My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post • Hacker News Board

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#91

Post by PragmaticPulp » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

bostonsre wrote: post #38

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

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…

> We have massive conflicts of interest and some tech companies have shown over and over that greed trumps morals in many cases.

How is using end-to-end encryption of private communications a case of greed trumping morals? If anything, encrypting private messages and preventing others from reading them - be it Facebook or the various world governments - seems like the obvious moral move.

I think a lot of people, tech or otherwise, are projecting their own ideals on to this Facebook leaker without looking closely at the details of what she’s been lobbying for. Most people seem to want less surveillance and interference with private communications by Facebook but she’s arguing for much, much more.

But that’s the problem: The issue has now been so dramatized in the media that the average viewer doesn’t really know what’s being proposed, they just see “Facebook bad, whistleblower good” and assume it’s what they want.

It’s up to people who know the subject matter, including the tech community who understand things like end-to-end encryption and government regulation thereof, to speak up.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#92

Post by helen___keller » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

paisawalla wrote: post #79

helen___keller wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Furthermore according to the FBI it's ok for Hillary Clinton to keep government communication explicitly marked classified in her basement server because no harm is intended, whereas others have been prosecuted in the absence of intended harm What exactly does this have to do with the topic? Your first paragraphs are talking about treatment of whistleblowers and Hillary Clinton is (obviously) not a whistleblower. A…

He's anticipating the objection re Snowden. You have to be angry about the fact that the information he released makes the govt look bad, and not just the fact of improper process, a la Clinton. Therefore, the treatment of whistleblowers really does depend on who's hand they're strengthening -- the govt or someone else's -- and not a generalized respect for the truth.

> Therefore, the treatment of whistleblowers really does depend on who's hand they're strengthening -- the govt or someone else's -- and not a generalized respect for the truth

This is a very easy argument to make without resorting to political derailment, especially since it's basically a founding principle of our country (separation of powers, because we can't trust governing entities to police themselves, therefore competing and opposed government entities must effectively 'police' each other).

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#93

Post by dls2016 » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

WillPostForFood wrote: post #80

abrahamepton wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

She isn’t just a neutral presenter of data, she is a spokesperson and advocate. She is positioning herself to be a decision maker, or help decision makers.

Isn’t a whistleblower by definition not neutral? I’m not even sure what a neutral whistleblower would look like.

Should her motivations be questioned? Absolutely! But if you don’t like her stance, just say so instead labelling her an “activist” or “advocate” like there’s something inherently bad about those things.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#94

Post by berkes » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

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…

"what the tech community wants" is pluriform and broad.

However, what we clearly see here, is how one company can almost dictate "what all of us get". If Facebook decides to have e2e, that is what we have. If it decides to have "less encryption" that is what we get.

The real issue is not what governments, tech communities or whistleblowers want. The real issue is that it matters very little, because in the end we get "what facebook wants" regardless. And that, according to those leaks, is entirely driven by profit.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#95

Post by wavefunction » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:01 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

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.

Speak for yourself. Facebook has become a threat to my country's democracy and stability and has enabled all sorts of horrific violence. If Facebook could be trusted to do the right thing I would feel differently but they've shown time and again they don't have the capacity or will to do so. "Move fast and break things" apparently applies to everything Facebook touches and so they should be regulated and controlled like a toddler.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#96

Post by BeFlatXIII » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:01 PM UTC

bostonsre wrote: post #60

sanedigital wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I agree that we should absolutely provide advice on our area of expertise for topics in our domain but I don't think we should be the ones that make the decision. The other side of the debate aren't idiots, they have some valid view points, else this encryption debate would have been settled long ago. Encryption was not the only point brought up by the OP, they were also against government regulation. My main po…

I have yet to see a compelling argument for enshrining security vulnerabilities in law outside of the usual sob stories that like to get echoed in Congressional testimony.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#97

Post by dls2016 » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:02 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #40

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

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…

Whistleblower and activist are not mutually exclusive. Most are both, like Snowden was both. Reality Winner too. And whether I agree with someone views is really not relevant toward whether they are whistleblower.

I’d go one step further and say a whistleblower is by definition an activist. The entire point of leaking is to instigate change.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#98

Post by oceanplexian » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:02 PM UTC

yodsanklai wrote: post #5

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

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.

"Everybody" is an increasingly large group of non-technologists with a social and political agenda. It used to be in tech circles most people believe the line should be drawn at illegal content, trolling and obscenities. We don't want more freedom, we want to protect the freedoms that we are entitled to. And no one should need to defend such an obvious position against those who want to turn the web into a glorified television.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#99

Post by dd36 » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

yodsanklai wrote: post #5

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #2

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.

A solution is requiring social media companies to verify the identity of users. They don’t have to require other users know the identity but the company has to. This protects against sock puppet armies and makes bans easier to enforce.

Re: My interview with Steven Levy re. leaking of my Facebook Goodbye post

#100

Post by BobbyJo » Tue, Oct 26, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

sanedigital wrote: post #45

bostonsre wrote: post #38

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.

> There are no skeleton keys, only vulnerabilities.

This is something really unique to digital technologies. In meat-space, everything has a vulnerability: force. With sufficient reason and circumstance, whether or not you give up your keys, the government is still able to claim dominion over anything you're trying to hide. All they have to do is break a few walls.

Digital technologies don't have this problem (feature if you're the government). If you have your key stored in your memory, and there is no back door in the software, no matter what court orders anyone has, if you don't tell them the key then the information is lost to them forever.

This kind of breaks some fundamental assumptions layed into law prior to tech. When you use encryption, tech really becomes an extension of your mind, and your 5th amendment rights effectively shut the government out of them completely. While I like this idea, it definitely poses problems for enforcement of basically every digital and financial law on the books, which can pose problems for all of us.