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

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

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 269 posts

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

#141

Post by bostonsre »

Kalium wrote: post #103
bostonsre wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Would you care to share what you think the valid view points against encryption are? For my own part, I find it helpful to remember that questions over encryption have been ongoing for several decades. Historically, the arguments boiled down to shouting about CSAM, terrorism, drugs, etc. Mostly it tended to be really be about law enforcement agencies wanting to have the unfettered powers of surveillance. What's perha…

We live in a world made of spectrums where we must balance opposing desires. We cannot have prosperity without security (in the law enforcement sense) and we cannot have freedom with absolute security but we make compromises to try to find a balance between those opposing forces. It is an incredibly hard problem to solve but I don't really know where that perfect balance is and I'm not sure anyone knows.

I don't want to live in a police state and I'm not sure of anyone else that does. I also don't want to live in complete anarchy or even a libertarian state because I think there are bad people out there that would take advantage of that and potentially hurt other people.

It always seems to be hand waved away on this forum, but perfect computer security could indeed help criminals out there. I don't know the numbers around how many more but I really believe that no one knows.

I make no assertion that one side is right and the other is wrong, just that it is a hard problem and that I don't know the answer.

Where and how do we find the balance? I know the law enforcement community pushes against computer security to attain better security (in the law enforcement sense) and I know that tech people generally push for computer security that limits law enforcement abilities. I don't think we can let one side of the argument completely win, but how do we find that balance?

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

#142

Post by dleslie »

I take issue with the final off-hand comment he made about Tik Tok[0] on one of the linked twitter threads:

> Also: the tiktok algorithm has decided that I am a "foodie"; it's pretty much correct about that. Why should I suffer a more mediocre & less valuable experience? Because "democracy is at stake" because of bunch of people never learnt how to identify conspiracy theories at school?

Well, it's not so great. The ability to discover preferences and adapt content could also be used by a malicious actor to discover targets; ie, for a totalitarian regime to discover dissenters. Such a regime needn't have an agreement with the social network, either; they need only use the tools made available to users and advertisers upon that network to harvest information about dissenters. It's as simple as creating a honey pot. Moreover, if an agreement exists with the social network, then the curation itself can omit undesirable content in the general case, and keep it available in the explicit case; not censoring it, per se, but ensuring that it does not receive an equitable platform.

That's what many are clamoring for, isn't it? A way to selectively weed out voices and people that are undesirable.

I feel like the problem is two fold:

1. That there's this assumption that somehow the tools used to harm some won't be used to harm others.

2. That the feed is necessarily worth saving.

(2) is most interesting to consider, I think. Perhaps it's not. Perhaps algorithmic social media feeds aren't worth saving.

0: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1451997185478963211

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

#143

Post by [deleted] »

numair wrote: post #112

There’s no honor among thieves. What this guy, and the whistleblower, and Mark Zuckerberg, and Roger McNamee, and everyone else are doing is simple — they’re all turning on each other. Don’t try to figure out who is “right” or “wrong” or whatever, or if it’s the government going after them, blah blah blah. It’s just a bunch of dirty people pointing fingers at others, trying to wash their karma. Somewhere in the vault…

[deleted]

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

#144

Post by Kalium »

bostonsre wrote: post #141
Kalium wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you care to share what you think the valid view points against encryption are? For my own part, I find it helpful to remember that questions over encryption have been ongoing for several decades. Historically, the arguments boiled down to shouting about CSAM, terrorism, drugs, etc. Mostly it tended to be really be about law enforcement agencies wanting to have the unfettered powers of surveillance. What's perha…

We live in a world made of spectrums where we must balance opposing desires. We cannot have prosperity without security (in the law enforcement sense) and we cannot have freedom with absolute security but we make compromises to try to find a balance between those opposing forces. It is an incredibly hard problem to solve but I don't really know where that perfect balance is and I'm not sure anyone knows. I don't want…

You seem like an intelligent, thoughtful, and educated individual. Perhaps you might find it interesting to read up on the history of attempts to pursue the precise balance you suggest is desirable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip

If you seek numbers, the FBI invites you to inspect their data: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr

As you correctly and wisely say, the world is full of hard problems with many strong, clear, compelling, and valid viewpoints to balance. It may just be possibly worth considering that this might not be one such scenario where balance is possible, let alone achievable. Do you think there might be cases, in the fullness of the human experience, where one set of extremists on an issue are right, their opposite numbers are wrong, and any balance between them also wrong? What if what seems to be a balance is based on a false premise?

Perhaps we should stop, take a step back, and examine our biases?

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

#145

Post by kolmogorov »

lowkey_ wrote: post #31
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) Less monitoring on private messages The Facebook leaker is explicitly arguing against this though. She cites Facebook’s push for end-to-end encryption of private messages as a problem.

I'm merely clarifying HN's common opinion. As for the whistleblower, I'm very skeptical of her — to be a tech PM against encryption, and somehow linking e2e encryption to making the platform less safe, is dubious at best. Removing misinformation and calls to violence on the Facebook platform doesn't need to include monitoring private messages. The idea that she's been a PM at large tech companies for 15 years and doe…

How do these two align? Why would FB sending messages that are sent encrypted (not e2e) and stored on US servers allow China to read messages? If you allege hacking then why wouldn’t they be able to hack the devices?

Re misinformation: why would misinformation not simply happen in e2e group chats like it is already happening in e.g. Brazil or India? What’s the difference between posting to a group of friends on Facebook vs sharing a group message to those friends?

I do think messages should be encrypted but the trade off isn’t as straightforward as you make it sound.

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

#146

Post by jimbokun »

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…

And you think partisan politicians and activists will make unbiased decisions with no negative unintended consequences?

Encryption is not a pro-tech position. It is a pro-privacy position and you don't need to be a tech expert to see the value in that.

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

#147

Post by ashtonkem »

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…

One can believe that the whistleblower is correct in their identification of the problem and believe that the whistleblower is wrong about the best solution. This is not an inconsistent position.

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

#148

Post by jollybean »

quotemstr wrote: post #139
jollybean wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree the elites are upset about losing power, there absolutely are issues of principle here. There is such a thing as legitimate authority. For example - there are people who do actual science, and other people who actually can read scientific papers and make assessments, there are people who have legitimate basic understanding of science, relationships with scientists, and consistently communicate reasonabl…

> The question the becomes - how do we allow yahoos in their basements to say anything they want publicly (i.e. aliens invented COVID, the vaccine will kill you), how do we allow legitimate detractors to question classical authority (i.e. ivermectin might work), how do we try to unbias information when it's politically contentious (i.e. mask policies), how do we allow politicians to speak their minds, but to not dest…

'We' work together as a community and groups of communities.

Traditionally through Classical Liberal institutions like 'Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary' with elected representatives for oversight, but more realistically also through the '4th Branch of Government' i.e. the Central Bank, the security apparatus (Military, FBI, NSA, CIA), a Free Media with integrity (believe it or not, they don't just publish whatever, there are norms and standards), the '5th Estate' i.e. people with voices outside the norm, the Academic community, Industry, NGOs, Faith Groups, Cultural Institutions. Other nations and international bodies.

You're confusing a bit the legitimate motivation for regulation, with the means by which bad actors take power (i.e. we can't use security as a measure because then Stalin will come along).

'Security' is 100% a material issue, it's not even an argument - there are bad actors trying to do bad things all day long from petty violence to terrorism to invasion etc..

What that means is we have to take special care in those scenarios, usually by means of oversight and proportionality.

For example, the police can't just go into your home, they need a warrant, signed by a judge etc.. The laws the security apparatus use have oversight by elected officials.

There are no rules for this FB issue, it's the Wild West, and because it touches on issues of censorship, security, politics and now Public Health ... it's a tough one.

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

#149

Post by jimbokun »

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…

> 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.

That is a trait lacking in almost everyone these days, not just tech workers.

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

#150

Post by bogwog »

wakiza33 wrote: post #106
cudgy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps she works for the CIA?

It's all little too perfect isn't it. I think the CIA connection scenario is certainly worth keeping in back of mind.

This kind of paranoia is how you get another insurrection.

If you're finding it difficult to ignore thoughts like that, maybe it's a sign that you need to take a break from social media.

Post reply on HN