Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Man sometimes I think people forget phone books existed for a long time. If the notion were introduced today, nobody would tolerate them. That they once existed is hardly an argument that such things are a good idea.
Not to mention that all people I knew growing up opted to have their numbers removed from the phone books. People don’t want their number to be visible to everyone.
Facebook does not plan to notify half-billion users affected by data leak
271–280 of 315 posts
Re: Facebook does not plan to notify half-billion users affected by data leak
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
If customers do not care enough to stop using the product then there is no harm. Put in another way: the people you are trying to protect don't want your protection, because they don't care enough about the breach to stop using the product. They shouldn't be learning about the breaches from the company that has been breached because that gives the company too much power. Instead we should empower watchdog organizatio…
> If customers do not care enough to stop using the product then there is no harm If you quit using FB and were still leaked, now what? If you were leaked because they hold a shadow account?
The problem is even worse: if your friend shares their contact list and that is the data that gets leaked, what then? I think that brings to question the entire idea of a phone number belonging to one person. A friend can give consent to share your information. Maybe we are focusing on the wrong set of problems?
Maybe phone numbers / email addresses being leaked is a problem that cannot be solved and instead we should focus our efforts on spam filtering or being able to easily change those identifiers.
Re: Facebook does not plan to notify half-billion users affected by data leak
#273The "real names" myth was the biggest scam played against people in the past 15 years. The media are also wholesale responsible for perpetuating that damaging trend. Historians of the future will look at the past 2 decades with disbelief.
Scam? That assumes deliberately misleading people for the scammer to benefit. Who exactly is benefiting from this? While I don't agree that it's obvious even now that that using real names is damaging (i.e. makes things worse than anonymity/pseudonymity) the assumption that it's a scam goes 100% against Hanlon's razor. It's pretty easy to claim that using real names online does more harm than good when pointing at a…
Facebook.
Re: Facebook does not plan to notify half-billion users affected by data leak
#274Re: Facebook does not plan to notify half-billion users affected by data leak
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
If customers do not care enough to stop using the product then there is no harm. Put in another way: the people you are trying to protect don't want your protection, because they don't care enough about the breach to stop using the product. They shouldn't be learning about the breaches from the company that has been breached because that gives the company too much power. Instead we should empower watchdog organizatio…
No, societies recognize that everyone shouldn't need to be a doctor/engineer/financial analyst to avoid harm in daily activities, so we collectively empower regulators like the FDA/FAA/SEC to protect us from unfettered capitalism. Likewise we shouldn't expect people to all be computer security experts, but we should expect regulators to keep us safe by creating standards and enforcing penalties for companies failing…
This centralizes power to a few at the expense of the many. Furthermore I deem the social contract to be unethical so I would not include myself in the "everyone" camp. I'd much rather see watchdog organizations regulate the market.
Re: Facebook does not plan to notify half-billion users affected by data leak
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I think about a small, bootstrapped operation, that kind of fine would bankrupt them. When I think about Facebook, that kind of fine wouldn’t even bother them. Not sure what the answer there is. At some level a very harsh fine says, no matter the value of the product, if you screw up we shut you down, unless you’re big enough to not care at all.
Perhaps the fine amount should be a function of market cap for public companies.
Perhaps companies should buy insurance for this and then that would incentivize insurance companies to help protect their clients. Insurance requirements are a significant safety factor at many physical businesses. The law is important, but being denied insurance claims is a great private-sector solution. Or course for insurance to be meaningful, the penalties have to have significant teeth. However, a mega-Corp (by revenue) would likely self-insure, however they’d still have incentive to do right if the penalties were per record, not per breach. For HIPAA, there’s a fine of up to $10k per record for a breach. 10k times 200,000,000 users affected becomes real money even to Facebook. And, let’s make the fines payable to the user, not the government. The user is the one incurring the harm, not the government. The government still gets their slice since such awards are taxable.
Re: Facebook does not plan to notify half-billion users affected by data leak
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If customers do not care enough to stop using the product then there is no harm. Facebook users (notably not customers) are the ones being harmed here, and they don't exactly have free reign to choose the platform their communities talk and organize on. If I choose not to use Facebook then I'm isolating myself from my community.
Relying on one irresponsible for-profit organization for your communications is a disaster waiting to happen. By using that service, you enable them to continue. It takes two to tango.
What the hell is the FTC and DOJ doing allowing these obvious anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions? How is Amazon able to sell physical and digital products, control distribution channels, and sell significant infrastructure? I am no monopoly expert, but in my opinion, AWS is a significant competitive issue. Did we learn nothing from US Steel and Standard Oil? Has the Clayton Act been ignored? It seems like the Sherman Act matters as well: companies all agreeing, within hours, to ban certain apps or content. That’s not competition.
Re: Facebook does not plan to notify half-billion users affected by data leak
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, societies recognize that everyone shouldn't need to be a doctor/engineer/financial analyst to avoid harm in daily activities, so we collectively empower regulators like the FDA/FAA/SEC to protect us from unfettered capitalism. Likewise we shouldn't expect people to all be computer security experts, but we should expect regulators to keep us safe by creating standards and enforcing penalties for companies failing…
> No, societies recognize that everyone shouldn't need to be a doctor/engineer/financial analyst to avoid harm in daily activities, so we collectively empower regulators like the FDA/FAA/SEC to protect us from unfettered capitalism. This centralizes power to a few at the expense of the many. Furthermore I deem the social contract to be unethical so I would not include myself in the "everyone" camp. I'd much rather se…
However, the FTC needs to play a bigger role in enforcing Clayton. Facebook should never have been allowed to buy Instagram or WhatsApp.
Re: Facebook does not plan to notify half-billion users affected by data leak
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now it makes more sense. Going a bit further you could perform it within the already existing framework: apply criminal penalties where sufficient threshold of harm have been reached. Perhaps even judicial doctrine a bit to better handle cases of large number of small, or statistical, harms - there are parallels to how we already tackle health hazards and other stochastic, broad harms. The key consideration is avoidi…
> there are parallels to how we already tackle health hazards and other stochastic, broad harms. I like your approach to these damages as stochastic, broad, ergo "actuarially" manageable ...
Re: Facebook does not plan to notify half-billion users affected by data leak
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because I would really like to know if I'm affected. According to "Have I Been Pwned" my phone number is not in the list, but about one or two weeks ago I noticed that my spam folder was unusually full, which led me to believe that something new must have happened. Shortly thereafter Facebook's leak hit the news. From my point of view it is their obligation to notify all the affected users. It's morally the right thi…
The leak did not include email addresses, so your email spam issue is unrelated.