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

61–70 of 113 posts

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#61

Post by monkeynotes »

zhobbs wrote: post #45
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'm considering purchasing one. In general, I value convenience and personalization over privacy. I completely don't relate to the idea of relevant ads being a bad thing. Anyways, as someone who spends a lot of time panning a laptop or iPad to track a toddler who is FaceTiming grandma, this device solves an important problem for us.

I think this is the truth of the world we live in. People want this stuff so bad that they are willing to give away a lot in exchange.

The other component is apathy, many people are just resigned to the fact that they will be surveilled one way or another.

I can foresee huge implications for all of this, it doesn't take much to get from here to using these devices to aid law enforcement. I know the argument is 'if you have nothing to hide... it keeps the kids safe...' but it all smells of a conformist dystopia.

Edit: I have a bunch of Google Homes, I count myself in the apathetic group, sadly.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#62

Post by danShumway »

School-Cotton wrote: post #40
danShumway wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First, the Echo is always listening for a wakeword, and just because of the inherent limitations of the device, will occasionally get wakewords wrong. By default, Android phones don't listen to wakewords when locked, and can be easily configured to require a button press before listening.

Second, the microphone on your smartphone is less powerful than the microphone on your Echo, and your smartphone isn't omnipresent in every room of your house simultaneously, including guest bedrooms.

Third, (opinion me) Amazon is a slightly less trustworthy company than Google, and a much less trustworthy company than Apple.

And finally, you can outright turn off assistants on your phone (and should). An always-on virtual assistant run by Google that always listens even when your phone is locked is also a privacy nightmare, but there's pretty much no reason to have that.

If you're paranoid about the security of carrying a microphone that could be enabled via software at any time, you can also install a custom ROM on your Android device that uninstalls Google Assistant and non-FOSS software entirely. LineageOS is really good, I highly recommend it -- it's just not feasible to install for regular, nontechnical consumers.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#63

Post by toomuchtodo »

FussyZeus wrote: post #60
toomuchtodo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is for video conferencing users that are not tech literate. This is something I would get for my grandmother, or my wife's grandmother, instead of an iPhone for video conferencing. If it was not offered by Facebook. I would trust Mozilla (perhaps partnered with the EFF) or Apple to offer such a product if they would charge for quality hardware, reliable infra, and long term support. Sell your trust as the featur…

> This is for video conferencing users that are not tech literate. So why does it increasingly feel like privacy and security are reserved for those who can afford it and/or know how to do it themselves? Why is every poor person who doesn't have the time to learn technology basically hung out to dry in terms of data protection?

Because regulation is lagging. Call your congressperson (US-centric advice).

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#64

Post by _f1dq »

recursivecaveat wrote: post #52

You know your brand is toxic when a generic/faceless version of your product would have been received better. Someone else here mentioned that it should have been "Instagram Portal", which I totally agree with, or maybe even better: "WhatsApp Portal". It seems like Facebook is trying to resuscitate its reputation by releasing this obviously invasive device and swearing on a stack of bibles that they won't touch the d…

I wonder how much they're interested in resuscitating their reputation with this product vs hoe much they're interested in targeting a demographic they may not have had a lot of in roads into. A demographic that has time and money to spend: the Baby Boomer generation and older. They're generally not technically savvy like the generations after them so Facebook built a device that all they have to do is talk to. Every time I see an ad for Facebook Portal it includes a person from that demographic.

Meanwhile, Facebook gets to suck up all that valuable data they so lust for and start selling ads to the elderly Portal users. I thought it was bad that my parents friends are falling for scams and buying too much stuff on QVC. I don't think they stand a chance at Facebook targeting them.

I hate that I'm so cynical about this. I really do. But Facebook has proven time and again all they care about is our data to sell to advertisers. So I can't help but see any new products of theirs through that lens.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#65

Post by prophesi »

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…

To be fair, the "minimum security standards" are a very low bar.

I hope the public soon realizes that harvesting metadata is just as valuable to advertisers as the actual content of your messages. In fact, it's arguably more valuable since you can discern all of the details without any of the regulations.

E2E Encryption is ad tech's latest sleight-of-hand. Everything, including the metadata, should be encrypted. It's otherwise pointless.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#66

Post by YourMatt »

recursivecaveat wrote: post #52

You know your brand is toxic when a generic/faceless version of your product would have been received better. Someone else here mentioned that it should have been "Instagram Portal", which I totally agree with, or maybe even better: "WhatsApp Portal". It seems like Facebook is trying to resuscitate its reputation by releasing this obviously invasive device and swearing on a stack of bibles that they won't touch the d…

I don't think a generic version would have ever caught my attention at all. I'd think Instagram's jumped the shark if they branded it with that. Like, that would just sound like a photo frame that only shows IG posts or something; I'd roll my eyes and move on. I don't know anything about WhatsApp other than people were hacked or something.

For non-tech folks, I think the Facebook brand great. They chat with friends and family with Facebook messenger. This must be where they can make video calls to those same people. You get it just by seeing the name and the product together.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#67

Post by bronson »

cbsks wrote: post #58
bronson wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [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.

Whoosh

Poe's law is strong with this post.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#68

Post by Zelphyr »

dbtx wrote: post #28

> Even the Muppets can’t make Facebook Portal seem less creepy (linked article at FastCompany) [1] The Muppets pushing anything is and already was obscene (Kermit sipping Lipton meme, anyone?). Their first feature film, which is roughly as old as I am, revolved around Kermit following his dream and specifically not selling out his own species by making an advertisement . [1] https://www.fastcompany.com/90409198/even-…

Disney is definitely milking that acquisition for all its worth. Which is understandable if you read the history of Disney. Licensing for Mikey Mouse was a cash cow for them from the start. And if I'm being honest, I have to admit that I generally enjoy Disney content. However, every time I turn around now I'm seeing the Muppets shilling for some product or other. The Muppets are Disney's to do with as they please. I just wish they'd be more discerning and tasteful about who and what they license to. Pitching for anything coming out of Facebook sours the Muppets brand in my opinion.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#69

Post by starbugs »

zhobbs wrote: post #45
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'm considering purchasing one. In general, I value convenience and personalization over privacy. I completely don't relate to the idea of relevant ads being a bad thing. Anyways, as someone who spends a lot of time panning a laptop or iPad to track a toddler who is FaceTiming grandma, this device solves an important problem for us.

The problem is it doesn't end with relevant ads. It doesn't even end with Cambridge Analytica. The business model of Facebook is absolutely clear. You are the product and the currency is you. If they can convert that to real $ they'll do it by any means without thinking about the implications. FB has proven again and again that they are incapable of considering or do not want to consider the wider implications of their actions. It's absolutely toxic and your actions today will define the future your children will be living in tomorrow. I personally think that it would be great if that future wasn't 1984 on steroids.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#70

Post by lostlogin »

mokus wrote: post #51
lostlogin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d this a joke lacking /s, or a genuine post?

I had trouble telling from the first sentence or so, but after reading to the end I’m pretty confident it’s a sarcastic take on a (hypothetical?) press release.

It certainly reads just like one.
Post reply on HN