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

Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 583 posts

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#571

Post by heretoo »

lanevorockz wrote: post #555
heretoo wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is relevant and related to their track record regarding how they treat user privacy, what data they have previously released to third parties, and what their current legal standing is with regards to the same issue, especially in light of Cambridge Analytica.

It's not, I recommend you to create your company account in Facebook and be horrified on the amount of information that you can collect from anyone.

I was addressing the comment "they knew it was illegal" and the response "what .. was illegal?".

The two links suggest awareness by Facebook of the illegality.

So, where is the irrelevance of the two links with regards to the privacy concerns highlighted by this whole story?

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#572

Post by netsharc »

xkjkls wrote: post #232
bluetwo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called "manufactured credibility" and it's about as worthless as the paper it is written on.

It's as credible as any other legal agreement we have in our society.

"Yes I am over 18".

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#573

Post by netsharc »

namarie wrote: post #60
jasonmp85 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Won't this behavior break a ton of apps? Would they really be moving fast and breaking things if it didn't?

It's only moving fast when they're breaking someone else's business model, not their own one.

Well they broke democracy. I guess props for Zuckerberg, his fuck-up could end civilisation...

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#574

Post by MertsA »

prostoalex wrote: post #136
bobthepanda wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then make "no requests for users email" part of the terms of using the API?

But there are many legitimate use cases of sharing email addresses. Just scratching the surface, * someone used Facebook Connect to login to NYTimes Web site, curious about their Food & Recipes newsletter, wants to sign up * someone logging into e-commerce shop through Facebook Connect, making a purchase and then deciding that yes, they would like to track and manage their order on the retailer's Web site, and they w…

Neither one of those use cases would necessitate using the user's real email address instead of the forwarding address that Facebook provided.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#575

Post by product50 »

anonnel wrote: post #554
product50 wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have some sort of background in this area, I don't know why I should trust you. Your argument is - yeah sure, this is a bogus exercise, and then you are expecting people to fall in line with you. That is not how you build trust or win debates. I am hopeful they will find something useful.

On this forum you are sorrounded by people with backgrounds in data storage and networking. Any one of them will tell you there can be no reliable “forensic” assurance the data was not copied somewhere by any number of methods, even for a recent timeframe, let alone 5 years ago. It’s a ridiculous idea on its face.

So you yourself have no expertise but are still going ahead with making an assertion and your bet is that if you are wrong others will pile in.

At least try to be reasonable.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#576

Post by gbhn »

downandout wrote: post #535
gbhn wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an agency issue. If I use an attributed channel it's like meeting you and saying "hey remember your friend the CS guy? Our company is looking for someone like that. Could you pass the word along?" vs pretending to be chatting with you when all I'm looking for is relevant recruiting leads which I will then use unbeknownst to you. For hiring this isn't as touchy a subject, but surely there's a qualitative differen…

The end result for the friends, which comprise 99.5% of the victims in both the Obama and Kogan cases, is precisely the same. Nothing was represented to them, their data was just used because someone they were friends with installed the app.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-campaign-use-tactics...

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#579

Post by anonnel »

product50 wrote: post #575
anonnel wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On this forum you are sorrounded by people with backgrounds in data storage and networking. Any one of them will tell you there can be no reliable “forensic” assurance the data was not copied somewhere by any number of methods, even for a recent timeframe, let alone 5 years ago. It’s a ridiculous idea on its face.

So you yourself have no expertise but are still going ahead with making an assertion and your bet is that if you are wrong others will pile in. At least try to be reasonable.

no, myself included.

Re: Zuckerberg on Cambridge Analytica situation

#580

Post by Diederich »

leggomylibro wrote: post #564
Diederich wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent said: 'use free software' How does that in conflict with your FSF link?

The parent says, 'They are happy to use free software and to be under government supervision.' In that context, 'free software' is referring to the previously-mentioned services (Google and Facebook), which do not cost money but are antithetical to the term as it is used by organizations like the FSF.

Ok that makes sense, thanks.
Post reply on HN