[deleted]
Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
31–40 of 95 posts
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
These articles again throw around and conflate the words “illegal” and “violation of TOS” which are two vastly different things. I’m not an expert in EU privacy law, but under US law, nothing that has occurred here (that has been publicly disclosed) was “illegal”. There are certainly potential civil lawsuits here, but nothing “illegal”.
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#33The 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..
Why do you think the small guys comply? The calculation that I’ve heard made is that by being a tiny fish you won’t be pursued.
Even better question, why do you think the big companies comply? I’ve seen some egregious compliance snafus at that level, too.
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not sure about 'surprise' That this was possible and happening was well known in Silicon Valley. What has changed is (a) Cambridge Analytica and the 2016 election made the issue relatable and (b) Zuckerberg et al are dissembling and attempting what appears to be an incompetently-executed public cover-up.
> Zuckerberg et al are dissembling and attempting what appears to be an incompetently-executed public cover-up I agree that execs probably took too long to make a statement, but out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on what execs should've done instead, or are you of the opinion that there's really nothing they could've done differently?
Really? It is not so much what they should have done but what they should not have done: they should not have made the decisions which led to their companies ending up in this quagmire. They should have behaved ethically, something which is sure to have been mentioned - even if only in passing - at the Ivy League schools they attended.
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Zuckerberg et al are dissembling and attempting what appears to be an incompetently-executed public cover-up I agree that execs probably took too long to make a statement, but out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on what execs should've done instead, or are you of the opinion that there's really nothing they could've done differently?
Really? It is not so much what they should have done but what they should not have done: they should not have made the decisions which led to their companies ending up in this quagmire. They should have behaved ethically, something which is sure to have been mentioned - even if only in passing - at the Ivy League schools they attended.
[deleted]
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only security most people need is herd security. As long as your data can blend into a mass of other people's data to the point where you're just an anonymous face in the crowd, there's no harm. Sure, if you're some important individual who can be compromised by someone motivated enough you might have something to be afraid of, but most people never rise to that level of importance. Well, yeah, maybe, but the K…
So then is there a problem? Probably not. Just a way to grab headlines.
Well there is a problem when it's now incredibly easy for say, a government to profile and find dissidents, etc.
Most people don't fall into this bucket and thus don't care, but the overall effect is to highlight deviations from the norm.
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not sure about 'surprise' That this was possible and happening was well known in Silicon Valley. What has changed is (a) Cambridge Analytica and the 2016 election made the issue relatable and (b) Zuckerberg et al are dissembling and attempting what appears to be an incompetently-executed public cover-up.
> Zuckerberg et al are dissembling and attempting what appears to be an incompetently-executed public cover-up I agree that execs probably took too long to make a statement, but out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on what execs should've done instead, or are you of the opinion that there's really nothing they could've done differently?
Facebook did not lack sound advice from competent executives, they just didn't have the spine to do the right thing, because money.
One central tension at Facebook has been that of the legal and policy teams versus the security team. The security team generally pushed for more disclosure about how nation states had misused the site, but the legal and policy teams have prioritized business imperatives, said the people briefed on the matter.
“The people whose job is to protect the user always are fighting an uphill battle against the people whose job is to make money for the company,” said Sandy Parakilas, who worked at Facebook enforcing privacy and other rules until 2012 and now advises a nonprofit organization called the Center for Humane Technology, which is looking at the effect of technology on people.
Alex Stamos, CSO is the one who led the internal tension for better disclosures and the need for Facebook to be more transparent. Of course, it is part of why he was forced to leave, as reported by the NYT [0].
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-...
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Zuckerberg et al are dissembling and attempting what appears to be an incompetently-executed public cover-up I agree that execs probably took too long to make a statement, but out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on what execs should've done instead, or are you of the opinion that there's really nothing they could've done differently?
Really? It is not so much what they should have done but what they should not have done: they should not have made the decisions which led to their companies ending up in this quagmire. They should have behaved ethically, something which is sure to have been mentioned - even if only in passing - at the Ivy League schools they attended.
Would they even get to a 100B, let alone a half trillion, market cap by always doing the right thing?
(Because this is ripe to be picked by the "wow, look at the HN dudebros" crowd: this is not an apology of their practices, it's a real question about corporations and powerful institutions.)
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
These articles again throw around and conflate the words “illegal” and “violation of TOS” which are two vastly different things. I’m not an expert in EU privacy law, but under US law, nothing that has occurred here (that has been publicly disclosed) was “illegal”. There are certainly potential civil lawsuits here, but nothing “illegal”.
[deleted]
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
These articles again throw around and conflate the words “illegal” and “violation of TOS” which are two vastly different things. I’m not an expert in EU privacy law, but under US law, nothing that has occurred here (that has been publicly disclosed) was “illegal”. There are certainly potential civil lawsuits here, but nothing “illegal”.
OK, I think I figured it out. See my edit.