7 ms·

Note to those who don't/can't read the article: the title is slightly misleading. The author does not mean business challengers to Facebook but rather political

by fny 9y ago

Note to those who don't/can't read the article: the title is slightly misleading. The author does not mean business challengers to Facebook but rather political challengers (i.e. legislators, regulators, activists.) Basically, the glory days of free-range hacking without government regulation appear limited, especially with the likes of Bruce Schneier[0], advocating for the same. Cherish these moments while they last.* If you want to help mitigate the governments reach and make sure policy is implemented wisely, support our lobbying power through the EFF (https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/) and FSF (https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.fsf.org/). Edit: Updated language above to make it more clear that I am not anti-regulation. [0]: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/11/regulation_of_t.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/11/regulation_of... [*]: What I mean to say is that I can foresee a world where you are mandated by the government to perform certain services through specific providers. For example, the government could, in the interest of protecting user security, mandate that all apps must provide user registration and auth through a provider that has received XYZ certification (i.e. OAuth through Facebook, Google, Auth0)

jimmies 9y ago
I wish we had a sci-hub.cc for wsj, I think one would be useful. There are plenty of reasons a person would want access to those articles without wanting/having the means to pay. Personally, I don't care for wsj articles, but if they want to pull a clickbait title, I think it's fair for them to provide a read.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  http://archive.is/PRdIN http://archive.is/PRdIN
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > There are plenty of reasons a person would want access to those articles without wanting/having the means to pay There are plenty of reasons the Wall Street Journal does not want this, e.g. its paying journalists top dollar relative to industry. As a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, I'm quite fine with their paywall policies.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
shmerl 9y ago
Well, they can regulate IOT "be secure", but I'm worried more they'll regulate it "we want to always have access" or "you can't use open source OS on it because it gives you control".
- bsder 9y ago
  Define "be secure". I have a vested interest in IoT devices beings secure, and the idea of the US government defining "be secure" is laughable at best, terrifying at worst. You will pine for the bad, old days of "completely insecure" when you have a TSA-like entity defining your security.
  - astura 9y ago
    The NIST's Digital Identity Guidelines are very good. https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63b.html https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63b.html
    - benchaney 9y ago
      Yes, but NIST recommendations are non binding. It is the ability to create legally binding standards that attracts rent seekers and prevents technical expertise from being the primary factor in decision making.
    - bsder 9y ago
      As far as they go, yes. But what about something like firmware updates? What should be the frequency of update? How long am I required to support a device? Which update networking modalities am I required to support? These aren't small decisions. They can make a product viable--or not. Having this in the hands of something with the proven competence of the TSA (har har) is far from desirable.
      - CommentCard 9y ago
        You make a good point. We seem to be in the "Wild West" phase of device software, where the companies making the product have created guidelines based on competitive design, development and maintenance/update standards rather than standards created by regulatory bodies. On one hand this can be abused to create artificial end-of-life scenarios by some hardware companies, but allows for a wide variety of choice in the companies providing alternatives. It also provides the end-user with less restrictions. Caveat emptor. On the other hand, a regulatory agency could reign in companies trying to artificially shorten the lifespan of a piece of hardware, but at the same time make the standard of support a huge barrier to entry that restricts choice to only the largest companies. There might be less rampant IoT exploits, but there'd also likely be less personal freedom to do what you want on your devices. Given how other industries like telecom and cable have trended, we'll probably get the worst of both worlds. There'll be expensive regulations that serve as barriers to entry for smaller companies, but the regulations won't do much to restrict corporate malfeasance.
chatmasta 9y ago
Total FUD. Not sure what you mean by “free range hacking,” but surely it has little to do with the regulations targeting activities of multinational conglomerates (Facebook), or any possible regulations for selling devices. You’re free to do whatever you want on your own devices. I don’t see how reasonable regulation meant to prevent tragedy of the commons (the only real application of regulation) will infringe on your ability to continue “free range hacking.”
- closeparen 9y ago
  Facebook is doing whatever it wants on its own devices (servers), that’s the whole problem. Regulation is likely to apply to anyone engaged in similar activities (providing interactive services over the internet) although we can certainly dream that it’ll come with a carve-out for small scale operators.
- fny 9y ago
  To clarify, I have no issue with the government requiring companies to disclose who has paid for advertising, the issue that I have is that its becoming increasingly prudent and attractive the government to regulate how we compute and how we respect private data, and if our voices aren't part of that conversation, we're screwed. Also, I take it you've never worked in a heavily regulated industry. It blows. While regulation is a good thing (PHI protection), it definitely has a chilling effect on innovation, and at times results in ill-informed policy (security via obscurity; pointless protective measures from know-nothing management.)
  - confounded 9y ago
    Our voices should be part of the conversation. I completely understand the fear about government regulation with respect to how we compute. For example Section 1201 of the DMCA, the CFAA both scare me, as do periodical “nerd harder” debates about backdoored encryption. But what is it that you’d like to do with people’s private data that you’re worried will be prevented? There are loads of apps right now that exfiltrate your address book, for example, to gather what you know about private individuals, without their knowledge or consent, to be exploited in an unregulated marketplace of personal data. Is that good? Do you think he EFF think it is, or the FSF?
wybiral 9y ago
> Cherish these moments while they last, and if you want to help mitigate the governments reach, support our lobbying power through the EFF (https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/) and FSF (https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.fsf.org/). I want reasonable restrictions on the governments AND the businesses in this case... To protect my digital freedom. Regulation isn't always evil. But realistically, I think the consumers are the most at fault for many of the issues that have been coming up lately (apathy towards privacy, lack of skepticism towards social media bots and advertising, willingness to put all their eggs in one basket, etc). I'm just not sure how we should address those issues.
- fny 9y ago
  > I want reasonable restrictions on the governments AND the businesses in this case... To protect my digital freedom. Regulation isn't always evil. I agree completely! I'm just saying we should support our lobbying power to make sure we have a voice when these decisions are made.
- alfredallan 9y ago
  > "I'm just not sure how we should address those issues" Neither is anyone else imo but I do think a good starting point might be creating actual awareness about said issues. And I don't mean issuing out public memos - which, imo, has been the approach so far. It might be better to use standard commercial/marketing tactics toward a different goal, i.e raising awareness. Create fud about privacy. Sure, it'll involve a bit of ingenuity and disingenuousness but the awareness will get raised. Make up lifelike examples and have them worked into the stories in popular sitcoms/movies. No guarantees it'll work, but I do believe it'll work better than simple blogs and informational videos, which imo might be too dull and dry for the average user.
- abandonliberty 9y ago
  >I think the consumers are the most at fault for many of the issues that have been coming up lately (apathy towards privacy, lack of skepticism towards social media bots and advertising, willingness to put all their eggs in one basket, etc). Blaming consumers is the least helpful way to think of this and is, intentionally or not, blatant intellectual dishonesty that saves people from a deeper examination or taking action. It's lazy, scapegoats the people, and helps ensure the situation persists. It's like blaming the American people for the Iraq war, p-hacking, or climate change denialism. Humans have a limited capacity for knowledge. The greater our expertise in one subject, the more other subjects we must sacrifice. Therefore we must rely on the expertise of others _most of the time_ making us very susceptible to influence. I am certain both you and I (or all) are equally guilty of ignorance and apathy of several other societal ills.
amelius 9y ago
> Basically, the glory days of free-range hacking without government regulation appear limited I think there is a difference between a small startup launching a new service, and a world-wide social telecommunications network with over 1B users.
allengeorge 9y ago
Equating Facebook with "free-range hacking" is laughable. That's exactly what companies like Facebook and Google want us to do.
madeofpalk 9y ago
> but rather political challengers (i.e. legislators, regulators, activists.) Interesting, but that's exactly what I thought of when I read the title.
tstactplsignore 9y ago
Companies like Facebook and Apple are already killing what I'd call "free-range hacking" with the gadget-ification of computing- we don't need to speculate about hypothetical future government plans, it's here now, and it's privatized!
ijafri 9y ago
+1 for [0] as the first footnote
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
feelin_googley 9y ago
Not to those who actually want to read the article: curl -o x.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20171029163834/https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/who-will-rein-in-facebook-challengers-are-lining-up-1509278405 # remove javascript sed -i '/<p>/,/<\/p>/!d' x.htm New address for article: file://x.htm
- znite 9y ago
  Or just copy OP url & add to pocket/instapaper ;)
  - hollander 9y ago
    Pro tip! (Not even the web archive URL, but the original works!)

by fny 9y ago

jimmies 9y ago

I wish we had a sci-hub.cc for wsj, I think one would be useful. There are plenty of reasons a person would want access to those articles without wanting/having the means to pay. Personally, I don't care for wsj articles, but if they want to pull a clickbait title, I think it's fair for them to provide a read.

dredmorbius 9y ago
http://archive.is/PRdIN http://archive.is/PRdIN
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> There are plenty of reasons a person would want access to those articles without wanting/having the means to pay There are plenty of reasons the Wall Street Journal does not want this, e.g. its paying journalists top dollar relative to industry. As a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, I'm quite fine with their paywall policies.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

shmerl 9y ago

Well, they can regulate IOT "be secure", but I'm worried more they'll regulate it "we want to always have access" or "you can't use open source OS on it because it gives you control".

bsder 9y ago
Define "be secure". I have a vested interest in IoT devices beings secure, and the idea of the US government defining "be secure" is laughable at best, terrifying at worst. You will pine for the bad, old days of "completely insecure" when you have a TSA-like entity defining your security.
- astura 9y ago
  The NIST's Digital Identity Guidelines are very good. https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63b.html https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63b.html
  - benchaney 9y ago
    Yes, but NIST recommendations are non binding. It is the ability to create legally binding standards that attracts rent seekers and prevents technical expertise from being the primary factor in decision making.
  - bsder 9y ago
    As far as they go, yes. But what about something like firmware updates? What should be the frequency of update? How long am I required to support a device? Which update networking modalities am I required to support? These aren't small decisions. They can make a product viable--or not. Having this in the hands of something with the proven competence of the TSA (har har) is far from desirable.
    - CommentCard 9y ago
      You make a good point. We seem to be in the "Wild West" phase of device software, where the companies making the product have created guidelines based on competitive design, development and maintenance/update standards rather than standards created by regulatory bodies. On one hand this can be abused to create artificial end-of-life scenarios by some hardware companies, but allows for a wide variety of choice in the companies providing alternatives. It also provides the end-user with less restrictions. Caveat emptor. On the other hand, a regulatory agency could reign in companies trying to artificially shorten the lifespan of a piece of hardware, but at the same time make the standard of support a huge barrier to entry that restricts choice to only the largest companies. There might be less rampant IoT exploits, but there'd also likely be less personal freedom to do what you want on your devices. Given how other industries like telecom and cable have trended, we'll probably get the worst of both worlds. There'll be expensive regulations that serve as barriers to entry for smaller companies, but the regulations won't do much to restrict corporate malfeasance.

chatmasta 9y ago

Total FUD. Not sure what you mean by “free range hacking,” but surely it has little to do with the regulations targeting activities of multinational conglomerates (Facebook), or any possible regulations for selling devices. You’re free to do whatever you want on your own devices. I don’t see how reasonable regulation meant to prevent tragedy of the commons (the only real application of regulation) will infringe on your ability to continue “free range hacking.”

closeparen 9y ago
Facebook is doing whatever it wants on its own devices (servers), that’s the whole problem. Regulation is likely to apply to anyone engaged in similar activities (providing interactive services over the internet) although we can certainly dream that it’ll come with a carve-out for small scale operators.
fny 9y ago
To clarify, I have no issue with the government requiring companies to disclose who has paid for advertising, the issue that I have is that its becoming increasingly prudent and attractive the government to regulate how we compute and how we respect private data, and if our voices aren't part of that conversation, we're screwed. Also, I take it you've never worked in a heavily regulated industry. It blows. While regulation is a good thing (PHI protection), it definitely has a chilling effect on innovation, and at times results in ill-informed policy (security via obscurity; pointless protective measures from know-nothing management.)
- confounded 9y ago
  Our voices should be part of the conversation. I completely understand the fear about government regulation with respect to how we compute. For example Section 1201 of the DMCA, the CFAA both scare me, as do periodical “nerd harder” debates about backdoored encryption. But what is it that you’d like to do with people’s private data that you’re worried will be prevented? There are loads of apps right now that exfiltrate your address book, for example, to gather what you know about private individuals, without their knowledge or consent, to be exploited in an unregulated marketplace of personal data. Is that good? Do you think he EFF think it is, or the FSF?

wybiral 9y ago

> Cherish these moments while they last, and if you want to help mitigate the governments reach, support our lobbying power through the EFF (https://www.eff.org/ https://www.eff.org/) and FSF (https://www.fsf.org/ https://www.fsf.org/). I want reasonable restrictions on the governments AND the businesses in this case... To protect my digital freedom. Regulation isn't always evil. But realistically, I think the consumers are the most at fault for many of the issues that have been coming up lately (apathy towards privacy, lack of skepticism towards social media bots and advertising, willingness to put all their eggs in one basket, etc). I'm just not sure how we should address those issues.

fny 9y ago
> I want reasonable restrictions on the governments AND the businesses in this case... To protect my digital freedom. Regulation isn't always evil. I agree completely! I'm just saying we should support our lobbying power to make sure we have a voice when these decisions are made.
alfredallan 9y ago
> "I'm just not sure how we should address those issues" Neither is anyone else imo but I do think a good starting point might be creating actual awareness about said issues. And I don't mean issuing out public memos - which, imo, has been the approach so far. It might be better to use standard commercial/marketing tactics toward a different goal, i.e raising awareness. Create fud about privacy. Sure, it'll involve a bit of ingenuity and disingenuousness but the awareness will get raised. Make up lifelike examples and have them worked into the stories in popular sitcoms/movies. No guarantees it'll work, but I do believe it'll work better than simple blogs and informational videos, which imo might be too dull and dry for the average user.
abandonliberty 9y ago
>I think the consumers are the most at fault for many of the issues that have been coming up lately (apathy towards privacy, lack of skepticism towards social media bots and advertising, willingness to put all their eggs in one basket, etc). Blaming consumers is the least helpful way to think of this and is, intentionally or not, blatant intellectual dishonesty that saves people from a deeper examination or taking action. It's lazy, scapegoats the people, and helps ensure the situation persists. It's like blaming the American people for the Iraq war, p-hacking, or climate change denialism. Humans have a limited capacity for knowledge. The greater our expertise in one subject, the more other subjects we must sacrifice. Therefore we must rely on the expertise of others _most of the time_ making us very susceptible to influence. I am certain both you and I (or all) are equally guilty of ignorance and apathy of several other societal ills.

amelius 9y ago

> Basically, the glory days of free-range hacking without government regulation appear limited I think there is a difference between a small startup launching a new service, and a world-wide social telecommunications network with over 1B users.

allengeorge 9y ago

Equating Facebook with "free-range hacking" is laughable. That's exactly what companies like Facebook and Google want us to do.

madeofpalk 9y ago

> but rather political challengers (i.e. legislators, regulators, activists.) Interesting, but that's exactly what I thought of when I read the title.

tstactplsignore 9y ago

Companies like Facebook and Apple are already killing what I'd call "free-range hacking" with the gadget-ification of computing- we don't need to speculate about hypothetical future government plans, it's here now, and it's privatized!

ijafri 9y ago

+1 for [0] as the first footnote

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

feelin_googley 9y ago

Not to those who actually want to read the article: curl -o x.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20171029163834/https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/who-will-rein-in-facebook-challengers-are-lining-up-1509278405 # remove javascript sed -i '/<p>/,/<\/p>/!d' x.htm New address for article: file://x.htm

znite 9y ago
Or just copy OP url & add to pocket/instapaper ;)
- hollander 9y ago
  Pro tip! (Not even the web archive URL, but the original works!)