51–60 of 269 posts
> Facebook whistleblower warns ‘dangerous’ encryption will aid espionage by hostile nations So another reason the politicians in DC are so abnormally happy about Haugen. She's providing a security/safety theater argument against encryption, one that is so convoluted it's bound to confuse the general public in a we have to deny your rights to protect your rights sort of way.
As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…
As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…
Frances Haugen is really just bothered by the fact that some stubborn betas refuse to conform to her worldview...but like Tipper Gore, she'll have to settle for the equivalent of a Parental Advisory warning
As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…
I don’t understand why it matters what Haugen believes - whether in “no encryption” or space fairies or whatever - instead of what she proved, which is the profoundly amoral and dishonest nature of the company.
We should be able to say that the leaks themselves are good, but also that they are making a transparent political play for control over Facebook (more than reining in their amorality and dishonesty).
Whistleblowers do not usually have the support of a top tier lobbying firm (Bryson Gillette) paid for by a rival tech billionaire (Pierre Omidyar). I say take the leaks, but say no thanks to the "advice" it comes with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The obvious solution to #2 is encrypted private social networks that aggressively lock out the monitors. To continue the monitoring it'll require abolishing encryption, that's where the views in question (more freedom + less surveillence and more content monitoring) inevitably are going to end up conflicting and must always end up conflicting.
How do you ban monitoring of public posts ?
I'm not suggesting you should or can in any practical way (how heavily - or not at all - that public posts should be monitored by the government is a different debate from what I was saying).
I'm saying that the parent comment claiming the views are not necessarily conflicting, is incorrect.
This must always conflict in the end:
> I don't think these are conflicting views: (1) Less monitoring on private messages (2) More monitoring on public posts
More aggressive public monitoring (along with the follow-on laws to regulate & punish a lot more things said in public) will inevitably result in a drive toward more encrypted private social networks that can't be easily monitored. Those private social networks will rely heavily on encryption. The aggressive public monitors will have to abolish encryption to then regain the high degree of mass content monitoring they used to have. Call it networks going underground, or dark; the authorities will come up with a negative naming scheme for it as they seek to castigate the shift.
You can bet on the rise of mass popular encrypted private social networks (likely built around subjects/topics/ideology/x thing in common; more like groups or subreddits than mass social media today, in other words). It's coming this decade. And the response from the government toward that is quite predictable. They'll use it as another argument against encryption.
As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…
As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…
HN is a bit schizophrenic on this topic. On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. Hopefully these aren't the same people expressing these contradictory points of view. I'd be curious to know what both side think the ideal social network should look like.
As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…
HN is a bit schizophrenic on this topic. On one hand, it seems everybody wants more freedom and less surveillance, but they give FB a hard time for not monitoring content better. Hopefully these aren't the same people expressing these contradictory points of view. I'd be curious to know what both side think the ideal social network should look like.
As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s... A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really wha…
> her suggestions really do not align with what the tech community wants at all. I feel like we as a tech community should take a step back and consider whether or not we should not be the only ones that decide what should or should not be done. It is a massive country with many opposing viewpoints. We have massive conflicts of interest and some tech companies have shown over and over that greed trumps morals in many…
I am not trying to throw my hands up in defeat but pointing to an intransigent problem that is not easily fixable however simple every side of the argument tries to frame it and why they should be the arbiters of power/control. I understand the reluctance of any individual or company to hand over a large portion of control to a government or other community that doesn't have a track record - it is a fraught situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> her suggestions really do not align with what the tech community wants at all. I feel like we as a tech community should take a step back and consider whether or not we should not be the only ones that decide what should or should not be done. It is a massive country with many opposing viewpoints. We have massive conflicts of interest and some tech companies have shown over and over that greed trumps morals in many…
In my opinion, domain experts have a moral obligation to speak up regarding policy that involves their area of expertise. On the topic of encryption, we're the only community with an understanding of what "breaking encryption" means. There are no skeleton keys, only vulnerabilities. We have a moral and ethical duty to fight for encryption, privacy, and security, not against it.
Encryption was not the only point brought up by the OP, they were also against government regulation. My main point is that we are tech workers that have conflicts of interest and that we should look hard at our viewpoints and ask ourselves if they are better for us or better for everyone. We are humans and like other industries, greed has crept in and we don't always make great decisions when left on our own.