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

Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 233 posts

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#201

Post by cptskippy »

quadrangle wrote: post #190
newscracker wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking about ethics, this is going to sound below the belt. If Facebook were to enter into a contract with the defense department like Google did (and terminated a renewal just a few days ago), I doubt if any Facebook employees would even think of creating a petition to management or of quitting their jobs over that. Somehow I feel the people that Facebook attracts as employees may be the ones who don't care much fo…

To give benefit-of-the-doubt, I think they believe their own propaganda. Facebook folks actually believed that (e.g. among many) pushing people to reveal all aspects of their life equally to everyone was in society's best interest. And I once met a Facebook employee who actually was a staunch EFF supporter… But overall, I dunno… you're probably right.

It takes a certain degree of naivety to believe that. It also lacks a certain degree of critical thinking to not ask the question "but what if some people choose not to share?" or the even easier question "can any of this be abused?"

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#202

Post by TAForObvReasons »

newscracker wrote: post #171
arthurofbabylon wrote: post #47

Most notable pieces I took from the article: 1) Facebook does not see third parties (such as BlackBerry) as “third parties.” 2) Facebook told Congress that it disabled third party access to user data, but in actuality did not. My own strong interjection: Facebook’s competitive advantage is its disregard for ethics. Somehow, Zuckerberg has been able to convince a lot of smart people to do unethical things and build un…

Talking about ethics, this is going to sound below the belt. If Facebook were to enter into a contract with the defense department like Google did (and terminated a renewal just a few days ago), I doubt if any Facebook employees would even think of creating a petition to management or of quitting their jobs over that. Somehow I feel the people that Facebook attracts as employees may be the ones who don't care much fo…

> Having known so many people involved with Facebook for so long, I have come up with a phrase to describe the cultural phenomenon I’ve witnessed among them – ladder kicking. Basically, people who get a leg up from others, and then do everything in their power to ensure nobody else manages to get there. No, it’s not “human nature” or “how it works.” Silicon Valley and the tech industry at large weren’t built by these sorts of people, and we need to be more active in preventing this mind-virus from spreading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14780186

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#203

Post by [deleted] »

seanhunter wrote: post #188
hackinthebochs wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They defined device makers as service providers, and then allowed them to do things that even third parties weren't allowed. Because they're not third parties. Third parties are anyone off the street that meets some minimal requirements. It's like the distinction between third party and second party releases on video game consoles. Second party releases are extensions of the first party publisher because of the spec…

That's not what third parties means. Third parties means parties other than the service provider and the user.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#204

Post by hackinthebochs »

seanhunter wrote: post #188
hackinthebochs wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They defined device makers as service providers, and then allowed them to do things that even third parties weren't allowed. Because they're not third parties. Third parties are anyone off the street that meets some minimal requirements. It's like the distinction between third party and second party releases on video game consoles. Second party releases are extensions of the first party publisher because of the spec…

That's not what third parties means. Third parties means parties other than the service provider and the user.

Third party has never meant anyone who is not the first party. Special agreements between companies alter this status.

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#205

Post by greglindahl »

_jal wrote: post #154
greglindahl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might think that that's a great phrase for it, but many other people don't interpret "move fast and break things" to mean what you think it means. I'm all for criticizing things that have gone wrong, but you're using an overly-broad brush.

> but you're using an overly-broad brush No, not really. If you notice people working - say, construction - in a particular way, and they're trading safety for speed, and if you weren't concerned with worker-safety, you might consider that tradeoff their business. If you also found that it led them to build buildings that overlapped other people's properties, you might note that the tradeoffs they choose might also l…

The wrong thing about combining not-very-related things is that you're wasting your ire and offending ethical people at the same time. Great for starting an argument, not so great for convincing people.

BTW, your construction example is terrible. Unsafe construction worksites are illegal, and continuous integration and deployment of software is not.

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#206

Post by bobdole1234 »

arthurofbabylon wrote: post #47

Most notable pieces I took from the article: 1) Facebook does not see third parties (such as BlackBerry) as “third parties.” 2) Facebook told Congress that it disabled third party access to user data, but in actuality did not. My own strong interjection: Facebook’s competitive advantage is its disregard for ethics. Somehow, Zuckerberg has been able to convince a lot of smart people to do unethical things and build un…

They're not third parties because these API's are protected by user login credentials as near as I can tell. That means you provide your login information, and your device can access your Facebook data, as you expect a client of Facebook to be able to do.

That means all the privacy protections from the "website" are there, you're just not looking at it through a browser, it's an interface provided by the device manufacturer.

What is there to be angry about?

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#207

Post by srj »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #122
yk wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Editorial: It's startling to me how outfits as reputable as NYT can time and again parrot a narative (e.g., FB is better than sliced bread), and then after the fact report on something that was right under their nose all along. That is almost completely a problem of the format of news articles, and that journalists have to write for a lowest common denominator. Take as an example from the NYT article: > Details of…

> the NYT seems to define "third party" as any party that is not Facebook This is what third party means

I'm still a bit confused as to the facts here, but it seems this is about the client software having access to data via apis authenticated with user credentials. If it's the software acting on the client's behalf, I don't view the client as third party (it's the user itself). Something along the lines of the old Farmville app would be third party.

Now if blackberry or apple had carte blanche access to data via an API that was authenticated just based on the company credentials, that would be different.

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#208

Post by _jal »

greglindahl wrote: post #205
_jal wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but you're using an overly-broad brush No, not really. If you notice people working - say, construction - in a particular way, and they're trading safety for speed, and if you weren't concerned with worker-safety, you might consider that tradeoff their business. If you also found that it led them to build buildings that overlapped other people's properties, you might note that the tradeoffs they choose might also l…

The wrong thing about combining not-very-related things is that you're wasting your ire and offending ethical people at the same time. Great for starting an argument, not so great for convincing people. BTW, your construction example is terrible. Unsafe construction worksites are illegal, and continuous integration and deployment of software is not.

But they do appear to be related. You see the same things in the same companies, and the commonalities are consistent with treating consequences of the quest for growth at all costs as acceptable. When you have people racing a (real or perceived) time window, they don't stop pushing when humans are involved rather than software.

> your construction example is terrible

Takes all kinds. Including people who intentionally read things obtusely.

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#209

Post by ummm32 »

quadrangle wrote: post #190
newscracker wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talking about ethics, this is going to sound below the belt. If Facebook were to enter into a contract with the defense department like Google did (and terminated a renewal just a few days ago), I doubt if any Facebook employees would even think of creating a petition to management or of quitting their jobs over that. Somehow I feel the people that Facebook attracts as employees may be the ones who don't care much fo…

To give benefit-of-the-doubt, I think they believe their own propaganda. Facebook folks actually believed that (e.g. among many) pushing people to reveal all aspects of their life equally to everyone was in society's best interest. And I once met a Facebook employee who actually was a staunch EFF supporter… But overall, I dunno… you're probably right.

That moral opinions equals the one of Peter Thiel about the good in mass surveillance: based on his opinion that after 9/11, powerful western entities were on the side of really harsh intrusive countermeasures (and the restriction of current liberties quite probably), that could probably, fundamentally change the western societies as they existed at that moment.

The alternative to that way of doing things was to allow the existence of public and private entities like Facebook and their subrepticious intrusiveness, allowing mass surveillance, but also allowing to avoid other gruesome measures.

And that could explain why nobody can pull-out a facebook takedown.

"the cost of freedom is high..." JFK

Re: Facebook Gave Device Makers Deep Access to Data on Users and Friends

#210

Post by calewis »

arthurofbabylon wrote: post #47

Most notable pieces I took from the article: 1) Facebook does not see third parties (such as BlackBerry) as “third parties.” 2) Facebook told Congress that it disabled third party access to user data, but in actuality did not. My own strong interjection: Facebook’s competitive advantage is its disregard for ethics. Somehow, Zuckerberg has been able to convince a lot of smart people to do unethical things and build un…

While I agree I know a few ex Facebook employees and they all, genuinely, believe thst FB cares about user privacy. I suspect they've convinced good people to go bad with some strange coolade and all those free lunches.
Post reply on HN