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

Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 103 posts

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#61

Post by panarky »

byoogle wrote: post #25

> That’s why at Facebook we spend a lot of our energy making our services and the whole internet safer and more secure. We encrypt communications, we use secure protocols for traffic, we encourage people to use multiple factors for authentication and we go out of our way to help fix issues we find in other people’s services. I have to call “bs” here. It took Facebook nine years – nine years! (2004–2013) – to turn HTT…

Pot, kettle, black[0]

From Facebook's current privacy policy[1]:

  We allow anyone with your contact information to find you through the
  Facebook search bar at the top of most pages, as well as other tools
  we provide, such as contact importers - even if you have not shared
  your contact information with them on Facebook
Random news items from last few years[2]

Facebook Removes Crucial Privacy Setting for Users’ Names

Facebook is improperly altering its privacy policy without proper user consent

Using names, images, and content of Facebook users for advertising without consent

Senator Al Franken has called on Facebook to reconsider expansion of its facial recognition activity

Facebook’s Beacon program disclosed personal information without user consent

Instagram announced several changes to the terms of service that will allow the company to use pictures in advertisements without notifying or compensating users

Instagram proposed that the parents of minors implicitly consent to the use of their childrens' images for advertising purposes

Facebook removed a privacy control that allowed users to hide themselves from strangers through Facebook’s search function

88% of Facebook Users Oppose Changes to Privacy Policy and Voting Rights

Facebook has proposed changes to its policies that would (1) end user voting, (2) remove spam blocking, and (3) share FB user data with affiliates without user consent

Consumer Groups Ask FTC to Investigate Facebook-Datalogix Data-Matching Arrangement

Facebook is under a 20 year consent decree from the FTC that requires express consent from users before disclosing personal information

[0] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pot%20Calling...

[1] https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info-on-fb

[2] http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#62

Post by adventured »

sharemywin wrote: post #36
zachrose wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just because Zuckerburg has personal wealth. It's also because Facebook directly employs thousands of people, pays corporate taxes, enables new markets that rely on Facebook, and sells advertising to all those other corporations. His age has nothing to do with it.

you mean avoid corporate taxes. http://www.policymic.com/articles/76011/facebook-has-figured...

They've paid $2.4 billion in income taxes in the last three years. I believe that qualifies as paying corporate taxes.

By comparison, that sum is greater than their net income for the same period.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#63

Post by chongli »

nostromo wrote: post #49
aaron-lebo wrote: post #21

I'm sorry, coming from Zuck, this statement means very little to me. I guess I'm old school, but Zuck has shown disdain for the privacy of users in the past, FB actively tracks the movement of users across the net (likely without many realizing), and I'm under the impression that this culture that emphasizes sharing every fucking thing is more dangerous to people than the US government trying to get at data that they…

I'm more afraid of government than private industry. Facebook will never have a Gitmo. It'll never send someone to a torture camp in Egypt. It'll never invade a country. It'll never confiscate property. It'll never put someone on the no-fly list. It'll never harass you at the border. Yes, we should be openly critical of powerful corporations. But the downsides of misguided governance are much worse than even the most…

Facebook will never have a Gitmo. It'll never send someone to a torture camp in Egypt. It'll never invade a country. It'll never confiscate property. It'll never put someone on the no-fly list. It'll never harass you at the border.

It may not do those things directly but who's to say it won't tip the government off about you? Tell them where you live and flag you for a disgruntled post or an idle threat. There's a lot Facebook could do to help the government crack down on dissidents.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#64

Post by rst »

tibbon wrote: post #3

Is it just me, or does this seem to be a sideways admittance/accusation that the US Government has been essentially 'attacking' Facebook attempting to extract data outside the normal channels of requests from law enforcement? Either way, this needs to change. We're not on a slippery slope of losing privacy- we're going downhill like an avalanche.

It's already pretty much known, from the Snowden papers, that the government is doing man-in-the-middle attacks against internet services including Facebook. Here's a story from today's news which discusses one such mode of attack, and names Facebook specifically: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2014/03/quantum/

(Come to think of it, since this is today's news, it's possible that Zuck is responding to it...)

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#65

Post by richardc12345 »

I cannot help but think Facebook, Google and such companies business model of monetizing logs of people's usage of the internet is used by governments to legitimise their spying.

The argument would be, if it is okay for big business to record all activity and data mine it for profit then it is okay for governments to record all activity and data mine it to help govern the people.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#66

Post by droopybuns »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #44
droopybuns wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only we lived in a democracy rather than a constitutional republic.

Hey now, if you are going to be pedantic make sure you get your facts straight. If I'm remembering right, prior to James Madison's writings, there wasn't a real distinction between democracy and republic, besides the fact that democracy was Greek and republic was Latin. Madison in the Federalist Papers made the distinction between democracy and republic that are your talking about, but it is pretty arbitrary. Now you…

You are awesome and I enjoyed your pedant! :)

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#67

Post by philwelch »

zaidf wrote: post #14
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #7

I've called President Obama to express my frustration over the damage the government is creating for all of our future. This is why I am leaving government. I am about the same age as Zuck and have been working in government at many levels for about 12 years now and I work with people who have been working policy for over 40 years. The president couldn't care less what most of us think think...but because Zuck has sh…

it's just illuminating who the government listens to If Obama and the gov actually listened to Zuck, the problem would be fixed. Heck at this point, it is not too farfetched to think that parts of the government don't listen to the President, even.

"Not too farfetched"? It's farfetched to think the President can even start to control the executive agencies.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#68

Post by 001sky »

quangv wrote: post #53
rhizome wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuck is the wrong person to make entreaties to the President about this because it doesn't affect Zuck personally. As far as the Executive Branch is concerned, Zuck is just expressing an opinion about policy the way an airline CEO might about the FAA: as a business concern, not a legal nor civil liberties one. Obama already knows that the only thing Zuck is talking about is money, not people.

I don't think Zuck is talking about money, but freedom. Sure maybe it's freedom to make money, but it's also freedom to express yourself.

I don't think Zuck is talking about money, but freedom

This seems naive. Zuck has enough money to buty privacy, and he made his fortune by enabling the type of surveilance that the NSA does. Frankly, his actions here are about as credible as the Ivy League's moves towards embracing "diversity". They are just ploys, and their biz model is at risk, so this is like "I'sorry"... only that we got caught.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#69

Post by cottonseed »

> The internet works because most people and companies [spend a lot of our energy making our services and the whole internet safer and more secure.]

By any metric of privacy, security or safety, I don't see how anyone could claim the internet works.

Also, no amount of encryption or 2-factor authentication could turn Facebook into a part of the internet "I want to build." Which is why I deleted my Facebook account and got off (nearly all) Google services. I vote with my feet, and what I spend my time building.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#70

Post by arebop »

Zigurd wrote: post #43
arebop wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed] about those deals between Facebook and NSA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

The slides (as usual for slides) are pretty ambiguous, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#In... says that the companies and Facebook in particular deny cooperation with PRISM, and the only quote from media sources that sounds skeptical about that is from WaPo wonkblog [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/12/h...] which says that one of the slides talks about combining data provided by companies (with warrants, NSLs, and other legal orders) with data collected by adversarial means.

So, no, that link does not support the claim that Facebook cooperated with PRISM.

Post reply on HN