Not to defend Facebook, but this headline is misleading. FTC proposes banning Facebook from launching any new products, which is a huge deal. Also from monetizing youth data, which is likely not a serious revenue stream. It’s clickbait to claim it’s the youth part that made company furious, no matter what you think about Facebook.
Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC
301–310 of 335 posts
Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC
#302How can a company ensure bugs don't happen that violate a commitment? I don't think that's possible. I'd assume the decree should ensure they don't INTENTIONALLY violate it.
Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
All things in life is grey. But I think we should ask about is the MAIN thing they do net good or net bad. Most philanthropist spend their lives amassing massive fortunes built on exploitation and then leave a (large?) percentage of their ill gotten gains for good. As an extreme example, we shouldn't absolve a serial killer just because they volunteer for Meals on Wheels each week. Facebook has revenue greater than t…
"Some crap for free". Come on now. Give credit where credit is due if you're going to talk about balanced scales. React PyTorch Flow React Native Folly RocksDB llama HHVM Relay Fresco zstd Buck Sapling Redex JSX infer
Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC
#304Genuine question: FTC is saying a "bug" caused the violation of the consent decree. How can a company ensure bugs don't happen that violate a commitment? I don't think that's possible. I'd assume the decree should ensure they don't INTENTIONALLY violate it.
Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC
#305Genuine question: FTC is saying a "bug" caused the violation of the consent decree. How can a company ensure bugs don't happen that violate a commitment? I don't think that's possible. I'd assume the decree should ensure they don't INTENTIONALLY violate it.
If they aren’t willing to take active steps to prevent it even accidentally, they shouldn’t agree to terms that require that.
A consent decree is the negotiated settlement of a lawsuit between a regulatory agency and a party accused of noncompliance.
Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC
#306Genuine question: FTC is saying a "bug" caused the violation of the consent decree. How can a company ensure bugs don't happen that violate a commitment? I don't think that's possible. I'd assume the decree should ensure they don't INTENTIONALLY violate it.
More testing, more rigor, more review, etc. So even if a bug happens, you don't let it linger without spotting or fixing it for over a year, from "late 2017 until mid-2019".
Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
More testing, more rigor, more review, etc. So even if a bug happens, you don't let it linger without spotting or fixing it for over a year, from "late 2017 until mid-2019".
Well, the consent decree should then say: you need to do X testing, Y review. If they did that, it's still not a violation.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/c4365facebookpr...
Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
More testing, more rigor, more review, etc. So even if a bug happens, you don't let it linger without spotting or fixing it for over a year, from "late 2017 until mid-2019".
Well, the consent decree should then say: you need to do X testing, Y review. If they did that, it's still not a violation.
The consent decree can just say you have to not do Z. You take whatever steps are necessary to avoid that. If you do it “accidentally” that’s a violation.
The point of a consent decree, from the point of viee of the regulatort agency, is generally to eliminate excuses for a party already seen as a violator as a condition to hold off on an existing enforcement action for the violation.
Creating opportunities for technical compliancd while the problem sought to be avoided still occurs is an explicit non-goal.
(From the non-government side, the point is to avoid greater penalties now by accepting some obligations and limitations going forward.)
Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
All things in life is grey. But I think we should ask about is the MAIN thing they do net good or net bad. Most philanthropist spend their lives amassing massive fortunes built on exploitation and then leave a (large?) percentage of their ill gotten gains for good. As an extreme example, we shouldn't absolve a serial killer just because they volunteer for Meals on Wheels each week. Facebook has revenue greater than t…
"Some crap for free". Come on now. Give credit where credit is due if you're going to talk about balanced scales. React PyTorch Flow React Native Folly RocksDB llama HHVM Relay Fresco zstd Buck Sapling Redex JSX infer
Re: Facebook has not been doing enough to comply with a 2020 privacy order: FTC
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (think state and transition) I completely don't follow this - I think you're referencing something I'm unfamiliar with?
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1501...