Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Cambridge Analytica], [Facebook], and Data Security.

12930313335

Posts

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    How do you break them up though? The datamining and ads are what pay for everything else?

    Break them apart by the companies they were before being bought out. And if you do that, it might force them to work on new funding models.

    Why don't you give a concrete example, because there are dozens to hundreds of acquisitions over the years. Or are you just thinking of the "big" acquisitions people can name

    How do you fund otherwise given away for free software? Like chrome, that's probably a hundred million a year cost at least. Free quality browsers are a good thing, but they cost $$$ to make
    What about tech that got acquired and integrated into already-existing things?

    Oh, and all the service code is in one giant repository and none of it will work on another platform or datacenter because everything is custom-built to operate at massive scale. Go

    That's not my problem. But you know what is my problem, and the problem of everyone in our society? The fact that Alphabet, Facebook, and these other major tech concerns are so big, so pervasive that they are an outright threat to democracy. We as a society should never had allowed these companies to grow this large in the first place (and as part of this fix, we need to set up laws and regulations to prevent it from happening), but now that we're at this point, breaking up these companies is necessary. Will it be painful? Yes. But it's also something that needs to be done.

    As for funding "given away for free" software, perhaps we shouldn't do that anymore. A lot of the problems we've seen with social media and tech stem from the fact that we convinced people they shouldn't pay for things with money - so the corporations figured out how to get us to pay with information that, in the long run, is a lot more valuable. Not to mention the distorting effect on the market it has when a company can give away a product where its competitors are looking to sell.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    BigJoeMshrykeFANTOMASMayabirdgrumblethornMrVyngaardThawmusHacksawMan in the Mists
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    In terms of regulation, I'm not sure if anyone here reads The Economist but this week's main piece is about breaking up tech monopolies

    They make a lot of good arguments for why the likes of Facebook and Google should be broken up

    I am quite skeptical of this idea. One of their examples of over-concentration is there being only 3 or so credit card companies. In a world where there are a dozen credit card companies, how confident can I be that when I go somewhere my card will actually be accepted? This used to be, maybe still is, a problem with American Express as I recall. Social media platforms are also inherently monopolistic because the social media platform you want to use has nothing to do with which has the best product and everything to do with which one everyone else you know is already using. I would much rather have one online payment system that is accepted everywhere than remember a dozen different passwords to a dozen different services. I want all my games on Steam and I get irritated when I need to launch Origin or GoG.

    No, we should just call a spade a spade and recognize that these services are necessary for modern life and as such are now public utilities. We have single federal mint instead of dozens of private ones for a reason. We should understand that a means of making cashless payments and online payments are just as necessary for the basic functioning of the economy.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    Moridin889DoodmanngrumblethornJulius
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    How do you break them up though? The datamining and ads are what pay for everything else?

    Break them apart by the companies they were before being bought out. And if you do that, it might force them to work on new funding models.

    Why don't you give a concrete example, because there are dozens to hundreds of acquisitions over the years. Or are you just thinking of the "big" acquisitions people can name

    How do you fund otherwise given away for free software? Like chrome, that's probably a hundred million a year cost at least. Free quality browsers are a good thing, but they cost $$$ to make
    What about tech that got acquired and integrated into already-existing things?

    Oh, and all the service code is in one giant repository and none of it will work on another platform or datacenter because everything is custom-built to operate at massive scale. Go

    That's not my problem. But you know what is my problem, and the problem of everyone in our society? The fact that Alphabet, Facebook, and these other major tech concerns are so big, so pervasive that they are an outright threat to democracy. We as a society should never had allowed these companies to grow this large in the first place (and as part of this fix, we need to set up laws and regulations to prevent it from happening), but now that we're at this point, breaking up these companies is necessary. Will it be painful? Yes. But it's also something that needs to be done.

    As for funding "given away for free" software, perhaps we shouldn't do that anymore. A lot of the problems we've seen with social media and tech stem from the fact that we convinced people they shouldn't pay for things with money - so the corporations figured out how to get us to pay with information that, in the long run, is a lot more valuable. Not to mention the distorting effect on the market it has when a company can give away a product where its competitors are looking to sell.

    It's not your problem to explain how your idea would actually work or how we get there from here barring a time machine?

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    MrMisterSleepHappylilElfJulius
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Broad strokes then. Into what companies should they be split up? What goes where?

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    How do you break them up though? The datamining and ads are what pay for everything else?

    Break them apart by the companies they were before being bought out. And if you do that, it might force them to work on new funding models.

    Why don't you give a concrete example, because there are dozens to hundreds of acquisitions over the years. Or are you just thinking of the "big" acquisitions people can name

    How do you fund otherwise given away for free software? Like chrome, that's probably a hundred million a year cost at least. Free quality browsers are a good thing, but they cost $$$ to make
    What about tech that got acquired and integrated into already-existing things?

    Oh, and all the service code is in one giant repository and none of it will work on another platform or datacenter because everything is custom-built to operate at massive scale. Go

    That's not my problem. But you know what is my problem, and the problem of everyone in our society? The fact that Alphabet, Facebook, and these other major tech concerns are so big, so pervasive that they are an outright threat to democracy. We as a society should never had allowed these companies to grow this large in the first place (and as part of this fix, we need to set up laws and regulations to prevent it from happening), but now that we're at this point, breaking up these companies is necessary. Will it be painful? Yes. But it's also something that needs to be done.

    As for funding "given away for free" software, perhaps we shouldn't do that anymore. A lot of the problems we've seen with social media and tech stem from the fact that we convinced people they shouldn't pay for things with money - so the corporations figured out how to get us to pay with information that, in the long run, is a lot more valuable. Not to mention the distorting effect on the market it has when a company can give away a product where its competitors are looking to sell.

    It's not your problem to explain how your idea would actually work or how we get there from here barring a time machine?

    I'm pretty sure that we can break up Alphabet and Facebook, like we did to Standard Oil and Ma Bell. (Hell, Google's transformation into Alphabet creates perfect cleavage points - force divestiture of the letters.) Just because Alphabet has entwined everything isn't a good argument for why a company whose size and pervasiveness has become a serious problem shouldn't be broken up. But if you want a starting point, here's one - the companies either divest advertising sales or data collection. We've seen clearly that the two cannot be allowed to coexist under the same roof, as many of the biggest issues stem from their unholy union. So, they get to keep one or the other - but not both.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    durandal4532DarkPrimusMayabirdDoodmannMan in the Mists
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Okay, first of all
    Google's transformation into Alphabet creates perfect cleavage points - force divestiture of the letters

    Literally pointless. The Other Bets are Calico, Chronicle, Dandelion, DeepMind, GV, CapitalG, X, Google Fiber, Jigsaw, Sidewalk Labs, Verily and Waymo. Most of which nobody has ever heard of. Collectively, they account for about 0.5% of revenue and are a net loss of about a billion a year. Waymo is one of the only responsible self-driving car companies, because it has effectively infinite time and resources. Most of these shutter instantly. Waymo might attract investors but has to either speed up timelines or liquidate to the auto manufacturers

    So, the remaining 99.5%...
    the companies either divest advertising sales or data collection. We've seen clearly that the two cannot be allowed to coexist under the same roof, as many of the biggest issues stem from their unholy union

    What would actually change assuming this happens? The data collection side would still just ask the ads serving side for "an ad for $KEYWORDS $REGION $INTERESTS" which is pretty much what happens now. The data collection side is still in a position to demand the lion's share of revenue because matching the right ads to the right people is what is valuable. Remove any sort of targeting at all and you go back to random scattershot ads and I guess a $10/mo google fee to access anything at all. Good for bing I guess

    What is your actual objection here? How is a big tech company naturally a "threat to democracy" because of ads? Russia would have used any ads pathway to do their ads crap and at minimum you're still going to be able to target countries

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    Julius
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    How do you break them up though? The datamining and ads are what pay for everything else?

    Break them apart by the companies they were before being bought out. And if you do that, it might force them to work on new funding models.

    Why don't you give a concrete example, because there are dozens to hundreds of acquisitions over the years. Or are you just thinking of the "big" acquisitions people can name

    How do you fund otherwise given away for free software? Like chrome, that's probably a hundred million a year cost at least. Free quality browsers are a good thing, but they cost $$$ to make
    What about tech that got acquired and integrated into already-existing things?

    Oh, and all the service code is in one giant repository and none of it will work on another platform or datacenter because everything is custom-built to operate at massive scale. Go

    Are they? Is all this free software actually good? Because the results of all this free software are: massive amounts of data-gathering of everything people do in order to run the business model that leads to a lot of the problems we've been talking about with social media and the death of alternative business models.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Okay, first of all
    Google's transformation into Alphabet creates perfect cleavage points - force divestiture of the letters

    Literally pointless. The Other Bets are Calico, Chronicle, Dandelion, DeepMind, GV, CapitalG, X, Google Fiber, Jigsaw, Sidewalk Labs, Verily and Waymo. Most of which nobody has ever heard of. Collectively, they account for about 0.5% of revenue and are a net loss of about a billion a year. Waymo is one of the only responsible self-driving car companies, because it has effectively infinite time and resources. Most of these shutter instantly. Waymo might attract investors but has to either speed up timelines or liquidate to the auto manufacturers

    So, the remaining 99.5%...
    the companies either divest advertising sales or data collection. We've seen clearly that the two cannot be allowed to coexist under the same roof, as many of the biggest issues stem from their unholy union

    What would actually change assuming this happens? The data collection side would still just ask the ads serving side for "an ad for $KEYWORDS $REGION $INTERESTS" which is pretty much what happens now. The data collection side is still in a position to demand the lion's share of revenue because matching the right ads to the right people is what is valuable. Remove any sort of targeting at all and you go back to random scattershot ads and I guess a $10/mo google fee to access anything at all. Good for bing I guess

    What is your actual objection here? How is a big tech company naturally a "threat to democracy" because of ads? Russia would have used any ads pathway to do their ads crap and at minimum you're still going to be able to target countries

    Because the large social media platforms have become so ubiquitous and far-reaching that their lack of policing of content directly effects the political system.

    Harry Dresdendurandal4532FencingsaxZilla360MayabirdLostNinjaQanamilAngelHedgieDedwrekkaCouscousAistanMrVyngaardHacksawMan in the MistsElldren
  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Okay, first of all
    Google's transformation into Alphabet creates perfect cleavage points - force divestiture of the letters

    Literally pointless. The Other Bets are Calico, Chronicle, Dandelion, DeepMind, GV, CapitalG, X, Google Fiber, Jigsaw, Sidewalk Labs, Verily and Waymo. Most of which nobody has ever heard of. Collectively, they account for about 0.5% of revenue and are a net loss of about a billion a year. Waymo is one of the only responsible self-driving car companies, because it has effectively infinite time and resources. Most of these shutter instantly. Waymo might attract investors but has to either speed up timelines or liquidate to the auto manufacturers

    So, the remaining 99.5%...
    the companies either divest advertising sales or data collection. We've seen clearly that the two cannot be allowed to coexist under the same roof, as many of the biggest issues stem from their unholy union

    What would actually change assuming this happens? The data collection side would still just ask the ads serving side for "an ad for $KEYWORDS $REGION $INTERESTS" which is pretty much what happens now. The data collection side is still in a position to demand the lion's share of revenue because matching the right ads to the right people is what is valuable. Remove any sort of targeting at all and you go back to random scattershot ads and I guess a $10/mo google fee to access anything at all. Good for bing I guess

    What is your actual objection here? How is a big tech company naturally a "threat to democracy" because of ads? Russia would have used any ads pathway to do their ads crap and at minimum you're still going to be able to target countries

    Because the large social media platforms have become so ubiquitous and far-reaching that their lack of policing of content directly effects the political system.

    Additionally their large stores of personal information create a natural and obvious target for foreign state actors, companies, and independent hackers. Leading to a regular stream of breaches, thefts and attempts resulting in a regular need for people to keep replacing PII information and freezing credit.

    Couscousshrykedurandal4532Man in the Mists
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Dedwrekka wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Okay, first of all
    Google's transformation into Alphabet creates perfect cleavage points - force divestiture of the letters

    Literally pointless. The Other Bets are Calico, Chronicle, Dandelion, DeepMind, GV, CapitalG, X, Google Fiber, Jigsaw, Sidewalk Labs, Verily and Waymo. Most of which nobody has ever heard of. Collectively, they account for about 0.5% of revenue and are a net loss of about a billion a year. Waymo is one of the only responsible self-driving car companies, because it has effectively infinite time and resources. Most of these shutter instantly. Waymo might attract investors but has to either speed up timelines or liquidate to the auto manufacturers

    So, the remaining 99.5%...
    the companies either divest advertising sales or data collection. We've seen clearly that the two cannot be allowed to coexist under the same roof, as many of the biggest issues stem from their unholy union

    What would actually change assuming this happens? The data collection side would still just ask the ads serving side for "an ad for $KEYWORDS $REGION $INTERESTS" which is pretty much what happens now. The data collection side is still in a position to demand the lion's share of revenue because matching the right ads to the right people is what is valuable. Remove any sort of targeting at all and you go back to random scattershot ads and I guess a $10/mo google fee to access anything at all. Good for bing I guess

    What is your actual objection here? How is a big tech company naturally a "threat to democracy" because of ads? Russia would have used any ads pathway to do their ads crap and at minimum you're still going to be able to target countries

    Because the large social media platforms have become so ubiquitous and far-reaching that their lack of policing of content directly effects the political system.

    Additionally their large stores of personal information create a natural and obvious target for foreign state actors, companies, and independent hackers. Leading to a regular stream of breaches, thefts and attempts resulting in a regular need for people to keep replacing PII information and freezing credit.

    Or, like, mishandling a la Equifax

    steam_sig.png
    shrykedurandal4532Man in the Mists
  • Anarchy Rules!Anarchy Rules! Registered User regular
    The refusal of Zuckerberg to answer MPs questions in parliament has taken a surprising escalation.

    Details from the Observer newspaper:
    Damian Collins, the chair of the culture, media and sport select committee, invoked a rare parliamentary mechanism to compel the founder of a US software company, Six4Three, to hand over the documents during a business trip to London. In another exceptional move, parliament sent a serjeant at arms to his hotel with a final warning and a two-hour deadline to comply with its order. When the software firm founder failed to do so, it’s understood he was escorted to parliament. He was told he risked fines and even imprisonment if he didn’t hand over the documents.

    “We are in uncharted territory,” said Collins, who also chairs an inquiry into fake news. “This is an unprecedented move but it’s an unprecedented situation. We’ve failed to get answers from Facebook and we believe the documents contain information of very high public interest.”

    Six4Three is currently in litigation with Facebook regarding the loophole exploited by Cambridge Analytica. The cache of documents are subject to a Californian court order so cannot be shared, however because the summons was issued whilst the founder was in London, he was forced to comply. Further, the select committee is protected by parliamentary privilege so now cannot be stopped by injunction or other legal moves.

    It'll be very interesting to see what the papers reveal

    JazzshrykeZilla360DarkPrimusAegisPolaritieFencingsaxTynnanHarry DresdenLabel38thDoeHefflingMan in the MistsElldrenMartini_Philosopher
  • LostNinjaLostNinja Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    Who is Six4Three? A quick google search brings up an insurance company in California? The article doesn’t really explain either outside of being in a lawsuit against Facebook and having invested in an app (which is doesn’t say which one).

    LostNinja on
    HappylilElfZilla360
  • Anarchy Rules!Anarchy Rules! Registered User regular
    LostNinja wrote: »
    Who is Six4Three? A quick google search brings up an insurance company in California? The article doesn’t really explain either outside of being in a lawsuit against Facebook and having invested in an app (which is doesn’t say which one).

    Six4Three created an app called Pikinis that identified Facebook photos in which a user is wearing a bikini (creepy as hell). The core of their lawsuit is that their business failed when Facebook changed their privacy policies preventing third-party developers accessing 'friend' information. I don't know how exactly it fits in, but they also allege that Facebook was tracking and monitoring users without their consent.

  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited November 2018
    Following up on that, Damian Collins (the MP noted before) and the House of Commons have received and reviewed the documents:


    Please publish them, that would be awesome. Hooray for parliamentary privilege.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
    XaquingrumblethornHarry DresdenZilla360
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Aegis wrote: »
    Following up on that, Damian Collins (the MP noted before) and the House of Commons have received and reviewed the documents:


    Please publish them, that would be awesome. Hooray for parliamentary privilege.

    He also told Zuckerberg which oriface he could shove his request to have the documents returned unread:

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    LostNinjaZilla360
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Jephery wrote: »
    Zuckerberg is a walking stereotype in terms of being a really smart engineer who thinks that all of life's problems are as easily solvable as writing a program, if only everyone else would get out of his way and stop being so stupid.

    See also: libertarians

    I've had programmers remark that if programmers wrote the law, it would be less full of loopholes.

    And I'm just like "wtf our code is awful and full of bugs constantly."

    The one thing from programming I want to see translated to law: git.

    Revision history, logs of who changed what, the whole nine yards.

    ....I wonder if someone could write a compiler for legal code which would make the slightest bit of sense.

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/how-i-changed-the-law-with-a-github-pull-request

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2018
    Well, now we know why Facebook was so desperate to keep those documents sealed:
    A Facebook engineer warned in 2014 about a potentially huge data issue involving Russia, according to secret documents seized by Britain's Parliament last week.

    Damian Collins, a UK politician, has reviewed the papers, which stem from a protracted legal battle between Facebook and an app developer named Six4Three.

    Collins disclosed the potential breach at an international grand committee hearing on Tuesday in which Facebook was grilled on its series of scandals.

    Summarizing an element of the documents, Collins said that "an engineer at Facebook notified the company in October 2014 that entities with Russian IP addresses had been using a Pinterest API key to pull over 3 billion data points a day through the Ordered Friends API."

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    SleepTynnanSpoitFencingsaxPolaritieThawmusBullheadshrykeLabelJazzBurnage38thDoeDedwrekkaIncenjucarMoridin889never dieKamarHefflingMan in the MistsElldrenMartini_Philosopher
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Well, now we know why Facebook was so desperate to keep those documents sealed:
    A Facebook engineer warned in 2014 about a potentially huge data issue involving Russia, according to secret documents seized by Britain's Parliament last week.

    Damian Collins, a UK politician, has reviewed the papers, which stem from a protracted legal battle between Facebook and an app developer named Six4Three.

    Collins disclosed the potential breach at an international grand committee hearing on Tuesday in which Facebook was grilled on its series of scandals.

    Summarizing an element of the documents, Collins said that "an engineer at Facebook notified the company in October 2014 that entities with Russian IP addresses had been using a Pinterest API key to pull over 3 billion data points a day through the Ordered Friends API."

    holy crap, russia will be able to take over the world with repurposed pallets, toilet paper tubes, and neat ways to store kitchen utensils!

    DoodmannTicaldfjamJulius
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    ...uh no. It can microtarget lies and false campaigns

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    kimeAngelHedgieOrcaThawmusSleepMvrckshrykeLabelHacksawDedwrekkaIncenjucarnever dieKamarHefflingMan in the MistsEncElldren
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    I knoh never mind

    ThawmusDoodmann
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    By the way, this thread on the hearing is amazing:



    Carole Cadwalladr is a Guardian reporter.

    This is the end:

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    No-QuarterOrcaXaquinThawmusRMS OceanicSleepDoodmannshrykeDark Raven XMillQanamilJazzHacksawBurnageKayne Red RobeTicaldfjamDedwrekkaIncenjucarnever dieKamarHefflingMan in the MistsMvrckElldrentynicZilla360
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    At this point, Sandberg needs to be fired. Not allowed to resign, but actually fired for cause.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    destroyah87FencingsaxDoodmannMoridin889iTunesIsEvilTicaldfjamMan in the MistsMvrckHacksawDoctorArchtynicZilla360ElldrenTransporter
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    The Facebook documents have been released. And yes, they're as damning as we thought:
    The documents include details on the distribution of Facebook’s various apps; how the company worked very closely with some app developers to grant them access to user data, and how the company specifically incentivizes sharing on the platform in order to feed that data back to advertisers. They also include information about how the company tried to hide and downplay the amount of data that it collected from the Android version of the Facebook app.

    Facebook's response is pure gooseshit:
    A Facebook spokesperson told Motherboard in a statement "As we've said many times, the documents Six4Three gathered for their baseless case are only part of the story and are presented in a way that is very misleading without additional context."

    The proper response is "What fucking context is there that would make this even approach okay?"

    Also, the San Mateo judge who sealed these documents needs to justify doing so.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    destroyah87Man in the MistsMrVyngaardZilla360
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Facebook board fails to read the room, defends Sandberg's actions:
    Facebook’s board of directors appears to be sticking to the script in the defense of its opposition research into George Soros, a vocal critic of the platform. In a letter reported Wednesday by the Wall Street Journal from Facebook’s board of directors to Patrick Gaspard, the president of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the company defended its Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and her request for information on the billionaire philanthropist.

    The letter followed Gaspard’s own letter to Facebook’s board members on Tuesday regarding Sandberg’s involvement with Facebook’s opposition campaign against Soros and in which he questioned whether Sandberg had been truthful with him about it. In the company’s response on Wednesday, Facebook’s general counsel Colin Stretch came to Sandberg’s defense by claiming that “she had not known about the work done by the Definers public relations firm related to Mr. Soros.” The letter also characterized Sandberg’s request for staff to look into the billionaire following his public criticism of the platform as “entirely appropriate.”
    As you know, in January of this year, George Soros gave a highly publicized speech to business and political leaders in which he called our company a “menace to society.” As is to be expected following an attack from such a well-known and widely respected figure, Facebook staff immediately initiated research to attempt to understand the motivations driving the criticism, financial or otherwise. That research was underway when Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer, sent an email asking if Mr. Soros had shorted Facebook stock. To be clear, Ms. Sandberg’s question was entirely appropriate given her role as COO.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    I'm ready for Facebook to get fined into the ground by the EU. I've given up hope that the US will do anything about them.

    destroyah87kimeXaquinKayne Red RobeiTunesIsEvilOrcaBigJoeMMan in the MistsIncenjucarLostNinjatynicFencingsaxZilla360Bullheadmageormikeschussautono-wally, erotibot300ElldrenMoridin889QanamilDoodmannshrykeHeffling
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Man fuck this company.

    Zilla360schussautono-wally, erotibot300Elldrenshryke
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    The "X days without a major scandal" counter got up to....little more than a week:
    New York (CNN Business) Facebook announced on Friday that the social network had exposed the private photos of millions of users without their permission.

    The company said a bug recently allowed third-party app developers to access photos people may not have shared publicly. Facebook believes as many as 6.8 million users could be affected.

    The Irish Data Protection Commission, the body that oversees Facebook's compliance with European regulations, said on Friday that it had launched a "statutory inquiry" into Facebook as a result of multiple breaches the company had informed them about this year.

    Photos that users started to upload to Facebook but did not post could have been accessed, along with images posted to Facebook Stories, Tomer Bar, an engineering director at Facebook, wrote in a blog post.

    "We're sorry this happened," he added.

    If you were truly sorry this wouldn't be happening since by this point, your "accident" story is suspicious.
    Users' photos were exposed over a 12 day period in September, the blog post said.

    When asked why Facebook waited to inform the public of the issue, a Facebook spokesperson told CNN Business, "We have been investigating the issue since it was discovered to try and understand its impact so that we could ensure we are contacting the right developers and people affected by the bug. It then took us some time to build a meaningful way to notify people, and get translations done."

    The information Facebook gives to third-party app developers continues to be under scrutiny. Earlier this year, a data scientist working for Cambridge Analytica revealed the company had several years ago used the system to gather data on tens of millions of Americans.

    As a result of this bug, the company said it believes the photos could have been accessed by 1,500 apps built by 876 developers.
    So, waiting for the heat to die down.

    Zilla360
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    And because Facebook is a hive of scum and villainy, they had all sorts of secret deals to sell user data:
    For years, Facebook gave some of the world’s largest technology companies more intrusive access to users’ personal data than it has disclosed, effectively exempting those business partners from its usual privacy rules, according to internal records and interviews.

    The special arrangements are detailed in hundreds of pages of Facebook documents obtained by The New York Times. The records, generated in 2017 by the company’s internal system for tracking partnerships, provide the most complete picture yet of the social network’s data-sharing practices. They also underscore how personal data has become the most prized commodity of the digital age, traded on a vast scale by some of the most powerful companies in Silicon Valley and beyond.

    The exchange was intended to benefit everyone. Pushing for explosive growth, Facebook got more users, lifting its advertising revenue. Partner companies acquired features to make their products more attractive. Facebook users connected with friends across different devices and websites. But Facebook also assumed extraordinary power over the personal information of its 2.2 billion users — control it has wielded with little transparency or outside oversight.

    Facebook allowed Microsoft’s Bing search engine to see the names of virtually all Facebook users’ friends without consent, the records show, and gave Netflix and Spotify the ability to read Facebook users’ private messages.

    Yeah, I'm at Facebook delenda est these days. Burn it down, salt the earth, and let it stand as a monument to why you don't play fast and loose with people.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    XaquinBullheadElldrenZilla360Man in the MistsMvrckshrykeHeffling
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Come on GDPR, devour them whole.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    kimeBullheadOrcaiTunesIsEvilElldrenZilla360CommunistCowNeveronAegisMvrckevilmrhenryMan in the Mists
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    The AG of DC has filed suit against Cambridge Analytica.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    IncenjucarBullheadiTunesIsEvilThawmusElldrenCouscousPolaritieJazz38thDoeSleepTomantaZilla360CommunistCowAegisDarkPrimusLabelMan in the MistsSolarMartini_PhilosopherQanamilMvrckshrykeAstaerethHacksawHeffling
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    From the article, it sounds like Facebook is claiming that Amazon, Netflix, et al were bound by data use / business associate agreements. No one should trust Facebook's claim without verifying, but on it's face that doesn't sound terribly different than how other sensitive data is shared.

    Your hospital can legally share information about your care with Amazon without your explicit consent, so long as Amazon has a legitimate Business Associate Agreement (BAA). This model sounds similar to what Facebook is claiming here.

    lazegamer on
    Surprise.
    - Spy
    Sleep
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    And Facebook is letting Alex Jones sneak back on through the back door:
    Alex Jones, the rabidly anti-LGBTQ conspiracy theorist who hosts the web-show InfoWars was banned from Facebook, YouTube, iTunes, Twitter and Vimeo last year. But he has apparently snuck back onto Facebook, and so far he’s getting away with it.

    The Daily Dot reports that Jones’ InfoWars is now available on Facebook via three pages called NewsWars, InfoWars Live 24/7 and Prison Planet.TV. All of them run anti-LGBTQ content which conflates LGBTQ rights with pedophilia.

    Jones has admitted that his company operates NewsWars and its related website, NewsWars.com, but he has denied personally running any of the Facebook pages.

    Many of the NewsWars.com posts contain InfoWars videos, helping Facebook users connect with Jones and his anti-LGBTQ and Islamophobic views despite formally being banned on the world’s largest social network.

    They really can't get things right there, can they?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited January 15
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    How do you break them up though? The datamining and ads are what pay for everything else?

    Break them apart by the companies they were before being bought out. And if you do that, it might force them to work on new funding models.

    Why don't you give a concrete example, because there are dozens to hundreds of acquisitions over the years. Or are you just thinking of the "big" acquisitions people can name

    How do you fund otherwise given away for free software? Like chrome, that's probably a hundred million a year cost at least. Free quality browsers are a good thing, but they cost $$$ to make
    What about tech that got acquired and integrated into already-existing things?

    Oh, and all the service code is in one giant repository and none of it will work on another platform or datacenter because everything is custom-built to operate at massive scale. Go

    That's not my problem. But you know what is my problem, and the problem of everyone in our society? The fact that Alphabet, Facebook, and these other major tech concerns are so big, so pervasive that they are an outright threat to democracy. We as a society should never had allowed these companies to grow this large in the first place (and as part of this fix, we need to set up laws and regulations to prevent it from happening), but now that we're at this point, breaking up these companies is necessary. Will it be painful? Yes. But it's also something that needs to be done.

    As for funding "given away for free" software, perhaps we shouldn't do that anymore. A lot of the problems we've seen with social media and tech stem from the fact that we convinced people they shouldn't pay for things with money - so the corporations figured out how to get us to pay with information that, in the long run, is a lot more valuable. Not to mention the distorting effect on the market it has when a company can give away a product where its competitors are looking to sell.

    Alternatively we could fund open-source software that is not owned or controlled by corporations.

    edit - I mean I'm down for breaking up the big corporations but not as down for the "make people pay money" part

    Kaputa on
    John C. Turbine
  • khainkhain Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    How do you break them up though? The datamining and ads are what pay for everything else?

    Break them apart by the companies they were before being bought out. And if you do that, it might force them to work on new funding models.

    Why don't you give a concrete example, because there are dozens to hundreds of acquisitions over the years. Or are you just thinking of the "big" acquisitions people can name

    How do you fund otherwise given away for free software? Like chrome, that's probably a hundred million a year cost at least. Free quality browsers are a good thing, but they cost $$$ to make
    What about tech that got acquired and integrated into already-existing things?

    Oh, and all the service code is in one giant repository and none of it will work on another platform or datacenter because everything is custom-built to operate at massive scale. Go

    That's not my problem. But you know what is my problem, and the problem of everyone in our society? The fact that Alphabet, Facebook, and these other major tech concerns are so big, so pervasive that they are an outright threat to democracy. We as a society should never had allowed these companies to grow this large in the first place (and as part of this fix, we need to set up laws and regulations to prevent it from happening), but now that we're at this point, breaking up these companies is necessary. Will it be painful? Yes. But it's also something that needs to be done.

    As for funding "given away for free" software, perhaps we shouldn't do that anymore. A lot of the problems we've seen with social media and tech stem from the fact that we convinced people they shouldn't pay for things with money - so the corporations figured out how to get us to pay with information that, in the long run, is a lot more valuable. Not to mention the distorting effect on the market it has when a company can give away a product where its competitors are looking to sell.

    Alternatively we could fund open-source software that is not owned or controlled by corporations.

    edit - I mean I'm down for breaking up the big corporations but not as down for the "make people pay money" part

    Someone has to pay for it. The creation of software and the hardware to run it is expensive so if people aren't paying for it with data then the funding has to come from somewhere else.

    SpoitOrcaMoridin889
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    khain wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Phyphor wrote: »
    Spoit wrote: »
    How do you break them up though? The datamining and ads are what pay for everything else?

    Break them apart by the companies they were before being bought out. And if you do that, it might force them to work on new funding models.

    Why don't you give a concrete example, because there are dozens to hundreds of acquisitions over the years. Or are you just thinking of the "big" acquisitions people can name

    How do you fund otherwise given away for free software? Like chrome, that's probably a hundred million a year cost at least. Free quality browsers are a good thing, but they cost $$$ to make
    What about tech that got acquired and integrated into already-existing things?

    Oh, and all the service code is in one giant repository and none of it will work on another platform or datacenter because everything is custom-built to operate at massive scale. Go

    That's not my problem. But you know what is my problem, and the problem of everyone in our society? The fact that Alphabet, Facebook, and these other major tech concerns are so big, so pervasive that they are an outright threat to democracy. We as a society should never had allowed these companies to grow this large in the first place (and as part of this fix, we need to set up laws and regulations to prevent it from happening), but now that we're at this point, breaking up these companies is necessary. Will it be painful? Yes. But it's also something that needs to be done.

    As for funding "given away for free" software, perhaps we shouldn't do that anymore. A lot of the problems we've seen with social media and tech stem from the fact that we convinced people they shouldn't pay for things with money - so the corporations figured out how to get us to pay with information that, in the long run, is a lot more valuable. Not to mention the distorting effect on the market it has when a company can give away a product where its competitors are looking to sell.

    Alternatively we could fund open-source software that is not owned or controlled by corporations.

    edit - I mean I'm down for breaking up the big corporations but not as down for the "make people pay money" part

    Someone has to pay for it. The creation of software and the hardware to run it is expensive so if people aren't paying for it with data then the funding has to come from somewhere else.

    You still need ways to protect that data. Even if you were paying Facebook $10 a month or whatever they still have an incentive to sell your data. Because hey: free money!

    OrcaDarkPrimus
  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited January 16
    A lot of "Open Source" code is actually financed by a bunch of companies (at least the core team) and donations because that's the most efficient way to get things needed to make things, like frameworks, programming languages and operating systems. And there's the additional work done by paid employees of other companies that need their stuff to work.

    So, is a different concept than "You are the product" and is not applicable. "Just use open source" is a slogan lacking on details.

    EDIT: And there's also all the "premium" features and extra services. Those cost money too.

    TryCatcher on
    IncenjucarMvrckCouscous
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Because Facebook is determined to look like a monster, they've been offering teens a pittance to be allowed to harvest their data:
    Desperate for data on its competitors, Facebook has been secretly paying people to install a “Facebook Research” VPN that lets the company suck in all of a user’s phone and web activity, similar to Facebook’s Onavo Protect app that Apple banned in June and that was removed in August. Facebook sidesteps the App Store and rewards teenagers and adults to download the Research app and give it root access to network traffic in what may be a violation of Apple policy so the social network can decrypt and analyze their phone activity, a TechCrunch investigation confirms.

    Facebook admitted to TechCrunch it was running the Research program to gather data on usage habits.

    Since 2016, Facebook has been paying users ages 13 to 35 up to $20 per month plus referral fees to sell their privacy by installing the iOS or Android “Facebook Research” app. Facebook even asked users to screenshot their Amazon order history page. The program is administered through beta testing services Applause, BetaBound and uTest to cloak Facebook’s involvement, and is referred to in some documentation as “Project Atlas” — a fitting name for Facebook’s effort to map new trends and rivals around the globe.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    DarkPrimus
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    edited January 30
    It appears Facebook is no longer competing for market or share value and is legit competing to be the evil-corporate-overlord-partner-to-fascists-in-the-shockingly-near-future. Bold to try to get first-mover advantage there.

    Captain Inertia on
    Kayne Red Robe
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Because Facebook is determined to look like a monster, they've been offering teens a pittance to be allowed to harvest their data:
    Desperate for data on its competitors, Facebook has been secretly paying people to install a “Facebook Research” VPN that lets the company suck in all of a user’s phone and web activity, similar to Facebook’s Onavo Protect app that Apple banned in June and that was removed in August. Facebook sidesteps the App Store and rewards teenagers and adults to download the Research app and give it root access to network traffic in what may be a violation of Apple policy so the social network can decrypt and analyze their phone activity, a TechCrunch investigation confirms.

    Facebook admitted to TechCrunch it was running the Research program to gather data on usage habits.

    Since 2016, Facebook has been paying users ages 13 to 35 up to $20 per month plus referral fees to sell their privacy by installing the iOS or Android “Facebook Research” app. Facebook even asked users to screenshot their Amazon order history page. The program is administered through beta testing services Applause, BetaBound and uTest to cloak Facebook’s involvement, and is referred to in some documentation as “Project Atlas” — a fitting name for Facebook’s effort to map new trends and rivals around the globe.

    Just to be certain, Apple is trying to be the good guy here and has banned the app. I'd say that they're just a little bit pissed, if not for the spying then certain for opening up a huge hole in the security of their phones. I have to wonder if this is how the FBI and others are decrypting Apple phones.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Sign In or Register to comment.