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

Facebook settles with FTC, under privacy watch for 20 years

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 135 posts

Re: Facebook settles with FTC, under privacy watch for 20 years

#71

Post by brown9-2 »

d_r wrote: post #36
brown9-2 wrote: post #2

Wow, this list is brutal: -In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public. They didn't warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance. - Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact,…

"- Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users' personal data – data the apps didn't need." Privacy/ethics issues aside, from a pure developer standpoint, isn't this just a feature? Where do we draw the line between functionality and privacy? User A allows user B to see her d…

It ceases to be honest when you incorrectly tell users that the apps "would have access only to user information that they needed to operate".

Re: Facebook settles with FTC, under privacy watch for 20 years

#72

Post by brown9-2 »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #20

You know... people could just take responsibility for sharing their private information. If they don't think a website "privacy policy" is enough of an assurance, it is their fault for accepting that risk. FB should not be blamed for sharing information that others freely share with FB. It's ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous to think that government regulation is somehow needed to protect privacy. How absurd. "I…

While you have a point about being responsible about what information you share with Facebook, it's not that users don't like their privacy policy - it's that the FTC has found that the privacy policy Facebook has published is a lie.

Re: Facebook settles with FTC, under privacy watch for 20 years

#73

Post by _delirium »

tokenadult wrote: post #27
jellicle wrote: post #15

So the penalty for ongoing repeated lies and fraud is.... nothing. Zero. The FTC has investigated, and the settlement is zero money and zero penalties. Not one dollar. Whew! I'm glad they were punished! They won't do THAT again! The U.S. is really in late-stage empire breakdown. I don't think there is any significant enforcement of any laws whatsoever against companies and people that are reasonably well connected. T…

On what legal basis would you expect a financial penalty for a free, voluntary-participation online service that did the things that the FTC found that Facebook did? What does the law on the subject give the FTC authority to do?

They knowingly lied to their customers, if these allegations are true.

Re: Facebook settles with FTC, under privacy watch for 20 years

#74

Post by _delirium »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #50
Bud wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. They lied. The fact that there was, according to you, no binding contract, has no bearing on the question of whether they lied or not. They did lie. Case closed.

Even if you accept it was a lie, it's not fraud. Facebook "lies" like Subway "lies" about losing weight by eating there. You're omitting the fact that Facebook has always stated they may change what they do with your information in the future.

If Subway lied in an objectively verifiable manner (as opposed to on a subjective/gray-area claim), they'd also be breaking the law. For example, if they told their customers that a certain sandwich had 6 oz of meat, and it in fact had 5 oz of meat, that wouldn't be legal. If they told their customers that their credit card transaction data was not being resold, and in fact it was, that wouldn't be legal. Facebook is alleged to have done the latter, among other things.

Re: Facebook settles with FTC, under privacy watch for 20 years

#75

Post by _delirium »

d_r wrote: post #36
brown9-2 wrote: post #2

Wow, this list is brutal: -In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public. They didn't warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance. - Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact,…

"- Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users' personal data – data the apps didn't need." Privacy/ethics issues aside, from a pure developer standpoint, isn't this just a feature? Where do we draw the line between functionality and privacy? User A allows user B to see her d…

That's one of the two bullet points where I can see a reasonable case for Facebook's side. It's slightly muddied because the app is running on Facebook where they control it, but I can sort of see an argument for apps' actions conceptually being actions of the user running them.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to Facebook on the other app-related claim as well, "Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate." Yes, Facebook could've done better on that, but fine-grained security is something nearly nobody has solved.

Re: Facebook settles with FTC, under privacy watch for 20 years

#76

Post by _delirium »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #23

Privacy policies aren't binding contracts or agreements. They're just stated policies. Why do people treat them like contracts?

Contracts are a pretty gray area. In a lot of contexts, a handshake agreement or email exchange, if documented well enough, can constitute a binding, legally enforceable contract. It doesn't have to be on a paper saying OFFICIAL CONTRACT with signatures at the bottom.

Re: Facebook settles with FTC, under privacy watch for 20 years

#77

Post by ceejayoz »

_delirium wrote: post #73
tokenadult wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On what legal basis would you expect a financial penalty for a free, voluntary-participation online service that did the things that the FTC found that Facebook did? What does the law on the subject give the FTC authority to do?

They knowingly lied to their customers, if these allegations are true.

Facebook users are not Facebook's customers.

Re: Facebook settles with FTC, under privacy watch for 20 years

#79

Post by seiji »

rdouble wrote: post #61
seiji wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An article a few years ago talked about what privacy means to rich kids who have everything. Go to a $40k per year boarding school that mummy and daddy pay for? What do you have to hide? Not much. Then the kids get older and decide "no secrets for anybody!" What's the harm in sharing your life? It's a net win. If you see James got a new turbo jet ski, won't you want to work harder to get one too? Sharing can save the…

On the contrary, don't rich people have a lot more to hide? Just knowing that your kid is enrolled at Le Rosey signals to a criminal that she is worth kidnapping... and the last status update shows her headed to Ibizia for spring break. In contrast, nobody cares if another poor kid "likes" Justin Bieber. Over-sharing seems a lot riskier for the rich (and famous.) It would be interesting to read the article you mentio…

The other important point: Nobody older than 25 exists (well nobody older than ~age-of-founder exists. Remember the entire "Never hire anybody over 27!" advice?). Kids don't have major privacy concerns, therefore everybody should have no privacy.

Re: Facebook settles with FTC, under privacy watch for 20 years

#80

Post by rhizome »

tbrownaw wrote: post #65
rhizome wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law has long been castrated on your points. The legal basis would be, of course, that private information is property, but that one doesn't exist in this country (yet?).

The legal basis would be, of course, that private information is property, but that one doesn't exist in this country (yet?). Trying to apply rules made for physical items (if I take it you don't have it any more) to things that act completely differently is a really bad idea.

Humans are smart, they don't have to use the exact same laws. Like I implied, the laws don't actually exist in the US.

Would it make a difference if I had said "something akin" to personal information as property? I mean, we're reading this story, so personal information has currency in some way, right? Seems to me that with some political will that the laws can be nudged further in favor of the user.

Post reply on HN