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

Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 122 posts

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#71

Post by _Understated_ »

gorgoiler wrote: post #67
_Understated_ wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Facebook allows third parties to scrape data (who can incentivize users any which way) where does it stop? What say should Facebook have here though? I'd argue that when I am viewing data through my browser it's on my computer at that point. I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view o…

...but Facebook doesn’t have to let you use their service (for free) if they don’t want to. If they don’t like something you are doing, they can do whatever they like.

Of course they can but my point still stands: what I do with data that is, by every definition, running on MY computer is my business, not Facebook's. Them banning me for doing that (possibly violating their Terms) is a separate argument.

In addition, NYU didn't sign up to Facebook so they have no need to abide by their Terms. At least, they shouldn't have to abide by them... not sure what the laws in the US say about it.

I'm not for government intervention for things like this but the courts (I believe) have already ruled that scraping data is legit.

Edit: added that I think they shouldn't be able to have a say

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#72

Post by _Understated_ »

Guest42 wrote: post #69
gorgoiler wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...but Facebook doesn’t have to let you use their service (for free) if they don’t want to. If they don’t like something you are doing, they can do whatever they like.

Are you sure there isn’t more nuance to the situation?

Like what?

It's not running on their servers at this point: It's on my computer.

Now, I don't know what the US laws exactly say about that but in terms of common sense, FB should not be allowed to make any claims to that data when it's on my computer.

Sure, they can say "well, no more data for you, you're banned" but that's a different argument.

In addition, having control over users of FB is one thing as they signed up to it and agreed to the terms but NYU didn't so I have no idea how they can even claim to enforce them especially if NYU are scraping data from the users computer (I assume they aren't making a connection to the FB servers!)

Also, not that it matters for this argument, I do not have a FB (or any social media) account: I tried it, maybe 10 years ago, and found it silly :)

Edit: Guys, this isn't Reddit! I'm all for downvotes but not drive-by downvoting... a simple "I downvoted you because..." would suffice.

Edit2: Mea Culpa! As has been pointed out, I replied to someone that wasn't actually commenting on my post... not sure how I missed that!

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#73

Post by CogitoCogito »

ankit219 wrote: post #40
White_Wolf wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't(technically speaking) the addon taking data only from the users PC and not from facebook servers? At the end of the day it shouldn't be facebook's call what goes on the user's device. One thing about these addons is that you can actually take them apart and see what is going on if you don't trust that the addon is built from their github code.

I do think that users opting in is an insufficient response. A lot of users opt in for things they do not understand. (Terms and conditions of any site or app for example). For tech savvy users with the plug in, they will be smart enough to know what they are accepting, though that is not true for everyone. I like the idea of open source code and that is helpful but there is got to be a better way. And I also believe…

> I do think that users opting in is an insufficient response. A lot of users opt in for things they do not understand. (Terms and conditions of any site or app for example). For tech savvy users with the plug in, they will be smart enough to know what they are accepting, though that is not true for everyone.

Everything you just said here applies to Facebook themselves as much as the researchers. If we allow people to opt-in to sending data to Facebook (by creating an account), why would be against giving those same users the option to send the data somewhere else?

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#74

Post by boomboomsubban »

_Understated_ wrote: post #57
ankit219 wrote: post #8

For once, can we have articles (or even opinion pieces) which try to explain the context and position of both sides rather than pieces such as these. These kind of writings do nothing to change the mind of anyone. For someone who hates FB and its practices, they reinforce the already held belief. And for those, who are skeptical of such media articles, they would be put off by the language used. And make no mistake,…

> If Facebook allows third parties to scrape data (who can incentivize users any which way) where does it stop? What say should Facebook have here though? I'd argue that when I am viewing data through my browser it's on my computer at that point. I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view o…

> I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view on my computer?

While I agree with your opinion, that data would still be Facebook/the advertisers' intellectual property and your actions could be considered infringing the terms you agreed with.

Though NYU may not have agreed to those terms, encouraging others to violate the terms and provide them the data could be considered the intellectual property damages needed to at least start a civil court case

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#75

Post by _Understated_ »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #74
_Understated_ wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Facebook allows third parties to scrape data (who can incentivize users any which way) where does it stop? What say should Facebook have here though? I'd argue that when I am viewing data through my browser it's on my computer at that point. I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view o…

> I've downloaded it so why should Facebook be allowed to decide what I can and cannot do with it any more than they can decide what I can do with my emails that I also view on my computer? While I agree with your opinion, that data would still be Facebook/the advertisers' intellectual property and your actions could be considered infringing the terms you agreed with. Though NYU may not have agreed to those terms, en…

Fair point but I would argue that NYU are only looking at the page and saying "this user viewed ad XYZ" and recording that fact.

They're not (I assume) copying the advert and storing it on their servers. I could see Facebook arguing that taking a copy of it is a violation of IP somehow.

But simply looking at the page and recording some of the meta data is the same as someone asking me on the phone "what advert did you just view?".

Would that be violating IP?

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#76

Post by Guest42 »

_Understated_ wrote: post #72
Guest42 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure there isn’t more nuance to the situation?

Like what? It's not running on their servers at this point: It's on my computer. Now, I don't know what the US laws exactly say about that but in terms of common sense, FB should not be allowed to make any claims to that data when it's on my computer. Sure, they can say "well, no more data for you, you're banned" but that's a different argument. In addition, having control over users of FB is one thing as they signed…

I agree with you. I was referring to the person above me.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#77

Post by _Understated_ »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21
ankit219 wrote: post #8

For once, can we have articles (or even opinion pieces) which try to explain the context and position of both sides rather than pieces such as these. These kind of writings do nothing to change the mind of anyone. For someone who hates FB and its practices, they reinforce the already held belief. And for those, who are skeptical of such media articles, they would be put off by the language used. And make no mistake,…

> isnt that close to how Cambridge Analytica happened? Close to. But different. Cambridge Analytica drew from Facebook’s servers. This plug-in pulls from users’ computers. Cambridge Analytica was not academically affiliated. This is legitimate research. Cambridge was closed source. This is open. Most importantly, users are explicitly sharing their data with NYU. There is no carrot of a personality quiz to obscure the…

I'd also add that Cambridge Analytica used obfuscation to mask the true reason they wanted the data: NYU seems to be totally upfront about the collection.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#78

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

bogomipz wrote: post #60
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cambridge Analytica was academically affiliated. The data they got was laundered through a University of Cambridge researcher Aleksandr Kogan, and their app claimed to be using the data for legitimate academic research. I’m not saying it’s exactly the same, but the fundamental challenge is still present: how can Facebook be sure that these researchers won’t share the data with some controversial organization?

No they were not. Please see this post from Dr David Stillwell from the Psychometric Centers at Cambridge University who responded to a post here a few weeks ago about this very point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24912986

Thanks for the link, but I'm sure you can understand my skepticism of a naked assertion that the reporting on this issue was wrong - especially since this was Mr. Stillwell's only comment ever.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#79

Post by konjin »

ankit219 wrote: post #8

For once, can we have articles (or even opinion pieces) which try to explain the context and position of both sides rather than pieces such as these. These kind of writings do nothing to change the mind of anyone. For someone who hates FB and its practices, they reinforce the already held belief. And for those, who are skeptical of such media articles, they would be put off by the language used. And make no mistake,…

I'm curious, who is on the other side of the debate here? Because I've seen more people argue for a flat earth than a non-evil facebook.

Re: Facebook Is Going After Its Critics in the Name of Privacy

#80

Post by edmundsauto »

rebuilder wrote: post #55
ankit219 wrote: post #8

For once, can we have articles (or even opinion pieces) which try to explain the context and position of both sides rather than pieces such as these. These kind of writings do nothing to change the mind of anyone. For someone who hates FB and its practices, they reinforce the already held belief. And for those, who are skeptical of such media articles, they would be put off by the language used. And make no mistake,…

The thing is, I don't see how Facebook have any business allowing or forbidding users to install software on their own devices. I mean, if this was about FB banning users for TOS violations, that's one thing. But claiming a third party is not legally allowed to provide software that does something FB do not like? That's a whole different can of worms.

IANAL, but if NYU makes software designed to violate a contract between user and FB, isn’t that torturous interference? IOW, I think what you just described is not legal. I can’t make something that is designed to violate a contract, then step back and pretend they aren’t encouraging users to violate a contract w fb.
Post reply on HN