Facebook secretly spied on Snapchat usage to confuse advertisers, court docs say • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook secretly spied on Snapchat usage to confuse advertisers, court docs say

#21

Post by RecycledEle » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 5:18 PM UTC

I previously posted on another topic that when a corporation commits C crimes that each carry Y years in confinement (prison time or jail time,) the total years in confinement (C * Y) should be divided by the share of the corporation someone owns and that stockholder should be sentenced to that amount of time. So if a stockholder owns 1/S of a company, that stockholder should be sentenced to CY/S years.

If Facebook committed 100 billion felonies (where each intercepted message is a felony,) and each would carry 5 years in prison if I did it, then there are 500 billion years in confinement to divide between the stock holders. If someone owns $1,024 of Facebook stock (which is one-one-billionth of the total) then that stick holder would be sentenced to 500 years in confinement in a just system.

We do not have a just system, but there are those if us who will fight for one.

Perhaps the boys and girls at fed.gov can move 0.0001% of the way towards justice by seizing Facebook, liquidating the company, and handing out any money that is left to the people whose accounts were spied on.

Of course all if this assumes that each and every employee or former employee or contractor at Facebook who knew about this never, ever gets out of confinement.

Re: Facebook secretly spied on Snapchat usage to confuse advertisers, court docs say

#22

Post by odyssey7 » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 7:07 PM UTC

talldayo wrote: post #20

odyssey7 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DOJ case is requesting the opposite of your proposal. Although the alternate app store angle is what has been featured in the headlines, the case also requests for Apple to make various private iOS APIs available to 3rd-party apps, so if the DOJ prevails then the judge’s ruling could make various forms of API access limits illegal for all impacted APIs.

That part I agree with - If Apple is willing to create an API, they shouldn't be allowed to use it anticompetitively. Apple is just going to have to learn how to cope with third-parties having access to their APIs. Nothing is stopping Apple from creating a more secure runtime for iOS apps. They are doing it right now with MacOS; I haven't heard a single legitimate excuse as to why iOS is different. Apple could be (an…

The root user of an operating system has access to resources that should not be available to every application. That's not anticompetitive per se, but it is required for a secure computing system that preserves user privacy. It's a moot point to prevent software bugs that leak user data if the software is legally required to hand over user data.

Re: Facebook secretly spied on Snapchat usage to confuse advertisers, court docs say

#23

Post by talldayo » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 9:08 PM UTC

odyssey7 wrote: post #22

talldayo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That part I agree with - If Apple is willing to create an API, they shouldn't be allowed to use it anticompetitively. Apple is just going to have to learn how to cope with third-parties having access to their APIs. Nothing is stopping Apple from creating a more secure runtime for iOS apps. They are doing it right now with MacOS; I haven't heard a single legitimate excuse as to why iOS is different. Apple could be (an…

The root user of an operating system has access to resources that should not be available to every application. That's not anticompetitive per se, but it is required for a secure computing system that preserves user privacy. It's a moot point to prevent software bugs that leak user data if the software is legally required to hand over user data.

It's not a moot point at all actually, it's the only way you protect yourself from threat actors with more control than you have: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...

Re: Facebook secretly spied on Snapchat usage to confuse advertisers, court docs say

#24

Post by odyssey7 » Sat, Mar 30, 2024, 10:41 PM UTC

talldayo wrote: post #23

odyssey7 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The root user of an operating system has access to resources that should not be available to every application. That's not anticompetitive per se, but it is required for a secure computing system that preserves user privacy. It's a moot point to prevent software bugs that leak user data if the software is legally required to hand over user data.

It's not a moot point at all actually, it's the only way you protect yourself from threat actors with more control than you have: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...

If it’s illegal then it’s moot.