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

Facebook's seized files published by MPs

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 507 posts

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#121

Post by kodablah »

So, FB gave some companies preferential access after removing it for devs, they surreptitiously collected phone data after given permission to, used cross-business analytics for M&A or competition info, was choosy and chatty about who got what data and its value.

I agree there are clear immoralities at play, especially with collecting phone call info, but not sure that it is worthy of a government inquiry of such size. Much of this is standard business and worthy of being decried as other immoral business acts might. Would we expect such an inquiry for any other company or are there politics at play? I feel the Cambridge Analytica issue is more which hunt than a real-harm-exacted issue. How would one quantify the harm? Is this vengeance for Brexit, Trump, and/or Zuck no-show?

All I've learned is to be cautious when having email conversations on sensitive subjects (no paper trail) and to be cautious when flying execs to the UK and to be cautious having any real business there for fear of having confidential information raided and published. Obviously it's not standard practice but, as with other government-imposed internet tactics of late, as a business owner it just marks an increase on my "riskometer" that I use to evaluate where to do business.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#124

Post by ryanwaggoner »

johnnyfaehell wrote: post #67
breischl wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no particular love for FB or what they've done with data, but these I don't understand why either of those points is particularly controversial or even unusual. > Facebook used data provided by the Israeli analytics firm Onavo to determine which other mobile apps were being downloaded and used by the public. It then used this knowledge to decide which apps to acquire or otherwise treat as a threat Checking out…

> Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility - they can not work with other apps for any reason, or no reason at all. And this is a particularly ironic thing to point out, considering that the main thrust is complaining that they _did_ share data with other apps. So it's bad if they do share data, but also bad if they don't? To me, this would be Facebo…

Facebook won't grant Influencer Marketing Companies access to their API even though the user (The Influencer) wants them to have the data so they can get paid based on the views, shares, comments, and likes of the posts they've been contracted for. User has a legit desire to share that data to the point where they will take screenshots, GDPR deletions, etc to fulfil the need for that data to be shared. Facebook's reason for not allowing them access is simple, they don't make any money out of the deal.

This seems so ludicrously backwards to me. How is my decision to upload my data to Facebook a meaningful claim that they should run their platform in a particular way for my convenience, even if there's no business justification?

Allow me a tortured metaphor :)

Imagine you own a very popular art museum and you let any artist display their work there for free. Visiting requires a free membership, but visitors must apply for it. Competing museums and galleries are always trying to get a membership so they can come through and scope out which artists are most popular and then woo them away. You reject those memberships.

How on earth is this unfair to anyone?

Now, letting those competing museums in is obviously better for the artist, but does that give them any right to demand it? You're providing this space for them for free! You're providing a huge audience to them, for free! What possible justification do they have for demanding that you let your competition come strolling through and hurt your business just so it'll make their life a little better? If you don't like it, you can pull your work from the museum at any time.

So many of the critiques of companies like Facebook and Apple come down to people wanting all the benefits that these platforms provide, but without any terms, inconvenience, restrictions, or tradeoffs. Ridiculous.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#126

Post by josefx »

fantunes wrote: post #81
nakedrobot2 wrote: post #3

Good for them, thank you! The sooner facebook is controlled and broken up into pieces, the better. They are a massive net negative on civilization. Do you work at Facebook? Shame on you.

> Do you work at Facebook? Shame on you. Does it apply to the people using its products, softwares, services? What's the ethical threshold for using reactjs for example in this scenario?

Didn't they try to push some rather questionable licensing terms on react or do I confuse it with a different open source library? If it was then its users almost became another victim of facebook trying out where it can get away with abusing its position.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#127

Post by CaptainZapp »

empath75 wrote: post #64
wolco wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not shame workers at facebook. If you do you have to shame anyone who works at any big tech form for the decisions of the leaders. Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle included.

> If you do you have to shame anyone who works at any big tech form for the decisions of the leaders. Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle included. And? If you're not proud of the impact your work is having on the world, than you shouldn't be doing it. You only have one life. Why waste it on making the world a worse place? I had an easy and well paying job working on an IT project at DHS. I left after the child…

I had an easy and well paying job working on an IT project at DHS. I left after the child separation thing started, even though I wasn't working on anything related to that. It just disgusted me to go to work every day.

Thank you!

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#128

Post by elliekelly »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #92
ddalex wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is not Facebook's data Look at the T&Cs sometime. Once you upload something, it's theirs. Once they sniff something off your phone, it's theirs. Once you look at something in another tab while FB is open, it's theirs.

GDPR, and even the former 1998 Data Protection Act disagrees. Ts&Cs can't override statute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998#Data_...

I’m pretty sure Facebook has made a substantial investment in structuring their data flow & server locations with the specific intention of avoiding the reach/responsibilities of GDPR.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#129

Post by PavlovsCat »

nakedrobot2 wrote: post #3

Good for them, thank you! The sooner facebook is controlled and broken up into pieces, the better. They are a massive net negative on civilization. Do you work at Facebook? Shame on you.

Facebook and other companies are more like bacteria that infect the wound of digital illiteracy. I think it's time we start seeing that as a wound, not as an unavoidable or even desirable state of things. An information age requires digital literacy, otherwise you will have a priest caste, and that will abuse its power. I see no way around it, and criticizing priests for being bad priests to me enforces the idea that there even should be a priest caste.

I can't quite tell you what digital literacy is, but I know that responses along the line of "do you know how a modern microprocessor works in detail?" are silly, because many people can read and write without being historians or etymologists. And even people who can't read or write often can speak and understand a whole lot. Contrast that with some priests mumbling in Latin, with people being subject to things they aren't allowed to understand.

So maybe knowing what files are, what memory is, what a program is, having their own webspace and email, stuff like that would be a great start. And the start to that is to stop pretending that's unattainable, or that "people don't want that". If they knew what it entails in the long run, most of them would want that. And people do much more complicated things than running a website. People raise children, they drive cars, they raise and train dogs, they work in the garden, they remember all sorts of stuff about sports, and so on. Most jobs require a lot of complicated edge-case knowledge, too. So knowing what an URL or a file is, and maybe some HTML, is trivial compared to that.

If people could get 20% off on all T-Shirts for the rest of their life if they had their own website, most people on this planet would have a website before the end of the year. I exaggerate, but by how much I'm really not sure.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#130

Post by bduerst »

breischl wrote: post #29
paganel wrote: post #7

> Facebook used data provided by the Israeli analytics firm Onavo to determine which other mobile apps were being downloaded and used by the public. It then used this knowledge to decide which apps to acquire or otherwise treat as a threat > there was evidence that Facebook's refusal to share data with some apps caused them to fail Stuff like this should trigger the EU Commissioner for Competition to withdraw the aut…

I have no particular love for FB or what they've done with data, but these I don't understand why either of those points is particularly controversial or even unusual. > Facebook used data provided by the Israeli analytics firm Onavo to determine which other mobile apps were being downloaded and used by the public. It then used this knowledge to decide which apps to acquire or otherwise treat as a threat Checking out…

Agreed. Facebook purchased third-party data to guide their acquisition strategy. Any other company could hire this firm and made the same decisions.

The selective access to competing apps, based solely on this information, is antitrust though. If the apps violate rules that apply to everyone, that's different, but that doesn't appear to be the case?

Edit: turns out Onovo had access to specific, proprietary data, acquired through it's own shitty apps, which facebook acquired. This is pretty shady.

Post reply on HN