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

‘People You May Know’ helped Facebook grow exponentially

marker.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 155 posts

Re: ‘People You May Know’ helped Facebook grow exponentially

#141

Post by visarga »

ben_w wrote: post #127
lonelappde wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people's whose weddings got bombed by drones, or who get thrown in jail for having the same skin color and being in the same city block as an alleged perpetrator, may see it differently from you.

There is indeed a lot wrong in this world. What you describe is an additional problem. A normal person targeted by a blackmailer over their sexual history would be a closer model, although even then it would still not be close to the level of a state sponsored attack on you personally — that can include combining the drones with accurate information rather than whatever led to them hitting weddings, or it could be as…

Apparently being Zuck means you need to have an insane level of protection. But regular people also have things to lose when their privacy is thrown out the toilet. Thanks to z.

Re: ‘People You May Know’ helped Facebook grow exponentially

#142

Post by visarga »

mrlala wrote: post #47
solotronics wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He tapes over his camera on his laptop because he doesn't trust it. I do too and don't think this is odd behavior. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuck...

That is physical privacy.. it's so someone can't SEE YOU. Not track your online activity.

Lack of privacy in online activities can be even more damaging today.

Re: ‘People You May Know’ helped Facebook grow exponentially

#143

Post by visarga »

lmm wrote: post #110
brlewis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose A has contacts B and C. If A chooses to share contacts with Facebook, and Facebook suggests B and C to A, I can see why you'd say that's not an invasion of privacy. If Facebook suggests A to C, that's arguably an invasion of privacy. If Facebook suggests B and C to each other, that's unarguably an invasion of privacy.

> If Facebook suggests B and C to each other, that's unarguably an invasion of privacy. How so? Alice tells me she knows Bob and Charlie. I mention Charlie to Bob - completely normal human thing to do. Maybe I think they're in the same circle but I've forgotten exactly why or how I found that out - completely normal human memory behaviour. Where's the invasion of privacy?

Yet you can't mention all the Charile's to Bobs on the planet like FB.

Re: ‘People You May Know’ helped Facebook grow exponentially

#145

Post by nojvek »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #112
uoaei wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Unintentionally uploaded" Because you just happened to accidentally interact with the API in just the right way and downloaded the information to just the right database and deployed a service to production which just happens to access that data... I don't understand how that statement right there isn't literally incriminating evidence. They admitted to uploading the data explicitly, and "unintentional" is a straigh…

That takes a lot of code and effort moreso necessary for it to ever be accidental. We really need a system where courts can have a jury of relevant people from the relevant industry. Imagine if the jury for Oracle v Google were made up of software developers every single time how much more effective and meaningful that would be...

Most VC backed apps like Notion, AirTable, Dropbox and a bunch of others do this when using Google Auth to log in. It seems very common tactic (prolly coming from Marketing & Growth). Google makes it very easy to share your contact list.

When logging in the permissions are (will see your email and contact list). AirTable makes it very very hard to login with GAuth without giving permissions to your contact list.

I feel Google should just disable that permission, it’s abused.

Re: ‘People You May Know’ helped Facebook grow exponentially

#146

Post by giancarlostoro »

nojvek wrote: post #145
giancarlostoro wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That takes a lot of code and effort moreso necessary for it to ever be accidental. We really need a system where courts can have a jury of relevant people from the relevant industry. Imagine if the jury for Oracle v Google were made up of software developers every single time how much more effective and meaningful that would be...

Most VC backed apps like Notion, AirTable, Dropbox and a bunch of others do this when using Google Auth to log in. It seems very common tactic (prolly coming from Marketing & Growth). Google makes it very easy to share your contact list. When logging in the permissions are (will see your email and contact list). AirTable makes it very very hard to login with GAuth without giving permissions to your contact list. I fe…

> I feel Google should just disable that permission, it’s abused.

I should have total control over what parts are given to a third party from my email. Much like Android / iOS permission prompts.

Re: ‘People You May Know’ helped Facebook grow exponentially

#147

Post by NullPrefix »

rococode wrote: post #51
hbosch wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first and last must just be geolocation based, right? Like, these two people are in a room together every X day for Y hours... they probably know each other. The sperm donor guy, though... facial recognition? No idea.

There's gotta be more to that sperm donor story. "Oh that must be my biological kid from that sperm bank trip 20 years ago" is not the natural train of thought when you see someone who maybe vaguely looks like you as a suggestion on Facebook. And whatever the other context was - maybe one of them searching for the other - probably gave Facebook what it needed to make the connection.

Data bought from 23AndMe ?

Re: ‘People You May Know’ helped Facebook grow exponentially

#148

Post by close04 »

kd5bjo wrote: post #139
close04 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about different things. You're considering just the coding accident of an employee removing this and forgetting that. I'm talking about the intentional decision of not validating this in a better, more robust fashion, at least when it comes to issues that have a huge impact on security or privacy. This was a calculated decision. Whether it was done by not putting in place or by removing all the obstacle…

> I'm talking about the intentional decision of not validating this in a better, more robust fashion, ... In my experience, deciding not to do something is unlikely to be intentional. Instead, the something that’s not done simply never presented itself as an idea. Do you have any evidence that this particular lapse was premeditated, or did you come to this conclusion based solely on your prior opinion of their action…

> In my experience, deciding not to do something is unlikely to be intentional.

That's some weird experience. A decision is by definition intentional. It's literally "a conclusion or judgment reached after consideration". The moment a person with power of decision is made aware of an issue both action and inaction become conscious, deliberate decisions.

> did you come to this conclusion based solely on your prior opinion of their actions?

That's quite the assumption given the above and the fact that I was pretty clear that it's based on their continued stream of "mistakes" that tend to be massively in the company's favor. Almost feels like you made it in bad faith.

How many mistakes would you say it takes to make one start beefing up their internal processes so millions of people don't accidentally suffer repeatedly? How many before you start to at least consider that it can't be constantly attributed to bad luck? Would you feel different if a company kept overcharging you by mistake and never returned the money or fixed the issue? But now it's "just" and endless stream of your private data. Uncommon sense...

Re: ‘People You May Know’ helped Facebook grow exponentially

#149

Post by kd5bjo »

close04 wrote: post #148
kd5bjo wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm talking about the intentional decision of not validating this in a better, more robust fashion, ... In my experience, deciding not to do something is unlikely to be intentional. Instead, the something that’s not done simply never presented itself as an idea. Do you have any evidence that this particular lapse was premeditated, or did you come to this conclusion based solely on your prior opinion of their action…

> In my experience, deciding not to do something is unlikely to be intentional. That's some weird experience. A decision is by definition intentional. It's literally "a conclusion or judgment reached after consideration". The moment a person with power of decision is made aware of an issue both action and inaction become conscious, deliberate decisions. > did you come to this conclusion based solely on your prior opi…

I was imprecise and overly snarky in my original reply, and for that I sincerely apologize. I’d still like an answer to the half of my question that you ignored, so let me try again in a more neutral tone:

In my experience, most instances of someone (or a company) not doing something are not examples of conscious, intentional decisions but rather an unconscious process of the proposed thing not coming to mind. As a concrete example, I haven’t made a painting of anything since grade school. The vast majority of days, I didn’t consider and discard the idea of painting; the idea simply never presented itself.

While Facebook’s history must absolutely be taken into account when trying to discern their motivations, I consider it fundamentally unjust to judge any given incident solely based on behavior in other incidents— otherwise, you leave no path to redemption for the alleged transgressor.

As such, I would like to know if you have any evidence specific to this incident that indicates it was intentional rather than an accident, as claimed.

Re: ‘People You May Know’ helped Facebook grow exponentially

#150

Post by solotronics »

mrlala wrote: post #47
solotronics wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He tapes over his camera on his laptop because he doesn't trust it. I do too and don't think this is odd behavior. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuck...

That is physical privacy.. it's so someone can't SEE YOU. Not track your online activity.

There is no difference.
Post reply on HN