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

FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 221 posts

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#131

Post by Sargos »

rgharris wrote: post #110
indiandragon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature (e.g., two-factor authentication) for advertising Facebook is not alone in misuse or wrongful use of phone number given for 2FA. LinkedIn explicitly requires phone number to be added on the profile to enable 2FA and makes the phone number visible by default to all the contacts, if you don't want your phone number visible; you'll have to l…

Your comment prompted me to check my LinkedIn 2FA and it turns out that they now support TOTP apps (they list Authenticator App as the option). I believe it is very new though.

Where do you see that? I still only see the option for SMS 2FA.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#132

Post by indiandragon »

rgharris wrote: post #110
indiandragon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature (e.g., two-factor authentication) for advertising Facebook is not alone in misuse or wrongful use of phone number given for 2FA. LinkedIn explicitly requires phone number to be added on the profile to enable 2FA and makes the phone number visible by default to all the contacts, if you don't want your phone number visible; you'll have to l…

Your comment prompted me to check my LinkedIn 2FA and it turns out that they now support TOTP apps (they list Authenticator App as the option). I believe it is very new though.

You are correct. Authenticator is now available, I used to check every month and I didn't before writing this comment and resulting in stale information.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#133

Post by mirimir »

slim wrote: post #126
rikroots wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this true only in the US? Or can Facebook argue that the settlement with the FTC effectively indemnifies them across other jurisdictions? I remember there being something about courts in different countries respecting each other's rulings, but not sure how such an argument would play in (for example) the EU.

it's true only in us

But then GDPR is effective only in the EU.

At some point, wouldn't it be simpler to have the same policies globally? Or is that too simpleminded?

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#134

Post by tschellenbach »

zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #70

Does it bother anyone else that Facebook is being fined $5 billion while Equifax, a company with a history of anti-consumer activity and privacy violations going back decades, the company that congress was forced to enact the Fair Credit Reporting Act to contain, and who gave away all the personal information for over a hundred million people through its own negligence, was fined a mere $650 million? Do you get the i…

Yes this is insane. Facebook didn't even have a security issue. They just allowed my friends to export the fact that I listen to the Goo Goo Dolls (crazy how the media spinned this). Also, I signed up for Facebook, Equifax on the other hand keeps data on me without my permission. They had a real data breach, and they lost important data, not just Facebook likes.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#135

Post by o10449366 »

elliekelly wrote: post #112
indiandragon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature (e.g., two-factor authentication) for advertising Facebook is not alone in misuse or wrongful use of phone number given for 2FA. LinkedIn explicitly requires phone number to be added on the profile to enable 2FA and makes the phone number visible by default to all the contacts, if you don't want your phone number visible; you'll have to l…

Yesterday I went to set up 2FA for MongoDB and entered my phone number in the form but then realized I could use Authy so I never hit save/submit. I’ve already gotten two text messages from them even though my account shows my phone number as “Not Set.” It really made me wonder what other shady stuff they might be doing with my and my customer’s data.

The same thing happens on many retail websites when you choose to check out as a guest or begin account creation and cancel. I automatically boycott any website that follows these dark patterns.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#136

Post by godelski »

gridlockd wrote: post #124
pyython wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to say this! I still can't believe credit bureaus are allowed to even exist. At no time do I give them explicit permission to collect my (very) personal information, there's almost literally no way I can opt out (short of not participating in the modern financial system), their interpretation of this data has an outsized influence on my quality of life, AND they have proven themselves incompetent at protect…

You did give them explicit permission by participating in the modern financial system. That's why I keep saying all the hypothetical privacy concerns with Facebook's Libra already are reality with the current financial system. Equifax also didn't get fined because of what they were doing, but because they were negligent in handling the data. Having said that, given the importance of consumer debt in the US economy, c…

You say that as if it already happening makes it okay. Libra is getting hounded because the flaws are visible, frankly because people are suspicious of Facebook now. But the credit agencies doing similar things that we consider unethical, but operating in the background and hidden, doesn't make it right. I remember my mother telling me as a child "just because someone else does something doesn't mean you should." I'm pretty sure many mothers told many children that, but it seems many forgot.

What is happening to Facebook can be good for everyone. Because if the FTC cracks down on them then it sets a precedent to crack down on the credit agencies. Clearly people will go after them if that happens.

Sure, this should never have been an issue, but just because someone else is currently doing something doesn't mean that it ever was the right thing to do. Even if legal. Let's stop this BS "but they do it" and change the conversation to "they're doing it to, let's make sure they also are stopped."

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#137

Post by mirimir »

OK, I have a probably dumb question. In TFA, I see:

> Following a yearlong investigation by the FTC, the Department of Justice will file a complaint[0] on behalf of the Commission alleging that Facebook repeatedly used deceptive disclosures and settings to undermine users’ privacy preferences in violation of its 2012 FTC order. These tactics allowed the company to share users’ personal information with third-party apps that were downloaded by the user’s Facebook “friends.” The FTC alleges that many users were unaware that Facebook was sharing such information, and therefore did not take the steps needed to opt-out of sharing.

So does this settlement correspond to that complaint? I'm guessing that it must. But then, that means that the FTC negotiated the settlement with Facebook based on an unfiled complaint. That rather implies that Facebook had some influence over the complaint.

I guess that's not very different from plea bargaining in criminal cases, however.

0) https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/182_3109_fa...

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#138

Post by indiandragon »

mtgx wrote: post #108
indiandragon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature (e.g., two-factor authentication) for advertising Facebook is not alone in misuse or wrongful use of phone number given for 2FA. LinkedIn explicitly requires phone number to be added on the profile to enable 2FA and makes the phone number visible by default to all the contacts, if you don't want your phone number visible; you'll have to l…

Definitely not. Google does (did?) it, too. It may have stopped when GDPR went into effect.

Did Google show the phone number to contacts when 2FA was added?

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#139

Post by kgwxd »

indiandragon wrote: post #64
jawns wrote: post #8

A lot of the terms of the settlement deal with organizational changes, but when you look at the very specific privacy restrictions that Facebook agreed to, it's really, really problematic stuff: * Facebook is prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature (e.g., two-factor authentication) for advertising; * Facebook must provide clear and conspicuous notice of its use of facial recognit…

> prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature (e.g., two-factor authentication) for advertising Facebook is not alone in misuse or wrongful use of phone number given for 2FA. LinkedIn explicitly requires phone number to be added on the profile to enable 2FA and makes the phone number visible by default to all the contacts, if you don't want your phone number visible; you'll have to l…

Based on that phrasing, I feel like they could just reword the way they ask for the number. Instead of "Enter your phone number to enable 2FA" it would say "2FA can not be enabled without a phone number associated with your profile" and leave it at that. Then on the profile page where you enter you phone number it just list various "benefits" of giving them your phone number "friends can use it to find you", "faster support times", "ability to enable 2FA". Then they can claim they don't know the reason you added the number was just for 2FA.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#140

Post by rolltiide »

jawns wrote: post #8

A lot of the terms of the settlement deal with organizational changes, but when you look at the very specific privacy restrictions that Facebook agreed to, it's really, really problematic stuff: * Facebook is prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature (e.g., two-factor authentication) for advertising; * Facebook must provide clear and conspicuous notice of its use of facial recognit…

I like this trend of using agency settlements to force organizational changes of companies that have no way of changing the organizational hierarchy

they should get even stricter

force them to relinquish the absolute control of the founder/ceo, enable voting rights and more

investors are undiscerning and exchanges are not creating ultimatums for listing, so these founder privileges are only revoked after they mess up really bad which is cool

Post reply on HN