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

Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 285 posts

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#171

Post by briffle »

chaoticmass wrote: post #151
fortythirteen wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had a nickel for every time someone called me paranoid or a conspiracy theorist for mentioning this before last week, I'd have a ton of nickels. I should feel better now that people of aware of the nefariousness of this type of data collection, but I feel worse. The general public is being fed this as "Russia" and "Trump", and not getting the real, horrifying, surveillance state truth of what's going on. I'm les…

If you had a ton of nickels you would have about $9071.85.

thank you, I was just about to start figuring that out myself. :)

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#172

Post by Consultant32452 »

debt wrote: post #154
vkou wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much interaction is there, during, prior, or after election time, between the political or intelligence arms of the USA, and the politicians of any country in which the USA chooses to meddle in? If we were so worried about the integrity of democracy, we wouldn't have our fingers in so many other ones. You've just described soft power.

"How much interaction is there, during, prior, or after election time, between the political or intelligence arms of the USA" Great question. We don't know, because either we don't get caught or doesn't happen to begin with. We can make up all sorts of conspiracies, but Russia got caught so the conversation starts there.

Here's a wiki page listing the US interference in foreign elections that we know about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_electoral_interventi...

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#173

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

xienze wrote: post #160
bllguo wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's okay because you weren't personally affected" is so obviously wrong. It's so obviously against the spirit of the law and of society. I find it hard to imagine you're arguing in good faith. But how about this, then, since you're so intent on making this political? How about we fix this so that no future politicians can benefit from this kind of targeted advertising - both liberal and conservative?

> How about we fix this so that no future politicians can benefit from this kind of targeted advertising - both liberal and conservative? I’d be fine with it, but the first step is admitting that yes, Obama benefited from harvested social media data as well. No one wants to do that, this is all a Trump thing as far as the media, and therefore the general public, is concerned.

No but seriously why is the first step admitting that Obama benefitted? People are up in arms that their data was misused, why do you care whether they're politically motivated or not?

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#174

Post by dragonwriter »

debt wrote: post #159
dragonwriter wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, and maybe someone can clarify, every single intelligence agency has come out and said that there was some interaction between Russia and Trump No, they say (in the public assessment) that Russia intervened to favor Trump, not that there was interaction between Russia and the Trump campaign. Now, there's been at least one guilty plea from the Mueller investigation specifically referencing interaction, but that'…

"not that there was interaction between Russia and the Trump campaign." The FBI strongly disagrees with that statement. Facebook has been proven to be used as one of the tools to achieve those ends.

> The FBI strongly disagrees with that statement.

Whatever the FBI or people in it believe, the public assessment put forth by the US Intelligence Community does not address interaction; it is inaccurate to attribute that as a public unanimous conclusion of the Intelligence Community.

Note that I'm not making the “no collusion” argument, hence the reference to the Papadopoulos plea. The Trump-Russia interaction just is outside the scope of the public Intelligence Community assessment, and shouldn't be described as the public conclusion of the US intelligence community.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#175

Post by prolikewhoa »

fortythirteen wrote: post #88
lumberjack wrote: post #68

>Foremost among these tools is enforcement action against companies that fail to honor their privacy promises This is the crux of the issue. The problem is that when Facebook asks for "location information", the consequences of this are not being conveyed to the user. The user might think, "ah they want my location for the weather recommendations and event suggestions in my neighbourhood". They do not realise how som…

If I had a nickel for every time someone called me paranoid or a conspiracy theorist for mentioning this before last week, I'd have a ton of nickels. I should feel better now that people of aware of the nefariousness of this type of data collection, but I feel worse. The general public is being fed this as "Russia" and "Trump", and not getting the real, horrifying, surveillance state truth of what's going on. I'm les…

I wish the USA would stop calling people conspiracy theorists for critical thinking, especially as we see more what used to be 'conspiracy theories' actually come to fruition. It actually hinders critical thinking and is a bad path to go down.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#176

Post by matte_black »

hodder wrote: post #3

Remember the delete Uber campaign, the Equifax breach, the WFC accounts, the Bank of America suits, the Intel chip vulnerability? The market doesn't. The market has a short memory, and FB is not going anywhere. However, there may be some welcomed changes in data abuse. With that said, I think the stock is a bargain today.

When Facebook smashes its next earnings this whole scandal will be in the rear view mirror and the narrative will change. I doubled my position in FB.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#177

Post by [deleted] »

debt wrote: post #159
dragonwriter wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, and maybe someone can clarify, every single intelligence agency has come out and said that there was some interaction between Russia and Trump No, they say (in the public assessment) that Russia intervened to favor Trump, not that there was interaction between Russia and the Trump campaign. Now, there's been at least one guilty plea from the Mueller investigation specifically referencing interaction, but that'…

"not that there was interaction between Russia and the Trump campaign." The FBI strongly disagrees with that statement. Facebook has been proven to be used as one of the tools to achieve those ends.

[deleted]

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#178

Post by baumy »

lambda_lover wrote: post #147
fogzen wrote: post #119

How were any of you damaged by Facebook ads, exactly? Why the outrage now and not before, when Obama (and everyone else) used targeted advertising? This whole outrage over privacy is disingenuous. It’s painfully obvious the outrage is about Donald Trump being elected president, not personal information used to target ads.

While I definitely believe that the motivation behind this latest media surge is suspect, do you really think people aren't justified in being upset about Facebook's abuse? Maybe the outrage is simply because Facebook was new and people weren't aware of the dangers in 2008 and 2012? People don't have to be "damaged" by something to object to it. How do human rights abuses in third world countries "damage" you, exactl…

> This reeks of whataboutism to me. Why are you trying to imply that we shouldn't be concerned about privacy?

I don't think I've seen a single person use the term "whataboutism" correctly since November 2016.

People in this chain are simply pointing out that if somebody is angry at Cambridge Analytica, but not Obama's 2008/2012 campaigns, they do not actually care about data privacy. They just don't like Donald Trump. You can bet that the next time a data privacy issue comes up, these people will be indifferent so long as the abusing party is aligned with their politics. They also will likely be supportive of people they agree with circumventing any privacy regulations that may arise from this particular scandal.

Asking these questions is a useful filter to help determine how many people actually care about the core privacy issue, and how many are just worried about "their team" having an advantage.

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#179

Post by dfee »

kchoudhu wrote: post #63

If Zuckerberg has any game at all, he will welcome this investigation, 'educate' the regulators, and then build a regulatory moat around Facebook that no one can breach. The big four banks did this after 2009, and they are even more entrenched and systematically important than they were before. Expect Facebook to borrow liberally from their playbook.

This is called regulatory capture if anyone wants to read up more on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Re: Statement by FTC Regarding Reported Concerns about Facebook Privacy Practices

#180

Post by dragonwriter »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #164
dragonwriter wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, and maybe someone can clarify, every single intelligence agency has come out and said that there was some interaction between Russia and Trump No, they say (in the public assessment) that Russia intervened to favor Trump, not that there was interaction between Russia and the Trump campaign. Now, there's been at least one guilty plea from the Mueller investigation specifically referencing interaction, but that'…

It's worth noting they ALSO say Russia intervened against Trump. There's at least two anti-Trump rallies alleged to have been organized by Russia.

> It's worth noting they ALSO say Russia intervened against Trump

No, they don't.

> There's at least two anti-Trump rallies alleged to have been organized by Russia.

Be that as it may, the public assessment does not state as the ICs assessment that any part of the intervention had an anti-Trump purpose (a rally can be organized whose overt message supports a cause without the purpose being advancing that cause.)

Post reply on HN