users affected. We're committed to privacy as always and in the coming year well take steps to make sure this never happens again. Our estimations were incomplete and a tad off, 270 million accounts affected, possibly more. Our users are at the center of all we do and will do everything in or power to protect their data.

“Only 300,000”

You’re minimizing exposing information of enough people to populate most of Cincinnati, Ohio (301k)?

Casting that as “only 300,000” is sickening.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#37

Post by SN76477 »

ekianjo wrote: post #35

I wish Mozilla would stop criticizing everything that moves in the name of virtue and instead focus on making great products.

They are just following along with their mission statement.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/ Our mission: Keep the internet open and accessible to all.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#38

Post by School-Cotton »

bogwog wrote: post #25
dpcan wrote: post #7

I cannot even think of a single person in any of my networks of people who would buy this and put it in their home. It has "hell no" written all over it. It's almost arrogant or bizarre that they would try to launch such a product given how people feel about Facebook and privacy. I suppose it's simply to satisfy shareholders who think Facebook needs to compete in this market???? It's the Zune of the Living-Room Assis…

The average person tends not to care too much about their privacy. It's an abstract problem, and it'd take an extreme like video evidence of a Facebook employee jacking it to a nude photo they discretely captured from your webcam while you were in the bathroom. Just look at the Oculus Rift. The "sensors" are literally webcams connected to a Facebook app that you point at your living room, your bedroom, your kids, etc…

> The average person tends not to care too much about their privacy.

This is not quite accurate. The average person cares a lot about privacy, but understands privacy differently from the HN/tech/anti-Facebook zeitgeist.

People care about privacy from people they know. They care about whether their parents, significant other, coworkers, and friends can see things they intend for them not to.

Most people don't care about whether private information about them is collected and stored on servers without any human ever looking at it (even if, hypothetically, some humans with nefarious intent could look at it someday). But this is an extremely narrow interpretation of "privacy".

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#39

Post by bronson »

dmitriid wrote: post #33
wolco wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait until they turn all photos public even ones deleted in the past. It is in their terms if they choose.

It was a programming mistake. Only a few accounts were affected. Inadvertently. Only 300 000 users affected. We're committed to privacy as always and in the coming year well take steps to make sure this never happens again. Our estimations were incomplete and a tad off, 270 million accounts affected, possibly more. Our users are at the center of all we do and will do everything in or power to protect their data.

> [we] will do everything in or power to protect their data.

Cambridge Analytica and other recent events show this statement to be meaningless. Facebook could have done a lot more to protect customer data but chose not to.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#40

Post by School-Cotton »

danShumway wrote: post #19
tcd wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have purchased - and installed - Google Home (and Mini's) and Alexa's in their homes. They think they're "cute", and offer a valuable service to them. They are a microphone controlled by data raping giants. People use "Assistants" and enable full tracking technologies on their devices ("See how great it is Google has your every location on a map for the last decade"). People have not only accepted but embraced…

I don't think it is. The difference is that Gmail/Amazon aren't hated the same way as Facebook is. People aren't smart about surveillance, they're not smart enough to realize that giving Instagram access to their phone is a bad idea. But, there are 2 perfectly capable home assistants on the market today that (right or wrong) aren't part of the same consumer-level narrative about privacy, and people like simple, strai…

Why is owning an Echo device any more of a privacy nightmare than owning a smartphone? The Echo is not always listening/recording; it is activated by a wake word.
Post reply on HN