4 ms·

VCs Privately Seethe Over Facebook’s New Direction

8 points by cwan 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago
This would have a lot more teeth in it if it were VCs backing facebook but they are not, so what's there for them to seethe over, it's not exactly their money. They're anonymous as well, so it really doesn't carry much weight at all.
- hga 17y ago
  If Facebook's ... posture poisons the Web 2.0 well, at worst case by prompting heavy handed government intervention, then they have plenty to seethe over.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    You mean like enacting privacy legislation? I'd see that as a positive move.
    - hga 17y ago
      You're assuming that any product of the US Congress (under either party) would be an improvement over what we have now. I find your faith touching but unrealistic. E.g. has the law segregating the web into under and over 13 years of age portions really improved anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Pro...)? Very possibly something needed to be done here, but from my perspective it's shut out formal access to a lot of adolescents who need access to various sites. Implicitly encouraging them to lie about their age is also not a good thing.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        I'm not American, but Dutch, and we already have such laws here and they function pretty good.
        hga 17y ago
        Well, that's my point (e.g. I knew you are European). Something that works in your society and system of government might not work in one that's significantly different. We have good evidence in many directions, e.g. laws that don't really protect privacy, laws who's cure is much worse than the disease and laws that only make privacy worse (e.g. Dodd's bill as far as I've read accounts of it WRT to privacy), to make us leery of anything but the most important and desperate privacy concerns. And I don't think what Facebook is doing needs a government solution, I think we, the society and the market, will work it out. One question: do you have a law that requires government registration of private databases about people? I know the U.K. did that.
        jacquesm 17y ago
        I don't think so, I've been looking for a while now and I can't find a clear statement that that is a requirement.
        hga 17y ago
        You have seen http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1327788 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1327788, so what you're saying is that you very little formal privacy when it comes to the government, which can lock you up or kill you, whereas the laws you like protect you against private companies which have neither power. Unless of course they and the state are conspiring, which is not uncommon ... and which can allow for the companies who get into a "good" relationship with the government to use that stuff the latter is collecting. I'll emphasize what I said in my other reply to you, the US is a very different place. Of that list of horrors, the only ones we have in the US are: - tapping requirement for internet traffic - the secret service gets access to all immigration data - a DNA database of 'offenders' This may be coming, with no opt out: - an electronic medical datbase (with a very convoluted opt-out procedure) This is true but it doesn't matter to most people since the US is so very big: - an RFID chip in the passports This is a debatable point: - camera usage without any oversight rising enormously

8 points by cwan 17y ago

This would have a lot more teeth in it if it were VCs backing facebook but they are not, so what's there for them to seethe over, it's not exactly their money. They're anonymous as well, so it really doesn't carry much weight at all.

hga 17y ago
If Facebook's ... posture poisons the Web 2.0 well, at worst case by prompting heavy handed government intervention, then they have plenty to seethe over.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  You mean like enacting privacy legislation? I'd see that as a positive move.
  - hga 17y ago
    You're assuming that any product of the US Congress (under either party) would be an improvement over what we have now. I find your faith touching but unrealistic. E.g. has the law segregating the web into under and over 13 years of age portions really improved anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Pro...)? Very possibly something needed to be done here, but from my perspective it's shut out formal access to a lot of adolescents who need access to various sites. Implicitly encouraging them to lie about their age is also not a good thing.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      I'm not American, but Dutch, and we already have such laws here and they function pretty good.
      - hga 17y ago
        Well, that's my point (e.g. I knew you are European). Something that works in your society and system of government might not work in one that's significantly different. We have good evidence in many directions, e.g. laws that don't really protect privacy, laws who's cure is much worse than the disease and laws that only make privacy worse (e.g. Dodd's bill as far as I've read accounts of it WRT to privacy), to make us leery of anything but the most important and desperate privacy concerns. And I don't think what Facebook is doing needs a government solution, I think we, the society and the market, will work it out. One question: do you have a law that requires government registration of private databases about people? I know the U.K. did that.
        jacquesm 17y ago
        I don't think so, I've been looking for a while now and I can't find a clear statement that that is a requirement.
      - hga 17y ago
        You have seen http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1327788 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1327788, so what you're saying is that you very little formal privacy when it comes to the government, which can lock you up or kill you, whereas the laws you like protect you against private companies which have neither power. Unless of course they and the state are conspiring, which is not uncommon ... and which can allow for the companies who get into a "good" relationship with the government to use that stuff the latter is collecting. I'll emphasize what I said in my other reply to you, the US is a very different place. Of that list of horrors, the only ones we have in the US are: - tapping requirement for internet traffic - the secret service gets access to all immigration data - a DNA database of 'offenders' This may be coming, with no opt out: - an electronic medical datbase (with a very convoluted opt-out procedure) This is true but it doesn't matter to most people since the US is so very big: - an RFID chip in the passports This is a debatable point: - camera usage without any oversight rising enormously