Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Portal – Privacy review

foundation.mozilla.org

71–80 of 113 posts

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#71
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…

Mozilla knows their products are falling behind and will probably continue to do so as long as they maintain their current trajectory. The only other strategy is to compete via PR.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#72
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…

What metadata has yet to and can be encrypted? The recipient, the send time and the message size seem impossible to encrypt.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#73
I don’t get what this is supposed to convey. The post has nothing of substance, takes a shot at Facebook but seems to immediately absolve it, more so with a really shallow security and privacy requirements list. This speaks more about Mozilla than Facebook. They can do a lot better in what ever it is they are trying to do. At the very least explain what the post is intended to do first.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#74
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…

Yeah I’ve seen this twice now for the portal (some CNET article saying people shouldn’t buy it, but not actually reviewing the hardware). It’s annoying because the portal hardware is actually really great. I got the big one for my mom and I have the TV one and they work extremely well. I was looking for something that did what the portal does on the consumer market about a year before it came out and nothing existed.…

> This anti-Facebook stuff is mostly just politics

Some of it is politics, but some of it is Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly lying through his teeth about failing to protect users' privacy. At a certain point, it stops sounding accidental. At worst, it was malicious enough that they were fined $5B for it (and should have been fined more).

If you're going to make the claim that Facebook is not as malicious as everyone says, you're making the more extreme and difficult to believe claim, and you should cite some sources. As it is, it just sounds like you're not interested in reading about their abuses even superficially.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#75
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…

Yeah, the politics around Facebook are tiring...turns out when they gave everybody the power to connect they also gave the tinfoil hats that power We have two portals here at home and almost everyone I know who wants to stay in touch with their families has one too. Specially the kids love it!

Facebook's $5B fine and current antitrust investigation are far beyond the realm of tinfoil hats.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What metadata has yet to and can be encrypted? The recipient, the send time and the message size seem impossible to encrypt.

I think the better question is, "What could count as metadata that we don't have to encrypt?"

But to answer yours: https://github.com/vuvuzela/vuvuzela

Encrypting metadata is a huge challenge. In the meantime, our best bet is to use open-source systems that we know won't be harvesting metadata.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#77
The concept is great, a human-usable video conferencing system that doesn't suck massive balls.

As for the privacy, that's more nuanced. In terms of thirdparty access/security, its almost certainly more secure than the traditional suppliers(I'm looking at your authentication cisco...)

The nitty gritty is data collection by the company it's self. Thats harder. If your VC system uses android under the hood, then you have no privacy at all. Your data is funnelled to google at a minimum, some app vendors, and the company that made it.

Apple, its held in many secret silos in apple land, and not even apple knows which team has what data.

Facebook, now, they need a hardware platform, and this is the first step to getting there. If they were clever, they'd be prostrating themselves demonstrating that they are reformed, that they are full of trust and junk.

But as they are still clinging to the "its not our job to police the myriad of crap people advertise on our site", I don't think they understand. This kind of pressure should force a change, as facebook are publicly traded.

The problem is that tech journalism isn't really journalism. Its unquestionably adding breathless hot takes to PR, or if you've been burnt, unfailingly shitting on every product made by said company.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#78
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…

It literally got the same rating as an Amazon Alexa.

Granted, the hn circlejerk loves to hate on Alexa devices as much as possible as well, but IMO this is "upvote bait" headline.

Dang, can we change the title?

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#79
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I’ve seen this twice now for the portal (some CNET article saying people shouldn’t buy it, but not actually reviewing the hardware). It’s annoying because the portal hardware is actually really great. I got the big one for my mom and I have the TV one and they work extremely well. I was looking for something that did what the portal does on the consumer market about a year before it came out and nothing existed.…

> This anti-Facebook stuff is mostly just politics Some of it is politics, but some of it is Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly lying through his teeth about failing to protect users' privacy. At a certain point, it stops sounding accidental. At worst, it was malicious enough that they were fined $5B for it (and should have been fined more). If you're going to make the claim that Facebook is not as malicious as everyone says…

I have to prove a negative?

Whenever there is a big FB story I try and figure out what actually happened. This is often difficult because 95% of the media reporting on it is either entirely wrong, intentionally misleading, or both.

For the recent Cambridge Analytica thing my take away was that a shady third party (CA) violated FB’s TOS by exploiting a vulnerability in their API that FB had sinced locked down. Cambridge Analytica used that to pull more data from the social graph than they should have been allowed to (after a subset of users participated in scammy quizzes) in order to do stupid things with that data.

When I’ve read the rare detailed reporting from FB’s response [0] about how they’re reacting to issues I’ve been impressed.

Zuckerberg’s comments to the public are also pretty detailed and nuanced - atypically rare for a public facing CEO under massive persistent scrutiny.

This is consistent with what I’ve heard from my friends that work there.

[0]: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/men-are-scum-inside-...

Post reply on HN