181–190 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easy to google: https://www.facebook.com/help/delete_account
Thanks. But I could not find the link anywhere, can anyone even get here from Facebook page: https://imgur.com/1ijzgqV
After the ban they also enabled forced pre-moderation on all my wall posts (everything I post to my wall gets marked with "We removed this post because it looks like spam and doesn't follow our"), so now I cant post anything at all. Do we need more proofs that Zuckerberg is a Putin's friend? Hello, Facebook! I'm a citizen of Russia who is just being critical of Russia and Putin. How much Russia pays Zuckerberg to censor dissent opinion and promote Russian puppets, like Donald Trump?
I was struck that on the surface it looked quite adversarial. Senators were trying to ask fairly pointed questions (despite any technical ignorance). But underneath the surface, the two parties here have fairly well aligned goals -- less freedom on the Internet. The senators want to show that they're doing something, and Facebook welcomes regulation in order to suffocate would-be competitors with it. I'm sure they're…
it was a sham because asking hard questions would require them to admit FB being an important asset for US own intelligence operations. If they drill too deep they'd need to face very uncomfortable questions about other platforms too, e.g Palantir (Thiel was right there lurking ;)). Facebook is the Internet in many countries (making them less resilient and even more prone to meddling than the US). And so looking at i…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/04/10...
SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D-WASH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome Mr. Zuckerberg.
Do you know who Palantir is?
ZUCKERBERG: I do.
CANTWELL: Some people refer to them as a Stanford Analytica. Do you agree?
ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I have not heard that.
CANTWELL: Okay.
Do you think Palantir taught Cambridge Analytica, as press reports are saying, how to do these tactics?
ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I do not know.
CANTWELL: Do you think that Palantir has ever scraped data from Facebook?
ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I'm not aware of that.
...
CANTWELL: Have you heard of Total Information Awareness? Do you know what I'm talking about?
ZUCKERBERG: No, I do not.
CANTWELL: Okay. Total Information Awareness was, 2003, John Ashcroft and others trying to do similar things to what I think is behind all of this — geopolitical forces trying to get data and information to influence a process.
So, when I look at Palantir and what they're doing; and I look at WhatsApp, which is another acquisition; and I look at where you are, from the 2011 consent decree, and where you are today; I am thinking, “Is this guy outfoxing the foxes? Or is he going along with what is a major trend in an information age, to try to harvest information for political forces?”
And so my question to you is, do you see that those applications, that those companies — Palantir and even WhatsApp — are going to fall into the same situation that you've just fallen into, over the last several years?
ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I'm not — I'm not sure, specifically. Overall, I — I do think that these issues around information access are challenging.
To the specifics about those apps, I'm not really that familiar with what Palantir does. WhatsApp collects very little information and, I — I think, is less likely to have the kind of issues because of the way that the service is architected. But, certainly, I think that these are broad issues across the tech industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The value of people's data is precisely _why_ GDPR is important. I should be able to take it away from you after I granted you temporary access to it.
since I don't have full understanding of GDPR what is to prevent companies requiring access being granted for any use of their website? if you have exchanged funds with a site how long are they allowed to keep the data. there are tax implications regardless
GDPR defers to data retention laws for all other purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should have had subject matter experts asking the questions. Instead there were people had no idea what they were talking about, wasting time on shout-outs to their sons/nephews or whomever (I was only able to follow it for a minute). The CEO needed to be under oath so that lying would carry consequences, and they needed someone who could cut through the BS of how some of the answers were worded. We need more pr…
The best part was someone asked if Facebook tracks you even if you've logged out of their website. Holy shit, moment of truth for Zuck, I thought. Nope, he deflected by saying he'll get his team to get back to the senator, and then he spewed jargon ("I know websites use cookies [bla bla] for security"). Oh, he knew the answer, but he couldn't say it in front of all the cameras watching. And of-effing-course he knows…
I was struck that on the surface it looked quite adversarial. Senators were trying to ask fairly pointed questions (despite any technical ignorance). But underneath the surface, the two parties here have fairly well aligned goals -- less freedom on the Internet. The senators want to show that they're doing something, and Facebook welcomes regulation in order to suffocate would-be competitors with it. I'm sure they're…
Measures to protect users' data and privacy will not strictly kill a "free" internet -- there are lots of reasonable caveats such as number of active users, total revenue, number of employees that would allow a small business to compete.
Do you run your own company and find the regulations dont require you to hire a multi-thousand dollar legal team at every turn?
Are you an internet user that thinks that what the government says wont be exploited?
I worry that my kids will be unable to start businesses due to regulations, or rather their friends wont be able to start businesses. I am a top 4%er and I'll simply pay for the legal teams needed. I know my competition making 40k/yr cannot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concept of regulatory or legislative capture actually a mainstream one; hardly deserves the conspiracy label. Further, the author's claim is well supported by ongoing legislative efforts as well as those efforts of the administrative agencies. There's a legitimate and level-headed reason to have concern. I'd call it skepticism or pessism at worst.
I'm not saying that regulatory capture doesn't happen, I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily happen every time a new piece of regulation is introduced. Saying that any hypothetical regulation introduced after this Facebook fiasco (and all the other data breaches of late) will benefit Facebook and hurt competitors is not exactly what I would call level-headed skepticism. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't be very careful…
Regulation can be awful or insignificant.
My state requires strippers to fill out a license and pay 50$. Changed nothing.
However, my state also requires you to put down 1M to start a bank. Thats definitely regulatory capture.
Its too soon to know whats going to be required of data. Databases might become significantly worse to program and require teams to maintain at government standards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good explanation of why this hearing was so poorly designed such that nothing could be discovered. I highly doubt it was accidental.
What type of discovery would you like to make? It seems to me that whatever fb has they control and do with as they please and have the money for lobbyists and lawyers to corporate-splain their actions away and pay the occasional fine (cost of doing business). I'm having a hard time understanding why any of what is known is at all a surprise to someone who understands tech.
I suspect what we watched was fairly well scripted theater, right down to the humiliating booster seat as well as the talking points cheat sheet that he "accidentally" let a reporter get a picture of. This wasn't about discovery, truth, or justice, it is about shaping public opinion.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe what comes out of this will be some reasonable regulations that the technical community will more or less agree do in fact provide substantial improvements to privacy of individuals. I'd happily take the other side of that bet though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Internet is the infrastructure plus a set of protocols, with HTTP being just one of them. The protocols the most heavily used tend to be regulated (at least in the EU...), the rest - not so much. So each time I hear someone talking about "the death of the Internet" when they mean regulation related to the WWW, I feel at least we as "hackers" should remember this important distinction because sooner or later, once…
There's a flip side to this: in part thanks to this lack of regulation, anything outside the popular protocols tend to be blocked in an increasing number of network. I can see this becoming so bad that the only way to communicate freely would be to tunnel our stuff through TLS on port 443. (That is, doing what looks like HTTPS.)
That is definitely not the result of a lack of regulation. The networks doing that are predominantly not public networks like Comcast, they're private internal corporate networks. The issue is they're a large enough minority that they can't be ignored. But that can't be fixed with regulation of public networks.
In fact, it's caused by certain regulations and pseudo-regulations like PCI-DSS, which require the default-deny policies you're referring to.