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

Facebook's seized files published by MPs

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 507 posts

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#241

Post by cbkeller »

jahlove wrote: post #220
fosco wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

holy smokes... >Michael LeBeau – ‘He guys, as you know all the growth team is planning on shipping a permissions update on Android at the end of this month. They are going to include the ‘read call log’ permission, which will trigger the Android permissions dialog on update, requiring users to accept the update. They will then provide an in app opt in NUX for a feature that lets you continuously upload your SMS and c…

> This is a pretty high risk thing to do from a PR perspective What's "PR" here?

Public relations -- bad press. Here's some more context from the BBC article:

> Facebook had been aware that an update to its Android app that let it collect records of users' calls and texts would be controversial. "To mitigate any bad PR, Facebook planned to make it as hard as possible for users to know that this was one of the underlying features,"

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#242

Post by dmix »

ysavir wrote: post #90
johnnyfaehell wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sharing or not sharing data with another app is likewise not an unusual decision. FB is not a public utility - they can not work with other apps for any reason, or no reason at all. And this is a particularly ironic thing to point out, considering that the main thrust is complaining that they _did_ share data with other apps. So it's bad if they do share data, but also bad if they don't? To me, this would be Facebo…

I agree with your point overall, but we need to recognize here that the problem isn't Facebook being selective, it's Facebook being a monopoly.

Selectively using business intelligence data is what makes a company a 'monopoly' these days?

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#243

Post by noarchy »

I think Facebook is terrible. So I don't use it. I have a choice.

These same MPs would likely howl in fury if their secret communications were stolen and published by an entity like Wikileaks (for example). Be careful what you wish for.

Of course the difference here is that one is "legal".

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#244

Post by drewblaisdell »

_salmon wrote: post #175

> "But the facts are clear: we've never sold people's data." What

You’d think that the fact that it is a commonly held belief that FB literally sold users’ data on Hacker News might cause some of us to reconsider our worldview with regards to FB and its practices.

You’d think.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#245

Post by casefields »

5trokerac3 wrote: post #203
_salmon wrote: post #175

> "But the facts are clear: we've never sold people's data." What

It's 100% true. They never sold people's data. They sold access to people's data . Slimy, corporate lawyerese 101.

Just because you didn’t kill someone yourself, doesn’t mean you can’t be charged and convicted of murder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#246

Post by undecisive »

chrisseaton wrote: post #184
steve_gh wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WRT doing business in the UK. You need to understand that this is a highly unusual situation. Part of the UK Parliamentary system is that there are "Select Committees"on MPs, whose job is to review and hold to account the performance of government bodies and departments. They may also review areas of national interest within their remit, and invite witnesses to give evidence to them. For example, there have been sign…

> an invitation from a select committee to give evidence has the same sort of weight as a court summons to give evidence It doesn't! As you say yourself, one is a summons, the other is nothing more than an invitation to attend.

To summon = To request to appear; send for.

Surely the only difference - from a UK perspective - is that one is a court, appointed (mumble mumble) by the Queen, and the other is the government, appointed (mumble mumble) by the Queen.

So yes, if you've been summoned by the Queen's representatives to appear, and you refuse, that's a pretty big snub.

Of course, with a court summons, there are well defined consequences - and everyone knows it - if you refuse to attend, because it's a common enough occurrence. I don't know what the consequences would be legally speaking if you were based in the UK and refused a select committee summons - I doubt it's a particularly common occurrence.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#247

Post by spunker540 »

paganel wrote: post #7

> Facebook used data provided by the Israeli analytics firm Onavo to determine which other mobile apps were being downloaded and used by the public. It then used this knowledge to decide which apps to acquire or otherwise treat as a threat > there was evidence that Facebook's refusal to share data with some apps caused them to fail Stuff like this should trigger the EU Commissioner for Competition to withdraw the aut…

Can you really blame FB for not providing API access to competitors?

If you want make Farmville with FB login go ahead, but if you try to make "FB 2.0" with FB Login and all friend connections preserved but keep all the ad revenue yourself obviously Facebook is gonna put their foot down.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#248

Post by [deleted] »

jahlove wrote: post #220
fosco wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

holy smokes... >Michael LeBeau – ‘He guys, as you know all the growth team is planning on shipping a permissions update on Android at the end of this month. They are going to include the ‘read call log’ permission, which will trigger the Android permissions dialog on update, requiring users to accept the update. They will then provide an in app opt in NUX for a feature that lets you continuously upload your SMS and c…

> This is a pretty high risk thing to do from a PR perspective What's "PR" here?

[deleted]

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#249

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

manfredo wrote: post #187
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's go with the tortured metaphor. Popular art museums generally run with allowing entry without requiring membership. They make up for that by collecting donations or entry fee, running a comparatively expensive cafe, and ensuring everyone leaves via the gift shop. They might heavily promote, and employ people to individually sell memberships, or give free membership in exchange for monthly gift shop and offers sp…

If the museum waived the entry fees for users that opted into a having their info tracked and the data monetized there are probably people who would prefer to compensate the museum that way. It'd probably open up access to the museum to poorer people that couldn't afford the ticket. Heck, I'd probably do it. My contact info has almost certainly been collected already, so for me it's basically instant savings. Your ma…

That might be the average price Economist readers would pay. I suspect it would be a lot lower for most users.

That aside - FB never gave users that choice. Where many media services - including AOL, streaming media companies, and newspapers (and the Economist) survive by charging a subscription, FB has never attempted to use that business model.

Why? Because FB has always been a data harvesting and user monitoring/profiling operation that happens to operate a social media front, rather than vice versa.

Ditto Google for search.

And "telling users about it in some capacity" is very different to giving users a list of buyers and full details describing what their personal data was used for.

Realistically, no one outside the industry - and not that many people in the industry - understand where this data ends up and what it's used for.

Pretending otherwise is casuistry and special pleading. There is no way users can estimate the true value of their data, either individually or in aggregate - because the value is determined by buyers who remain hidden and unnamed, and neither FB nor the buyers are obliged to explain any part of the process.

There is no informed consent here. It's a perfect corporate asymmetry, and very much designed that way.

Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs

#250

Post by CPLX »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #131
CPLX wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a statement that requires evidence and proof. Market fundamentalists are so used to advancing arguments like this without being challenged that they have become almost completely divorced from the scientific method entirely. Maybe being forced to share this kind of proprietary data, in this specific type of circumstance, will actually promote a more diverse marketplace with higher innovation. Maybe it won't. E…

You're not a "fundamentalist" because you mention the fundamentals of a field of study. It's impossible to have a discussion about anything if some things are not taken as axiomatic. And given that the person you're responding to is stating something that most economists would agree with, I think the impetus is on you to tear it down with "the scientific method" if you think the prevailing wisdom is wrong. TLDR: don'…

I have a degree in economics and I disagree with it.

If you were in fact an economist yourself, perhaps you would have recognized market fundamentalism as a term with a specific meaning, often used by economists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism

Post reply on HN