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

Facebook Portal – Privacy review

foundation.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#101

Post by saagarjha »

sodosopa wrote: post #36
dmitriid wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a programming mistake. Only a few accounts were affected. Inadvertently. Only 300 000 users affected. We're committed to privacy as always and in the coming year well take steps to make sure this never happens again. Our estimations were incomplete and a tad off, 270 million accounts affected, possibly more. Our users are at the center of all we do and will do everything in or power to protect their data.

“Only 300,000” You’re minimizing exposing information of enough people to populate most of Cincinnati, Ohio (301k)? Casting that as “only 300,000” is sickening.

Keep reading.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#102

Post by saagarjha »

shdhdjwidjrhe wrote: post #71
earino wrote: post #20

This title is somewhat problematic. It makes it sound like the portal has "privacy not included" and yet that is the name of the blog. In fact, the Portal meets the Mozilla Foundation's "Minimum Security Standards". It gets a yes for encryption, security updates, strong password, manages vulnerabilities and a privacy policy! This is honestly kind of cruddy. You can feel however you want to feel about Facebook, but th…

Mozilla knows their products are falling behind and will probably continue to do so as long as they maintain their current trajectory. The only other strategy is to compete via PR.

Falling behind in what way?

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#103

Post by TheRealPomax »

yalogin wrote: post #73

I don’t get what this is supposed to convey. The post has nothing of substance, takes a shot at Facebook but seems to immediately absolve it, more so with a really shallow security and privacy requirements list. This speaks more about Mozilla than Facebook. They can do a lot better in what ever it is they are trying to do. At the very least explain what the post is intended to do first.

You mean like in https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/about/w..., which you get to from "about the guide"?

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#104

Post by TheRealPomax »

netsharc wrote: post #17
sojmq wrote: post #13

Imagine giving your money to the Mozilla Corporation so they improve Firefox and they instead spend it on hiring copywriters for this girly blog.

I read a comment a while ago that said, the Firefox Foundation has too much money and the executive committee has to look useful, so they've been coming up with stupid ideas for a few years now.

Except of course that there is no such thing as "the firefox foundation". There's the Mozilla Foundation, the non-profit that works with lots of people and other organizations, both online and offline, on programs and projects that line up with the Mozilla manifesto. Stuff like this Buyer's Guide is what the foundation has always been about.

What it doesn't do is "make Firefox"; it never has.

There's the Mozilla Corporation (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/moco/), which makes products, like Firefox, and then there's the Mozilla Foundation (https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/about/), which is all about furthering the Mozilla mission, not making products.

And of course, most news articles completely gloss over the fact that they're not the same thing, and just call everything both organizations do as something "Mozilla" does, so if this is the first time your hearing about the fact that there's TWO organizations, not just one: now you know.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#105

Post by ryanisnan »

Honestly the UX of the privacy not included blog is pretty terrible. It is seems as if the blog is simultaneously sarcastic, shaming, and endorsing all at once. I would strongly suggest removing all of the unnecessary visual formatting, adding iconography to indicate Mozilla's stance on a topic, removing the personal tone from the articles, and overall restructuring the information to communicate the important information more swiftly and clearly.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#106

Post by Delmania »

rock_hard wrote: post #57
earino wrote: post #20

This title is somewhat problematic. It makes it sound like the portal has "privacy not included" and yet that is the name of the blog. In fact, the Portal meets the Mozilla Foundation's "Minimum Security Standards". It gets a yes for encryption, security updates, strong password, manages vulnerabilities and a privacy policy! This is honestly kind of cruddy. You can feel however you want to feel about Facebook, but th…

Yeah, the politics around Facebook are tiring...turns out when they gave everybody the power to connect they also gave the tinfoil hats that power We have two portals here at home and almost everyone I know who wants to stay in touch with their families has one too. Specially the kids love it!

This is a site in which Breitbart, a well know white nationalist propaganda site is marked as a trusted source for news. Zuck has met privately with conservative pundits. There is reason to be alarmed and skeptical of Facebook.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#107

Post by vineyardmike »

sodosopa wrote: post #36
dmitriid wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a programming mistake. Only a few accounts were affected. Inadvertently. Only 300 000 users affected. We're committed to privacy as always and in the coming year well take steps to make sure this never happens again. Our estimations were incomplete and a tad off, 270 million accounts affected, possibly more. Our users are at the center of all we do and will do everything in or power to protect their data.

“Only 300,000” You’re minimizing exposing information of enough people to populate most of Cincinnati, Ohio (301k)? Casting that as “only 300,000” is sickening.

Its only Cincinnati...

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#108

Post by vineyardmike »

Delmania wrote: post #106
rock_hard wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the politics around Facebook are tiring...turns out when they gave everybody the power to connect they also gave the tinfoil hats that power We have two portals here at home and almost everyone I know who wants to stay in touch with their families has one too. Specially the kids love it!

This is a site in which Breitbart, a well know white nationalist propaganda site is marked as a trusted source for news. Zuck has met privately with conservative pundits. There is reason to be alarmed and skeptical of Facebook.

Stop! Don't mark them as reputably just because they meet with conservatives.

Breitbart is not reliable, and that should reduce Facebook's trust, but meetings conservatives should not. Conservatives have long accused facebook of ignoring them, so when facebook stops ignoring them, we should not demonize them.

Everything is fine if you just remove sentence 2.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#109

Post by still_grokking »

lucideer wrote: post #84
earino wrote: post #20

This title is somewhat problematic. It makes it sound like the portal has "privacy not included" and yet that is the name of the blog. In fact, the Portal meets the Mozilla Foundation's "Minimum Security Standards". It gets a yes for encryption, security updates, strong password, manages vulnerabilities and a privacy policy! This is honestly kind of cruddy. You can feel however you want to feel about Facebook, but th…

You've looked at the security features (which, as sibling comment points out, is related to, but not the same as privacy), and stopped short of reading the full privacy review. A lot of commenters have made the same mistake, so perhaps this is useful UX feedback for Mozilla. The title however, is NOT misleading. To copypaste the parts nobody seems to be reading: Can it snoop on me? Camera: Yes Microphone: Yes Tracks…

There is even more on that website:

  What could happen if something went wrong

  Facebook has a history of betraying users' privacy and trust. They've faced record fines for this and have been caught
  hiding privacy breaches from their users. This is the starting point for bringing a device with an AI-powered smart camera
  and always listening microphone that is sending data back to Facebook regularly. They also say they do human review of audio
  snippets unless you chose (and take the time to figure out how) to opt out. The question comes down to, does Facebook have
  your best interests at heart when it collects all the data this device is capabal of collecting on you. In the past--from
  Cambridge Analytic and beyond--the answer to that question has way too often been, NO.

Re: Facebook Portal – Privacy review

#110

Post by dmitriid »

mokus wrote: post #51
lostlogin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d this a joke lacking /s, or a genuine post?

I had trouble telling from the first sentence or so, but after reading to the end I’m pretty confident it’s a sarcastic take on a (hypothetical?) press release.

Yeah, it's a joke and also Facebook's press releases almost verbatim :)
Post reply on HN