Live data from Hacker News

Facebook recommended that a psychiatrist’s patients friend each other

fusion.net

71–80 of 224 posts

Re: Facebook recommended that a psychiatrist’s patients friend each other

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a moral hazard¹, or possibly an externality; the people writing the algorithms that violate people's privacy are not themselves the victims. Normally in a market system you want to keep the chain between cause and damage short enough to be comprehensible for the people causing it; otherwise, there's no good way to make them avoid it. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

Aren't they? How common do you imagine it to be, among Facebook employees, not to have a Facebook account?

Air pollution is an externality even when caused by people who breathe.

Re: Facebook recommended that a psychiatrist’s patients friend each other

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a moral hazard¹, or possibly an externality; the people writing the algorithms that violate people's privacy are not themselves the victims. Normally in a market system you want to keep the chain between cause and damage short enough to be comprehensible for the people causing it; otherwise, there's no good way to make them avoid it. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

Aren't they? How common do you imagine it to be, among Facebook employees, not to have a Facebook account?

Of course they have FB accounts. That isn't the point. The authors of these algorithms introduce - often without conscious intent - their own biases. They bring their own background, morals, etc when they design an algorithm.

This is a general problem with creating an algorithm to supplement or replace anything previously done by humans. Even if the algorithm is given accurate and unbiased data (which is rare), the choice itself to use an algorithm in the first place and the design of the algorithm also contain bias.

Sometimes this bias is intentional such as "redlining" where housing loans were denied to blacks using various proxies for race. I suspect that in most cases the bias is accidental, which is why it is very important to check the results carefully for any unintended bias. In situations like Facebook, simply asking their users first (opt-in) if they would like to participate in "local friend discovery" would be a great start.

Re: Facebook recommended that a psychiatrist’s patients friend each other

#73
post #61
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend that we all add the office number of a health care professional we don't need to our phone book. It will muddy the water just a little bit.

> I recommend that we all add the office number of a health care professional we don't need to our phone book. Also the contacts of lots of recruiters.

The recruiters I've been in communication with seemed to use burner Google Voice accounts

Re: Facebook recommended that a psychiatrist’s patients friend each other

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a moral hazard¹, or possibly an externality; the people writing the algorithms that violate people's privacy are not themselves the victims. Normally in a market system you want to keep the chain between cause and damage short enough to be comprehensible for the people causing it; otherwise, there's no good way to make them avoid it. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

Aren't they? How common do you imagine it to be, among Facebook employees, not to have a Facebook account?

"Aren't they?"

No they are not. For example, it is now common knowledge that Mark Z bought off all nearby houses in every direction to get more privacy. [1] Do you and I have similar access to resources?

Suppose your identity is stolen and you find yourself penniless because someone hacked into Facebook which also affected your friend who works at Facebook. Who is more likely to be in great financial distress the next day? Who is more likely to know the full impact of the situation?

Also, if someone in Facebook were to be negatively affected in some way, they probably have friends inside who can help them out. Do you and I have a direct line to a similar friend? In fact, we are likely to be the very last people to know of any such exploitation.

Besides, the closer you are to the algorithm, the more likely that you know how to circumvent it, even exploiting some simple bugs that others are not aware of.

And how about opting out? As a technologist, how hard do you think it would be for an insider to add himself/herself to the opt-out database, and also make sure that there were no hiccups in the process? Contrast that to something as simple as opting out of junk mail - have you been 100% successful?

I just made four observations about how you and I do not possess the same advantages as an insider at Facebook. What are the odds that, something can slip through four different test cases you set up and still turn into a bug in production? Minimal, don't you think?

You make really good points about not countering immoral action with more immoral action. But your notion that FB employees could somehow become unwitting victims of their own technology sounds seriously far-fetched to me.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.in/Mark-Zuckerberg-Just-Spent-Mor...

Re: Facebook recommended that a psychiatrist’s patients friend each other

#75
post #33

Note that everyone's favourite privacy-respecting app (mine too!), Signal, also does contacts-sharing, although it doesn't do friends discovery (so the server knows one's contacts, but one's contacts don't). If Open Whisper Systems wanted to be evil, though, they could do this form of analysis. Back in March I laid out how they could use a private set intersection protocol to enable any pair of users to privately sha…

Yet another daunting issue in our modern world:

No matter how good a given company or product is at privacy-respecting, what happens to all that data if they are bought out by someone else?

Re: Facebook recommended that a psychiatrist’s patients friend each other

#76
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically don't install Facebook or Whatsapp try to use the Facebook website if you can or better yet don't use Facebook at all on your phone if you value your privacy. It's sad that we are at this stage but it's mostly our fault for being so complacent with companies doing these kinds of things. If people stopped using their service when they did these kinds of things they would change their behaviour really quic…

> ...it's mostly our fault for being so complacent with companies doing these kinds of things. > ...most people don't know or care that this is happening. You seem to contradict yourself.

Only if "our" is taken to include "most people". If we, the people who are aware of the situation, were less complacent, we would inform more of the general population (who don't read HN) and potentially convince others they should care too.

Re: Facebook recommended that a psychiatrist’s patients friend each other

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue, which you and I both see, is the sheer asymmetry of the whole thing. We are in this weird situation where the individual, the typical cognitive miser who even on his/her best day cannot possibly take all the preventive actions, is up against tireless machines with perfect memory and ability to generate extraordinary pattern recognition working all day to mine just that little bit more information to t…

I would like to have more constructive suggestions to offer, too. It's not a simple problem, though, and it will not be quickly solved. Threatening Facebook employees (doxing people is a threat) does not seem likely to make anything better.

Well, facebook is "doxing" non-members by virtue of shadow profiles and by encouraging to tag everybody in the pictures. Counterintelligence could be a valid way to keep democratic society.

Re: Facebook recommended that a psychiatrist’s patients friend each other

#78

The phonebook hypothesis seems most plausible to me (especially considering that WhatsApp is owned by facebook). All those apps gaining access to a phonebook is a privacy disaster.

This is almost certainly the "phonebook" hypothesis.

If Lisa has her phone number associated with her Facebook account and either Lisa or the client has the others phone number in their smart phones contacts and the Facebook app installed that relationship can pop up in people you may know. If there aren't good "people you may know" suggestions the ones you get can end up being "people who may be known to people you know".

The reason I think this is because a therapist friend of mind had this exact problem and deleting her cell phone number from her Facebook profile made it stop.

What Lisa (and anyone else with a professional responsibility to protect client privacy) need to do is to stop associating the phone number they give to clients with Facebook or other social media.

Re: Facebook recommended that a psychiatrist’s patients friend each other

#79
post #66
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If employees are having trouble saying "no" to unsafe, unethical, or unlawful projects, then a professional association or union is needed. A professional association can create duty requirements external to a company; it's easier to say no to your boss is have the excuse that "as a member of $ORG, I have follow $ETHICS_RULE". Alternatively a union can put pressure companies to never ask for certain things or to meet…

If there is one thing our world does not lack, it's amoral people. Would you prefer that Facebook only hire them?

How often do you see doctors being hired that are not members of the AMA (or similar professional associations)? Their Code Of Medical Ethics[1] isn't perfect and certainly there individuals that have ignored it for $REASONS, but at least they have created a culture where it is expected that doctors will at least try to avoid unethical behavior.

> only hire them?

I suspect this is the knee-jerk hostility toward unions I was referring to. If a strong union was created that only addressed ethical behavior, how long would Facebook be able to hire from a dwindling pool of non-members? The entire point of a union is that it's a way to put pressure against specific business practices.

Re: Facebook recommended that a psychiatrist’s patients friend each other

#80
> Facebook and the other companies in the Facebook family also may use information from us to improve your experiences within their services such as making product suggestions (for example, of friends or connections, or of interesting content) and showing relevant offers and ads. [whatsaap privacy policy]

Many possibilities here:

1 - whatsapp connection with messages exchanged

2 - contact list loaded by whatsapp

3 - psychiatrist secretary number in whatsapp

4 - friends in common

5 - places in common

Post reply on HN