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

Why We Disagree with The New York Times

newsroom.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 325 posts

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#131

Post by albertgoeswoof »

I unexpectedly agree with FB here.

If NYT are correct then we can kiss goodbye to APIs that are used by any services that are not explicitly written and signed by the service provider. In the extreme that means you won't be able to log in to facebook on the web, only via a facebook app, because there's no guarantee that a 3rd party web browser isn't stealing data. That goes for any and every service dealing with personal data, and we pretty much lose the open web.

I want to protect user's data as much as anyone, but if a user deliberately installs a 3rd party app and enters their credentials into it, then they are consenting to that having access to their data under that app's privacy policy/terms. This should be obvious to all users, especially where GDPR advice has been implemented.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#132

Post by [deleted] »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #109
untog wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was obvious to anyone since the beginning that FB was a clearinghouse for private data trading. I tire of this argument that users should obviously know they are trading their personal information in return for access to a service. They don't know this. It's obvious in a conversation with any (even lightly) tech-illiterate person that nothing about how the modern internet economy works is obvious. Think back to…

Sure, but do we just absolve people of all individual responsibility to think even a little bit and make educated choices? I think there is more evidence that people just don't really care about this issue. After all of this came out, FB use didn't really go down.

[deleted]

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#133

Post by but0fCourse »

sideshowb wrote: post #107
jacobsheehy wrote: post #2

It reads like a long defensive argument, "how else did you expect us to make huge sums of money"? It is exactly as tone-deaf and legalese as you would expect. There is no new information here; Facebook says legal contracts actually protect your data so it can't go anywhere, "just trust us", etc. > These partners signed agreements that prevented people’s Facebook information from being used for any other purpose than…

> Facebook has acted on this and intentionally made hundreds of thousands of people fall into a depression, just to see if they could, and then they bragged about it. That's interesting. Do you have a link to source?

Summer 2014:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/06/28/facebook...

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke...

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/main-result-face...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/0...

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#134

Post by acjohnson55 »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #109
untog wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was obvious to anyone since the beginning that FB was a clearinghouse for private data trading. I tire of this argument that users should obviously know they are trading their personal information in return for access to a service. They don't know this. It's obvious in a conversation with any (even lightly) tech-illiterate person that nothing about how the modern internet economy works is obvious. Think back to…

Sure, but do we just absolve people of all individual responsibility to think even a little bit and make educated choices? I think there is more evidence that people just don't really care about this issue. After all of this came out, FB use didn't really go down.

I think it's absurdly unrealistic to expect people to do in-depth due diligence on all of the services they use. Modern society requires us to trust innumerable service providers and their dependencies to enable so much of the convenience we take for granted. What little knowledge we do have about abuse comes from the accountability of these companies to regulators like the FTC and FCC.

Realistically, I think we have three choices:

- We can't have nice things.

- Rampant exploitation of individuals, due to vast asymmetry of information.

- Regulation, with its costs and inefficiencies.

But I think there's very little precedent of real accountability deriving from collective consumer action, even in cases of overt abuse (think Wells Fargo).

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#135

Post by albertgoeswoof »

JorgeGT wrote: post #76
patja wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to how they "prevented" apps from abusing their API through policy, while simultaneously doing nothing with their construction of the API to prevent apps from breaking the policy. Apps are prohibited from filling in content that (by policy) must come only from the user, but oh we're going to give you all the tools and capabilities required to march right on ahead and do what we agreed you wouldn't do. Then pr…

Regulations forbid us from letting you access the filing cabinet but I can tell you, all of us will be out having a beer between 6 and 8 PM. Oh, and the key is under the flowerpot. Wink wink.

But that analogy is letting someone access the filing cabinet, and not taking reasonable precautions not to. Which would be a direct violation. Which may or may not be the case here.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#136

Post by DonHopkins »

JorgeGT wrote: post #76
patja wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar to how they "prevented" apps from abusing their API through policy, while simultaneously doing nothing with their construction of the API to prevent apps from breaking the policy. Apps are prohibited from filling in content that (by policy) must come only from the user, but oh we're going to give you all the tools and capabilities required to march right on ahead and do what we agreed you wouldn't do. Then pr…

Regulations forbid us from letting you access the filing cabinet but I can tell you, all of us will be out having a beer between 6 and 8 PM. Oh, and the key is under the flowerpot. Wink wink.

“But the terms of service were on display...”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.”

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#137

Post by cafard »

_red wrote: post #57
jacobsheehy wrote: post #2

It reads like a long defensive argument, "how else did you expect us to make huge sums of money"? It is exactly as tone-deaf and legalese as you would expect. There is no new information here; Facebook says legal contracts actually protect your data so it can't go anywhere, "just trust us", etc. > These partners signed agreements that prevented people’s Facebook information from being used for any other purpose than…

>Signed agreements do not prevent your information from being used in other ways. That's insane, literally. The real insanity is with the users. FB did the most obvious thing. The user-base somehow magically thought they were providing all those free services because they were nice guys. It was obvious to anyone since the beginning that FB was a clearinghouse for private data trading. How else could the model remotel…

Quite a few people I know signed up with FB when they were in high school. Some may have thought through the business model, I suppose.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#138

Post by CaptainZapp »

dominotw wrote: post #110
derefr wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Punishment after-the-fact to statistically disincentivize behaviours we want to disincentivize. It doesn’t prevent the thing from happening ever, it just makes it so that when it does, inevitably, happen, the system pushes back against the offender. This makes rational actors less likely to do things they could be sued for. But 1. not all actors in a market are rational; and 2. sometimes it’s rational to be “evil” if…

> Facebook gave an assurance that our data would never cross paths with a bad actor. Don't downvote for asking me this, asking in good faith. Where did they give that assurance?

You know, that's actually a damn good question.

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#139

Post by mcguire »

dominotw wrote: post #74
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it different from any other legal agreements? Suppose I tell you a secret. You promise only to share it with others who will keep it a secret. You share my secret with Bob. Bob promises he won't share my secret. Bob shares my secret. You broke your promise. You tried not to break it. But break it you did.

> You broke your promise. Then you face the legal consequences for doing so. Thats what prevents people from breaking them in first place. Unless you are arguing that all legal contracts are useless because they can be broken. I am not asking about the logistics of leaking. Yes ofcourse its physically possible, I am asking why the consequences of breaking a contract don't matter in this specific case.

How do you prove that Bob leaked the information? How do you prove that Abe told Bob? How do you prove that FB was the source of information to Abe? How do you demonstrate that FB, Abe, and Bob did not take all good faith efforts to keep the information secure?

How do you show any actual damages?

Re: Why We Disagree with The New York Times

#140

Post by d1zzy »

Liquix wrote: post #62
dominotw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Signed agreements do not prevent your information from being used in other ways. Why is this, though? How is it different from any other legal agreements?

I think the argument is that saying "I promise not to murder someone" does not in any way prevent said party turning around and murdering someone - signing a contract does not prevent these companies from violating the terms of the contract.

Not really sure I understand what the point is here... Disclosure of personal information to third-parties under NDAs and that type of contract is normal business practice, banks and health providers do it all the time (with much more sensitive data than what you typically find on Facebook). So as a society we are fine to use contracts and share this information.

Do you think that Facebook's data is more important than the information banks/health providers share and should not be shared even if proper contracts for its use are in place?

Post reply on HN