5 ms·

You are nitpicking a small part of an article (incorrectly) and it distracts from the main point: A foreign power is working with American billionaires to subve

You are nitpicking a small part of an article (incorrectly) and it distracts from the main point: A foreign power is working with American billionaires to subvert democracy and install a dictator. This is a serious issue and one of the biggest news stories of our time. > This wasn't a data breach Yes it was. > it was a misuse of data by a third party. So a bank robber who gets into the vault just misused the locks? Or the security guard misused his eyes? This was a data breach. Your language makes it sound less serious than it is, and you are wrong. This was a data breach. Edit: Less than 30 seconds in, this post is already downvoted. I won't complain about downvotes of course, but it's insane that no conversation is actually allowed to happen on this site without burying one side. I spoke with a neutral tone, didn't do any name calling, I'm not looking for a fight. But downvotes within seconds! You can't silence me HN. I'll keep commenting my opinions and facts no matter how much you don't like what I'm saying. Nitpicking breach or misuse is silly and distracts from the actual substance of the article. It was a breach, by the way.

hashkb 9y ago
You're downvoted because you're technically not correct. The case is more like the bank manager allowing the robber into the vault, with full knowledge that the robber wants to and could easily make off with all the valuables, then asking the robber to please not do that before heading back to work, leaving the thief unattended in the vault. Edit: it's a breach of contract, maybe; but not a "data breach" which I think everyone understands to be more like the case where the vault is forcibly broken into.
- billiam 9y ago
  I really don’t get your point. Bikeshedding on what to call it makes it seem like the actions of the company, the Bond villains behind it, and Facebook are just fine. FB’s actions show that they knew CA was not just pushing the envelope of the consumer preference and false identity manipulation that makes them their billions but totes aware it was being done together with a foreign adversary to subvert our democracy.
  - hashkb 9y ago
    Words mean things. Don't assume that because someone nitpicks a technically incorrect use of a word/term that they are shooting down the entire argument. In fact, we're often trying to help; because we do agree with you; but can't get behind what you're saying 100% because part of it is not actually correct. I'm definitely not disputing the fact that FB is an evil entity that only cares about making profits off your personal information. But, they haven't suffered a data breach in the same way as, say, Equifax; and it seems to me that choosing to use the word "breach" here must be in an effort to get more clicks; because "breach in the Equifax sense" is what the author knows most people will assume is meant.
  - jpttsn 9y ago
    Bikeshedding what to call a crime can be useful and important. The democracy we are concerned about protecting presupposes rule of law, and precision when discussing laws and crimes.
- cryptoz 9y ago
  I was completely technically correct. It's a data breach. Plain and simple. > A data breach is a security incident in which sensitive, protected or confidential data is copied, transmitted, viewed, stolen or used by an individual unauthorized to do so.
  - sgroppino 9y ago
    A data breach, yes, but I believe by GSR not FB? It seems like users did authorized FB to share data with GSR?
    - IAmEveryone 9y ago
      This is a stupid discussion. So I’ll continue it: Facebook was authorized to have the data. CA was not authorized, at least not to retain the data. Therefor, it is a data breach. Facebook was the breachee, CA was the breacher. And Billy-Ray was a preacher's son.
UncleEntity 9y ago
> A foreign power is working with American billionaires to subvert democracy and install a dictator. Seriously? I'm no fan of any politician (or really of "tyranny of the majority") but I was kind of impressed at how well it all worked out last time. An "unpopular" candidate won and the ruling elite turned over the reigns just like they're supposed to do trusting the checks and balances in the system to work. The quickest way to get a dictatorship is to go against the legal results of an election because the unpopular candidate won based on some metric of "unpopular" like "kids rioting in the streets".
- cryptoz 9y ago
  That was not a peaceful transition. Trump said in plain language that he would not accept the results if he lost. He called on gun owners to shoot and kill his political opponents who he has also been trying to jail for the past many years. If you are impressed with the level of functional elections and government in the US since the last election, I'm shocked. It is not a functional system. It is clearly disfunctional.
  - UncleEntity 9y ago
    > That was not a peaceful transition. Indeed, it was the only election since I've been alive that the losing side rioted in the streets calling for the overturning of the election results. > He called on gun owners to shoot and kill his political opponents who he has also been trying to jail for the past many years. Fake news much?

hashkb 9y ago

You're downvoted because you're technically not correct. The case is more like the bank manager allowing the robber into the vault, with full knowledge that the robber wants to and could easily make off with all the valuables, then asking the robber to please not do that before heading back to work, leaving the thief unattended in the vault. Edit: it's a breach of contract, maybe; but not a "data breach" which I think everyone understands to be more like the case where the vault is forcibly broken into.

billiam 9y ago
I really don’t get your point. Bikeshedding on what to call it makes it seem like the actions of the company, the Bond villains behind it, and Facebook are just fine. FB’s actions show that they knew CA was not just pushing the envelope of the consumer preference and false identity manipulation that makes them their billions but totes aware it was being done together with a foreign adversary to subvert our democracy.
- hashkb 9y ago
  Words mean things. Don't assume that because someone nitpicks a technically incorrect use of a word/term that they are shooting down the entire argument. In fact, we're often trying to help; because we do agree with you; but can't get behind what you're saying 100% because part of it is not actually correct. I'm definitely not disputing the fact that FB is an evil entity that only cares about making profits off your personal information. But, they haven't suffered a data breach in the same way as, say, Equifax; and it seems to me that choosing to use the word "breach" here must be in an effort to get more clicks; because "breach in the Equifax sense" is what the author knows most people will assume is meant.
- jpttsn 9y ago
  Bikeshedding what to call a crime can be useful and important. The democracy we are concerned about protecting presupposes rule of law, and precision when discussing laws and crimes.
cryptoz 9y ago
I was completely technically correct. It's a data breach. Plain and simple. > A data breach is a security incident in which sensitive, protected or confidential data is copied, transmitted, viewed, stolen or used by an individual unauthorized to do so.
- sgroppino 9y ago
  A data breach, yes, but I believe by GSR not FB? It seems like users did authorized FB to share data with GSR?
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    This is a stupid discussion. So I’ll continue it: Facebook was authorized to have the data. CA was not authorized, at least not to retain the data. Therefor, it is a data breach. Facebook was the breachee, CA was the breacher. And Billy-Ray was a preacher's son.

UncleEntity 9y ago

> A foreign power is working with American billionaires to subvert democracy and install a dictator. Seriously? I'm no fan of any politician (or really of "tyranny of the majority") but I was kind of impressed at how well it all worked out last time. An "unpopular" candidate won and the ruling elite turned over the reigns just like they're supposed to do trusting the checks and balances in the system to work. The quickest way to get a dictatorship is to go against the legal results of an election because the unpopular candidate won based on some metric of "unpopular" like "kids rioting in the streets".

cryptoz 9y ago
That was not a peaceful transition. Trump said in plain language that he would not accept the results if he lost. He called on gun owners to shoot and kill his political opponents who he has also been trying to jail for the past many years. If you are impressed with the level of functional elections and government in the US since the last election, I'm shocked. It is not a functional system. It is clearly disfunctional.
- UncleEntity 9y ago
  > That was not a peaceful transition. Indeed, it was the only election since I've been alive that the losing side rioted in the streets calling for the overturning of the election results. > He called on gun owners to shoot and kill his political opponents who he has also been trying to jail for the past many years. Fake news much?