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

Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

mondaynote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 95 posts

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#21

Post by bamboozled »

prolikewhoa wrote: post #4

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…

I used to think that, although I'm surprised how many of my family members have already deleted their accounts or are now seriously considering it since the news has broken about the breach.

I know very few people who now aren't actually suspect of the company now.Maybe their not willing to give up their accounts yet; However I truly think there is more public awareness of the situation than you think.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#22

Post by kristianc »

IBM wrote: post #12
prolikewhoa wrote: post #4

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as u…

The public doesn't care about appropriate capital ratios for "too big to fail" banks either, and yet Dodd-Frank passed. The internet industry may be banking on this blowing over, but I wouldn't be so sure. Especially if the tech industry can't provide a unified front (see Tim Cook calling for privacy regulation). GDPR has already arrived in the EU, and it will serve as a model for anyone campaigning for privacy legis…

What GDPR is really going to kill is the third party data sharing - cookie syncing across ad networks that the end user has never heard of and has no reason to know about. They are going to have a nightmare getting user consent and a lot of those firms have already completely exited the EU market.

The timing of this blowing up is not great for Facebook GDPR wise, but the user has a 1:1 relationship with Facebook and getting consent in exchange for continued use of the site is probably not going to be a major issue for them.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#23

Post by mehrdadn »

downandout wrote: post #19
mehrdadn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The outrage is over the illegal data sharing and how that was made possible, which happened in only one of those two cases.

Neither case was illegal, but Obama’s was far more invasive. What makes it so much worse is that Obama accessed 4x as many profiles as Kogan did, and they did it with Facebook’s blessings. This enabled them to keep the data current, while Trump’s dataset was both far smaller and years older than Obama’s by the time it was used. Sadly, there are still no apologies for the gross invasion of privacy that Zuckerberg auth…

The illegality I'm referring to was that CA falsely certified destruction of the data. My understanding is that was illegal, and people are mad at why Facebook made it that easy to lie and get away with it.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#26

Post by downandout »

mehrdadn wrote: post #23
downandout wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither case was illegal, but Obama’s was far more invasive. What makes it so much worse is that Obama accessed 4x as many profiles as Kogan did, and they did it with Facebook’s blessings. This enabled them to keep the data current, while Trump’s dataset was both far smaller and years older than Obama’s by the time it was used. Sadly, there are still no apologies for the gross invasion of privacy that Zuckerberg auth…

The illegality I'm referring to was that CA falsely certified destruction of the data. My understanding is that was illegal, and people are mad at why Facebook made it that easy to lie and get away with it.

It wasn’t “illegal” for them to not destroy the data. Kogan had a contractual duty to not sell it to CA, and Facebook can sue him for breach of that duty (and possibly CA for using it). But, at least under US law, nothing that occurred was “illegal”. What happened was a breach of a civil contract between two private parties - nothing more.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#27

Post by mehrdadn »

downandout wrote: post #26
mehrdadn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The illegality I'm referring to was that CA falsely certified destruction of the data. My understanding is that was illegal, and people are mad at why Facebook made it that easy to lie and get away with it.

It wasn’t “illegal” for them to not destroy the data. Kogan had a contractual duty to not sell it to CA, and Facebook can sue him for breach of that duty (and possibly CA for using it). But, at least under US law, nothing that occurred was “illegal”. What happened was a breach of a civil contract between two private parties - nothing more.

EDIT:

OK, I think I figured it out (I think I'd seen this but forgotten about it). It seems they say it was illegal because they believe campaign finance laws were violated. [1] Which, again, I understand was not the case for Obama, meaning equating the two would be incorrect.

[1] https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/26/watchdog-says-cambridge-...

________________________________________

Original comment:

I assumed they meant it was fraud/perjury/something along those lines, not merely breach of contract. Otherwise, if not, then then what do news sources keep saying the obtaining and/or keeping of this data was illegal? (e.g. [1] [2])

[1] https://qz.com/1231643/cambridge-analytica-illegally-obtaine...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analy...

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#28

Post by woodandsteel »

The question is how to solve this problem. I don't think governmental regulations will do it, through they may help. That's because data collection and sharing is Facebook's whole business model, and ditto thousands of other companies, large and small. So they will all just figure out ways of skirting around the law and continuing what they have been doing.

The only solution that could work is a new financial model that combines decentralization with some way of paying content producers and other expenses. Fortunately there is a lot of tech for that in development, though I don't know if anything is fully ready yet.

Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust

#30

Post by craftyguy »

woodandsteel wrote: post #28

The question is how to solve this problem. I don't think governmental regulations will do it, through they may help. That's because data collection and sharing is Facebook's whole business model, and ditto thousands of other companies, large and small. So they will all just figure out ways of skirting around the law and continuing what they have been doing. The only solution that could work is a new financial model t…

How about something like HIPPA (in the US)? There are strict penalties for violations, but it hasn't prevented small companies from thriving, provided they comply with the act..
Post reply on HN