19 ms·

Facebook Security Chief Said to Leave After Clashes Over Disinformation

1074 points by aaronbrethorst 9y ago

BinaryIdiot 9y ago
> Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. He was for disclosing this information which ostracized him from the other executives who don't seem to care at all in regard to how their data is used as long as they profit from it.
- Varcht 9y ago
  The injustice!.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    The citation is the article itself.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    It’s right there in the quote: “...according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters“. And before you criticize anonymous sources: that’s how journalism works. The publication, the New York Times in this case, takes on the risk to its reputation on behalf of their sources to allow information from unauthorized sources to become public. Edit: editing your post to erase your embarrassing ineptitude to read (and to make the people correcting you seem foolish) seems kinda assholish.
minimaxir 9y ago
Stamos had been actively engaging with security researchers on Twitter over the past few days about CA with heated discussions: > I have deleted my Tweets on Cambridge Analytica, not because they were factually incorrect but because I should have done a better job weighing in. https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975069709140877312 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975069709140877312 Archive of those deleted tweets: https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/975078309930311680 https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/975078309930311680 EDIT: Stamos responds to news: > Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security. https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433
- danso 9y ago
  Wondering what he thought would be him doing "a better job weighing in"? It seems like his deleted tweets were apparently too honest? i.e. in arguing that there was no data breach, he argued that FB's API and TOS allowed (without oversight) for all app developers to do the kind of data harvesting Cambridge Analytics did? That was well-known by developers, but I guess it's different stating it as an official policy.
  - Analemma_ 9y ago
    In political circles, this is what is called a "Kinsley gaffe": when somebody accidentally tells the truth (and then has to hastily walk it back)
  - chatmasta 9y ago
    Translation, "I pissed off my boss"
    - ams6110 9y ago
      If he's leaving anyway why would he really care?
      - kchoudhu 9y ago
        Stock options.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - beager 9y ago
    Essentially admitting that the amount of information harvested was not unauthorized but rather by design.
  - AFNobody 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
IBM 9y ago
Only thing I want to know: did he sign an NDA?
- mikeyouse 9y ago
  Of course he did - C-level officer close to hugely controversial issue, leaving the company in 6 months. It'll be predicated on an NDA, some sort of success metrics for the transition process, and a monster golden parachute.
  - lawnchair_larry 9y ago
    Worth noting that CSO / CISO isn’t really a C-Level position. They usually report to the CIO or CTO and are leveled at VP or whatever one one or two levels below what the “real” execs are. You’ll notice he isn’t listed as an exec in their SEC filings, which include their CEO, COO, CFO, Chief Product Officer, VP Business and Marketing Partnerships, CTO, and VP General Counsel. That tells you a bit about how important tech companies really think security is. In fact you will often find the head of HR among that group before you’ll see a CSO. It doesn’t matter though, as it’s incredibly rare for a CSO to actually know anything about security. Stamos is an exception. I’d wager that you can likely count the number of CSOs who have ever written an exploit on one hand.
    - mikeyouse 9y ago
      That's a good and useful clarification - thanks.
    - wglb 9y ago
      Often not true. I've always advocated that the CSO report to the CEO, and that is how it came to be. I was listed on the exec page, and the current CSO is now as well. Not reporting to the CEO is a mistake.
  - wglb 9y ago
    I am sure he is under NDA from the time of his hiring, and whatever his termination package will be, there will be a non-disparagement clause.
rhombocombus 9y ago
It sounds like the COO and CEO view the spreading of disinformation as a feature of the site.
danso 9y ago
> He has been overseeing the transfer of his security team to Facebook’s product and infrastructure divisions. His group, which once had 120 people, now has three, the current and former employees said. So with Stamos's departure/resignation, Facebook will have also reorganized its structure to not have a dedicated security team? Or at least one at the same level in the hierarchy as product and infrastructure?
- eganist 9y ago
  This would be the correct way to read it is my impression. They've essentially folded their centralized technical risk management apparatus.
Twisell 9y ago
> Facebook’s chief information security officer, Alex Stamos, will leave the company after internal disagreements over how the social network should deal with its role in spreading disinformation, according to current and former employees briefed on the matter. This opening sentence is frightening, I would rather have learned that FB executive disagree about how to deal with FB "role in NOT spreading disinformation"
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  Between this story and the other one on the front page about the whistleblower who exposed the leak getting blacklisted, I think it's pretty clear that, of the two options A) acknowledge the serious underlying problems and work hard to fix them B) deny everything, retaliate against anyone who dares bring it up to create a chilling effect Facebook is going all-in on option B. (EDIT: And if you don't believe me, check out foeey's post about Facebook desperately trying to clear out CA's offices before the authorities can.)
- tootie 9y ago
  FB is big enough to have developed factions and I can totally see Zuck not being up to the task of controlling them.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    You really the CEO and COO aren't capable of controlling employees despite the company growing to the size it is and having to deal with contentious issues in the past. That's a bit ridiculous. The fact is that on an issue like this there is no way that the executive team didn't sign off it.
  - make3 9y ago
    lol he's still 100% responsible, as he chose the people who chose them, and is responsible for the culture.
tzakrajs 9y ago
Stamos sure knows how to pick stinker companies.
- spydum 9y ago
  I mean, maybe that's true, but I'm not entirely certain it's a fair assessment. Yahoo and Facebook are arguably some of the largest targets (different eras of course). Being a CISO at both and not getting fired from either are huge achievements, given the CISO is generally a sacrificial role (largely ignored when done right, and beheaded if something goes wrong, regardless of your actions). So either way, he picks hard jobs. The question is, does he truly step down when he feels he's got no remaining option to protest (which is quite respectable IMHO).. or is he simply outmaneuvering the board when his spidey senses tell him they are about to drop the axe because of recent corporate sins? Either way, style points for both I'd say.
  - tzakrajs 9y ago
    I will stop short of calling him Machiavellian, but he sure does have convenient timing. Great points!
spydum 9y ago
Didn't he also leave yahoo for practically the same reason?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mtgx 9y ago
  Kind of, and it's why I liked him initially. But with every Facebook screwup and his defense of that screwup with bogus excuses (possibly directly from Zuckerberg, but irrelevant), I gradually started losing my respect for him, just like I've lost my respect for Carmack. Carmack could have been working for SpaceX and living his biggest dream (working on space stuff), but instead he's wasting his time and potential in a democracy-destroying company like Facebook. History will not be kind to those that continue to help or defend Facebook to keep its influence in the world and power.
fooey 9y ago
There's breaking reporting that Facebook just had personnel in the Cambridge Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121 https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121 > BREAKING: Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office.. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975855218490519552?s=19 https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975855218490519552... > To be clear, @facebook was trying to "secure evidence" ahead of the UK authorities. Nice try, @facebook. The UK Information Commissioner's Office cracking whip...British legal investigation MUST take precedence over US multibillion $ company..... Something VERY wrong is going on at Facebook. edit, with another account: https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/975856097163702272 https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/975856097163702272 > Facebook have confirmed that auditors and legal counsel acting on behalf of the company were in the offices of Cambridge Analytica this evening until they were told to stand down by the Information Commissioner. These investigations need to be undertaken by the proper authorities
- debt 9y ago
  "Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office.." Uhh....that's not good. In effect, this is a sanctioned data breach. Facebook opened the firehouse of user data by knowingly keeping very lax access to their developer APIs while not at all preventing developers from storing the data they accessed. That's a very serious breach of consumer trust. A terms of service is only as good as your user's ability to understand it's implications. Just because users check a box doesn't mean Facebook is any less liable.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    have now "stood down" ... which could mean simply that "we finished doing what we came to do".
- zilchers 9y ago
  I seriously feel like I’m missing something here, why isn’t Facebook fully behind getting to the bottom of this? Going back even further, why was it so difficult for them to even admit they had a problem during the election? I don’t think it’s as simple as “more money,” but maybe as simple as people too close to the problem and too enamored by what they’ve created?
whoisjuan 9y ago
Zuckerberg's and Sandberg's response to all these events has been the weakest and lamest that I have ever seen from any leadership, regarding controversial issues that involve a company of this size...and that's hard to beat when you have the likes of BP and Volkswagen... Do they really think that just ignoring the issue will make the problem go away?
- tzakrajs 9y ago
  This problem may be both existential and intractable for Facebook to solve, which is why they have been giving it the silent treatment. I believe the operators and investors are just now realizing how damaging the business model was for consumers.
- ams6110 9y ago
  When have they really ever had their feet held to a fire on a controversial issue? Zuckerberg is still a pretty young guy, despite his position and all he's done he's still inexperienced in some things. Ever since he started Facebook things have pretty much gone his way. Maybe he just doesn't instinctively know what to do.
  - baq 9y ago
    In which case he knows exactly what to do, which is shut up. There's nothing he can say right now that will make things better.
    - marshray 9y ago
      My guess is he's been cognizant of the magnitude of this disaster all along. This is why he had been getting his picture taken driving tractors. It was an act of image management, not because he planned to run for office.
    - augbog 9y ago
      Pretty sure it's just the lawyers telling him that.
propman 9y ago
Why can't we legislate regulations on Facebook, like Europe is set to do? They've already done the hard work by laying down the groundwork.
- zer00eyz 9y ago
  For the same reason the US was the one who brought FIFA to court. It is easier if an "outsider" makes the first move.
jawnjawn 9y ago
Alex Stamos sure likes calling attention to himself and making a fuss when he leaves a company in supposed protest.
dirtyhand 9y ago
CEO of Cambridge Analytica caught on camera saying they have used bribes and sex workers to entrap politicians. https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to-entrap-politicians-investigation https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...
- daodedickinson 9y ago
  No different than Spez @ Reddit saying he knows the Facebook accounts of anonymous users accessing adult content and can cross-reference that with their reddit accounts when they are logged in and sell that information to third parties. Reddit probably makes more money that way than any other, but that's just my guess because they clients are loaded and include sovereign states. Tons of sites are no better, probably worse. A huge chunk of the internet is about trusting to few untrustable flawed human beings (that's everybody) with way to much information, and therefore power.
  - khazhoux 9y ago
    Very different. CA offered an unethical and possibly illegal service for sale. Show me where Spez did that and I'll agree with you.
    - bpicolo 9y ago
      Blackmailing politicians is definitively on the illegal side.
      - khazhoux 9y ago
        I'd love to read up on spez blackmailing politicians, if you could please provide a link.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    No, that's massively different. Engaging in passive observation and reselling that data, while sleazy, is not the same as actively setting someone up.
downandout 9y ago
I’m sorry but show me even 10 voters nationwide who were going to vote for Hillary, and then saw a Russian-created fake news post on Facebook and changed their vote to Trump. This Security Chief was clearly upset that his candidate lost, but blaming Facebook or the Russians is ludicrous. It seems that they attempted to influence the election, but there is zero evidence that they were successful in changing the outcome. I admire his devotion to his candidate, and for trying to find an explanation for her defeat. But sometimes the correct explanation is the simplest one: she was just unpalatable to many voters. Deal with it, and spend your energy finding a better candidate next time, rather than trying to blame Russia or Facebook for influencing even a single vote, which likely did not happen.
- mattnewton 9y ago
  You don’t need to flip the voters, just get them to not show up, and get more republicans to show up. This isn’t about politics, this is about buisiness interests, and professional reputation. Some examples of ads using this technique: http://amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/11/03/text-vote-hillary-clinton http://amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/11/03/text-vote-hillary-... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...
  - narrator 9y ago
    Does propaganda work or doesn't it? The idea being pushed that since it does, only approved propaganda should be let through. Trump winning is proof that there's a need for regulation of propaganda.
    - mattnewton 9y ago
      Propaganda works, which is why we have laws that require the source of messages in other mediums be identified, and why we regulate it in a variety of other ways. IANAL but these ads are not covered by the regulation because they were not written in the internet era, and the law likely needs a refresh or at least some case law examples to figure out how to apply it.
mattnewton 9y ago
On the CA story, I get where the guy is coming from with the “It was not a breach.” He’s a technical guy, and this wasn’t a technical hack. It’s like a lock manufacturer wanting to let everyone know that the customer had the door open, and their locks weren’t broken. But in this case, he wasn’t just a lock manufacturer, he was in charge of security for the home. I can’t help but think of Steve Jobs parable of the Janitor and the Vice President[0]. Reasons stop mattering at his level. Part of the job was to convince Facebook that these permissions were bad for privacy. Stamos likely knows this. To me, it looks like he resigned when he realized he couldn’t persuade the other executives of things like this. [0] http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the-difference-between-a-vice-president-and-a-janitor-2011-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the-difference-...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > On the CA story, I get where the guy is coming from with the “It was not a breach.” He’s a technical guy, and this wasn’t a technical hack. “Not a technical hack” and “not a breach” are hardly even related concepts, and anyone, in a technical role or not, working around private data ought to understand that.
- dglass 9y ago
  I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the word "breach" is reserved for specific security incidents that fall above a certain threshold. Something like if X amount of users were affected it must be considered a breach, which means the company must alert the authorities and alert all users who have been affected. If he's saying it wasn't a breach it's probably because it doesn't fit the actual criteria for considering something a breach, but doesn't mean he's trying to downplay the severity of what happened. Edit: difference between a data breach vs. a security incident - https://www.alienvault.com/blogs/security-essentials/whats-the-difference-between-a-data-breach-and-a-security-incident https://www.alienvault.com/blogs/security-essentials/whats-t...
evgen 9y ago
While it is buried in the article, an interesting data point that I noticed as a former alum of the team is that the FB security team has apparently been picked apart and divided up between the prod and infra orgs. Being able to stand apart from these two massively powerful entities within FB and tell them when they were screwing up had been one of the moderating influences between the desire of the prod team for 'increase engagement, fuck privacy', and the desire of the infra team for 'move fast, screw safety.' This will not end well...
- eganist 9y ago
  It also relieves Facebook of any sufficiently necessary capability to surveil, centralize, and manage risk. Given the firm's susceptibility to GDPR and its newfound position under the microscope of a series of international criminal and counter intelligence investigations, this would seem objectively to be the wrong move.
rrdharan 9y ago
I guess this had already been brewing for a while: "After his day-to-day responsibilities were reassigned to others in December, Mr. Stamos said he would leave... He was persuaded to stay through August to oversee the transition... executives thought his departure would look bad".
bogomipz 9y ago
>"Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer..." This is quite a telling - advocating for transparency and disclosure put this individual at odds with the C0O Sheryl Sandberg. It's worth noting that Chapter 6 of Sandberg's very successful book "Lean In" is titled "Seek and Speak the Truth."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_In edit COO
- jumelles 9y ago
  She's the COO, not the CEO :)
- mathattack 9y ago
  Her conference room is also called “Only Good News”
- Xorlev 9y ago
  Only when the truth is convenient.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
trhway 9y ago
well, somebody is going to be scapegoated at FB when FB's attempt to push full weight of the blame squarely on CA fails. And Security Chief i think wouldn't be a bad scapegoat ... I expect some other high people also to leave to avoid being made to take one for the team.
msangi 9y ago
Update from his twitter account: > Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security. https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433
robbiet480 9y ago
"Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security." 2 minutes ago https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433
- tptacek 9y ago
  Note that doesn't contradict the NYT story, which claims that he essentially gave 8 months notice in December, which he would now be ~3 months into.
  - Mahn 9y ago
    Makes you wonder why are they running this story now then. Hell of an interesting timing, almost as if to fit a narrative.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Probably because they just learned about it? Doesn't seem all that complicated.
      - eganist 9y ago
        If anything, it wouldn't surprise me if the CA revelations led current staff to speak out to the press to make the internal division known. Alex is pretty effective as a leader; I'd be shocked if the vast majority of his team, if not his entire team, did not have his back on this.
- stefan_ 9y ago
  That sounds like a "I can do this job from home" kinda opportunity
icpmacdo 9y ago
Stamos's response https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433
utopcell 9y ago
When Stamos left Yahoo, I assumed it was because of the leaked accounts information. I wonder if he saw similar compromises at Facebook that were not disclosed.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
"Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook , often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters."
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ekanes 9y ago
Leaving FB? Exporting all your posts/data is easy: Login > little arrow at top-right > Settings > "Download a copy of your Facebook Data"
- raverbashing 9y ago
  This is gold. Because it shows you info that's not accessible through the interface, like whom you unfriended or who unfriended you. It even shows which advertisers have your info.
bluetwo 9y ago
I hope they at least got a fair price for selling out U.S. democracy. If they sold it too cheap I'm going to be pissed.
- dqpb 9y ago
  Gerrymandering has already destroyed our democracy
maneesh 9y ago
Hmm just posted by @alexstamos: “Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security.” https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433?s=21 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433?s=2...
Dangeranger 9y ago
Alex Stamos claims to not be leaving Facebook as reported. https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433
supergirl 9y ago
of all the 1000s of companies collecting user data, the full focus of the world is now on this one? why is that?
- zer00eyz 9y ago
  Because they have a lot of data. Because they leak like a submarine diving with its hatches open. Because they have a history of being scummy. Google could find it self in the same boat. Technologys hydras are as dangerous as the mythical ones.
tzakrajs 9y ago
Time for Facebook to pivot, and pivot quickly they must. edit: Daniel Ive of GBH Insights supports this notion: “Changes to their business model around advertising and news feeds/content could be in store over the next 12 to 18 months,” Ives wrote in a note to investors. http://time.com/5205336/facebook-shares-fall/ http://time.com/5205336/facebook-shares-fall/
oflannabhra 9y ago
My greatest hope with all of the noise surrounding this, is that the engineers and employees at Facebook realize that Facebook and Zuckerberg’s vision does not line up with reality. Zuckerberg believes that Facebook will connect people and change the fabric of society and communities for good in a way that was heretofore impossible. Between Facebook’s political issues and the happiness-depressing effects of its use, I think it is pretty easy to draw the conclusion that Facebook is a net negative for society. This is without even taking into account the amount of PII that has been concentrated into a single entity (who monetizes it), or the effects of algorithmically appealing to people’s desires. A hundred years from now, Equifax, YouTube, and Facebook will be lumped into the same pile: companies who profit off of information about consumers. The algorithmic veneer that protects YouTube and Facebook will be gone by then. I’m not trying to condemn anyone, and I’m not in the position of having to weigh providing for my family with making ethical choices. But, I think it is clear that change for Facebook will not come from the top. It will only come as people leave.
- javajosh 9y ago
  Why would people leave? Facebook knows your buttons and pushes them just right. In aggregate this is terrible for society, but individually it feels good.
  - opportune 9y ago
    my relationship with Facebook reminds me more of an abusive girlfriend than one which is on the whole good
  - oflannabhra 9y ago
    I was referring to employees in the last paragraph. I agree that users will probably not leave, unfortunately.
    - traek 9y ago
      I very much doubt that most employees at Facebook share your viewpoint that Facebook is a net negative for society. It’s almost a tautology—people who feel that way won’t seek employment there.
knodi 9y ago
I think its time to ditch Facebook.
tomohawk 9y ago
collusion with more politicos https://ijr.com/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign-director-fb/ https://ijr.com/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign-director-f...
TAForObvReasons 9y ago
People have been openly complaining about sexual impropriety in Hollywood for decades. There were comedic references to Harvey Weinstein [1] and Kevin Spacey [2] in shows like 30 Rock and Family Guy. Suddenly people started caring. What changed was the cultural moment of the 2016 election. Specifically with Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, the Mueller investigation may have taken a turn towards them in recent months. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ceNfXrccbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ceNfXrccbQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4dHf6jnwaU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4dHf6jnwaU
- CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
  > Suddenly people started caring. Yes, but why? And why now, rather than years/decades ago? There's another layer to these stories that I'm very interested in.
  - ionforce 9y ago
    Probably a critical mass. It's just like technological adoption: there's an early adopters group and then the masses come in waves.
    - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
      A bunch of individual scattered movements were under attack at once. Women's movements were crushed by this overt misogynist who bragged about sexual harassment. Minority movements were crushed by the overt racist who started his campaign on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Mexican-Americans were murderers and rapists. Many people believed that America as a whole would reject the regressiveness of Trump. When that didn't happen, it was a wake-up call for a bunch of different groups. Post-election, we had the white nationalist rally and death at Charlottesville, which was eerily similar to Nazi rallies.
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        What you are saying doesn't really add up. If the environment is really that hostile because Trump was elected, it should not be fostering movements like #MeToo. It should have crushed dissent. A wake up call doesn't lead to something like that. There has to be some positive factor being overlooked.
driverdan 9y ago
I'd love to hear what current FB employees have to say about this. Why do you continue working for FB?
- Tepix 9y ago
  Perhaps a healthy dose of Fuck You money?
hueving 9y ago
>who started his campaign on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Mexican-Americans were murderers and rapists. This is blatantly false. Where did you get this idea and why doesn't it raise a red flag for being so rediculous when you repeat it?
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  Here's the original quote from his speech in 2015: > When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best ... They're sending people that have lots of problems...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. "They're rapists." is pretty self-explanatory. "And some, I assume, are good people." is indicative of Trump's sense of the scale of "good" versus "bad" people.
  - thefirstfirefox 9y ago
    Go look up what a rape tree is, or the percent of women who are raped making the crossing and you'll understand the context.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    That's a disingenuous transcript. "They're rapists" is much more likely to be, "their rapists". And it makes a big difference. (as in, "...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, their rapists.") In other words, they aren't sending their best, they are sending drug dealers, criminals, rapists, etc. That's completely different than that transcript's implication, which would be like saying, "they aren't sending their best, they are sending their drug dealers, their criminals, and all of them are rapists as well." Unless you aren't a native speaker, I'm inclined to believe that you are being willfully disingenuous by spreading that the latter was what he meant to say. Trump has enough insanity that no one needs to make up stuff to make him look bad. This is just like the other stupid "bigly" meme. Even linguists have had to weigh in to agree that he was saying "big league" not bigly. Again, his grammar and syntax is elementary enough that we don't have to make crap up.
    - 9y ago
chapill 9y ago
I don't believe this story. The same Alex Stamos who did http://exfiltrated.com/research-Instagram-RCE.php http://exfiltrated.com/research-Instagram-RCE.php Suddenly he's so concerned about transparency he's leaving over it? This report seems very fishy. All the sources are "according to current and former employees." Not one person willing to go on record?
owly 9y ago
My hope is this will prompt people to delete their Facebook data (as much as they can now) and then their accounts...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
AzzieElbab 9y ago
One day a team of talented psychiatrists will explain how a group of people who spend countless hours by solving "freind-of-a-friend-of-a-friend" types of puzzles for living can act in shock and awe over this "data breach"
mancerayder 9y ago
I'm reposting just this link from another (my) comment below, because I find it incredibly relevant and insightful to anyone who wants to understand how adtech, news and Facebook combined programmatically to create a divisive (but catchy) morass of news: https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511488de https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511...
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
Mark can go Zuck himself. He and Sheryl hiding their heads. Stamos is a decent dude left holding the filth bucket. Thanks for helping weaken democracy and making Vladimir's dreams exceed his wildest expectations. #DeleteFacebook
golemiprague 9y ago
I wonder if anybody would have cared had Hillary won the elections.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ggg9990 9y ago
With the benefit of hindsight, it seems almost cute how strongly the DOJ went after Microsoft in the ‘90s, when they were just victimizing competitors rather than destabilizing democracies.
mhneu 9y ago
Stamos has weighed in on twitter: >Alex Stamos >Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security. https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 >To be clear, the security team has never been prevented or discouraged from investigating any Russian activity by any executives. >Josh Sternberg >The NYT reporting that Facebook Chief Information Security Officer, Alex Stamos, leaving the company. He lost the debate to Sandberg and other execs on investigating and disclosing Russian activity. … https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975926737111367680 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975926737111367680 The question in my mind is - what's the real story? You don't go from a team of 120 to a team of 3 for no reason, and Stamos hasn't denied that reporting.
hasanphd 9y ago
Sad.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
yAnonymous 9y ago
What gets me is that people are usually ok with stuff like this until it's being used to promote ideas they don't support.
skilled 9y ago
I just don't see how anyone can give any credibility to Facebook at this point. For a while now, the newsfeed has been overhauled so much that it doesn't make any sense. It's a mindless stream of worthless content that doesn't have any real and tangible effect on people's lives. More than anything, Facebook seems to have turned into a trigger-happy platform where people can quickly express their emotional state of being in exchange for some comments and likes. There doesn't seem to be any 'protein' to the platform in terms of everyone using the platform equally. Should you comment something wrong, or something that the other person doesn't agree with -- all hell breaks loose because people want to have their voices heard. Maybe that's just my opinion. Messenger as an app is definitely still useful and comes in handy to talk with close friends and family when away from them physically. I am sure that some Groups generate decent content, specifically for sales, and crafty subjects, but business pages look more like billboards where a company changes their advertising message every other day. There's no sustenance to content, which makes the platform mindlessly boring.
sdmadf2834 9y ago
"Data Security Chief" lol okay. Chief of giving everyone's data away, maybe
fermienrico 9y ago
What does it mean when they say "Stood Down"?

1074 points by aaronbrethorst 9y ago

> Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. He was for disclosing this information which ostracized him from the other executives who don't seem to care at all in regard to how their data is used as long as they profit from it.

Varcht 9y ago
The injustice!.
- r00fus 9y ago
  The citation is the article itself.
- matt4077 9y ago
  It’s right there in the quote: “...according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters“. And before you criticize anonymous sources: that’s how journalism works. The publication, the New York Times in this case, takes on the risk to its reputation on behalf of their sources to allow information from unauthorized sources to become public. Edit: editing your post to erase your embarrassing ineptitude to read (and to make the people correcting you seem foolish) seems kinda assholish.

minimaxir 9y ago

Stamos had been actively engaging with security researchers on Twitter over the past few days about CA with heated discussions: > I have deleted my Tweets on Cambridge Analytica, not because they were factually incorrect but because I should have done a better job weighing in. https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975069709140877312 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975069709140877312 Archive of those deleted tweets: https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/975078309930311680 https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/975078309930311680 EDIT: Stamos responds to news: > Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security. https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433

danso 9y ago
Wondering what he thought would be him doing "a better job weighing in"? It seems like his deleted tweets were apparently too honest? i.e. in arguing that there was no data breach, he argued that FB's API and TOS allowed (without oversight) for all app developers to do the kind of data harvesting Cambridge Analytics did? That was well-known by developers, but I guess it's different stating it as an official policy.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  In political circles, this is what is called a "Kinsley gaffe": when somebody accidentally tells the truth (and then has to hastily walk it back)
- chatmasta 9y ago
  Translation, "I pissed off my boss"
  - ams6110 9y ago
    If he's leaving anyway why would he really care?
    - kchoudhu 9y ago
      Stock options.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- beager 9y ago
  Essentially admitting that the amount of information harvested was not unauthorized but rather by design.
- AFNobody 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

IBM 9y ago

Only thing I want to know: did he sign an NDA?

mikeyouse 9y ago
Of course he did - C-level officer close to hugely controversial issue, leaving the company in 6 months. It'll be predicated on an NDA, some sort of success metrics for the transition process, and a monster golden parachute.
- lawnchair_larry 9y ago
  Worth noting that CSO / CISO isn’t really a C-Level position. They usually report to the CIO or CTO and are leveled at VP or whatever one one or two levels below what the “real” execs are. You’ll notice he isn’t listed as an exec in their SEC filings, which include their CEO, COO, CFO, Chief Product Officer, VP Business and Marketing Partnerships, CTO, and VP General Counsel. That tells you a bit about how important tech companies really think security is. In fact you will often find the head of HR among that group before you’ll see a CSO. It doesn’t matter though, as it’s incredibly rare for a CSO to actually know anything about security. Stamos is an exception. I’d wager that you can likely count the number of CSOs who have ever written an exploit on one hand.
  - mikeyouse 9y ago
    That's a good and useful clarification - thanks.
  - wglb 9y ago
    Often not true. I've always advocated that the CSO report to the CEO, and that is how it came to be. I was listed on the exec page, and the current CSO is now as well. Not reporting to the CEO is a mistake.
- wglb 9y ago
  I am sure he is under NDA from the time of his hiring, and whatever his termination package will be, there will be a non-disparagement clause.

rhombocombus 9y ago

It sounds like the COO and CEO view the spreading of disinformation as a feature of the site.

danso 9y ago

> He has been overseeing the transfer of his security team to Facebook’s product and infrastructure divisions. His group, which once had 120 people, now has three, the current and former employees said. So with Stamos's departure/resignation, Facebook will have also reorganized its structure to not have a dedicated security team? Or at least one at the same level in the hierarchy as product and infrastructure?

eganist 9y ago
This would be the correct way to read it is my impression. They've essentially folded their centralized technical risk management apparatus.

Twisell 9y ago

> Facebook’s chief information security officer, Alex Stamos, will leave the company after internal disagreements over how the social network should deal with its role in spreading disinformation, according to current and former employees briefed on the matter. This opening sentence is frightening, I would rather have learned that FB executive disagree about how to deal with FB "role in NOT spreading disinformation"

Analemma_ 9y ago
Between this story and the other one on the front page about the whistleblower who exposed the leak getting blacklisted, I think it's pretty clear that, of the two options A) acknowledge the serious underlying problems and work hard to fix them B) deny everything, retaliate against anyone who dares bring it up to create a chilling effect Facebook is going all-in on option B. (EDIT: And if you don't believe me, check out foeey's post about Facebook desperately trying to clear out CA's offices before the authorities can.)
tootie 9y ago
FB is big enough to have developed factions and I can totally see Zuck not being up to the task of controlling them.
- threeseed 9y ago
  You really the CEO and COO aren't capable of controlling employees despite the company growing to the size it is and having to deal with contentious issues in the past. That's a bit ridiculous. The fact is that on an issue like this there is no way that the executive team didn't sign off it.
- make3 9y ago
  lol he's still 100% responsible, as he chose the people who chose them, and is responsible for the culture.

tzakrajs 9y ago

Stamos sure knows how to pick stinker companies.

spydum 9y ago
I mean, maybe that's true, but I'm not entirely certain it's a fair assessment. Yahoo and Facebook are arguably some of the largest targets (different eras of course). Being a CISO at both and not getting fired from either are huge achievements, given the CISO is generally a sacrificial role (largely ignored when done right, and beheaded if something goes wrong, regardless of your actions). So either way, he picks hard jobs. The question is, does he truly step down when he feels he's got no remaining option to protest (which is quite respectable IMHO).. or is he simply outmaneuvering the board when his spidey senses tell him they are about to drop the axe because of recent corporate sins? Either way, style points for both I'd say.
- tzakrajs 9y ago
  I will stop short of calling him Machiavellian, but he sure does have convenient timing. Great points!

spydum 9y ago

Didn't he also leave yahoo for practically the same reason?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mtgx 9y ago
Kind of, and it's why I liked him initially. But with every Facebook screwup and his defense of that screwup with bogus excuses (possibly directly from Zuckerberg, but irrelevant), I gradually started losing my respect for him, just like I've lost my respect for Carmack. Carmack could have been working for SpaceX and living his biggest dream (working on space stuff), but instead he's wasting his time and potential in a democracy-destroying company like Facebook. History will not be kind to those that continue to help or defend Facebook to keep its influence in the world and power.

fooey 9y ago

There's breaking reporting that Facebook just had personnel in the Cambridge Analytica offices before the UK authorities could get there with warrants. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121 https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975844154361221121 > BREAKING: Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office.. https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975855218490519552?s=19 https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/975855218490519552... > To be clear, @facebook was trying to "secure evidence" ahead of the UK authorities. Nice try, @facebook. The UK Information Commissioner's Office cracking whip...British legal investigation MUST take precedence over US multibillion $ company..... Something VERY wrong is going on at Facebook. edit, with another account: https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/975856097163702272 https://twitter.com/DamianCollins/status/975856097163702272 > Facebook have confirmed that auditors and legal counsel acting on behalf of the company were in the offices of Cambridge Analytica this evening until they were told to stand down by the Information Commissioner. These investigations need to be undertaken by the proper authorities

debt 9y ago
"Facebook WAS inside Cambridge Analytica's office but have now "stood down" following dramatic intervention by UK Information Commissioner's Office.." Uhh....that's not good. In effect, this is a sanctioned data breach. Facebook opened the firehouse of user data by knowingly keeping very lax access to their developer APIs while not at all preventing developers from storing the data they accessed. That's a very serious breach of consumer trust. A terms of service is only as good as your user's ability to understand it's implications. Just because users check a box doesn't mean Facebook is any less liable.
- DrScump 9y ago
  have now "stood down" ... which could mean simply that "we finished doing what we came to do".
zilchers 9y ago
I seriously feel like I’m missing something here, why isn’t Facebook fully behind getting to the bottom of this? Going back even further, why was it so difficult for them to even admit they had a problem during the election? I don’t think it’s as simple as “more money,” but maybe as simple as people too close to the problem and too enamored by what they’ve created?

whoisjuan 9y ago

Zuckerberg's and Sandberg's response to all these events has been the weakest and lamest that I have ever seen from any leadership, regarding controversial issues that involve a company of this size...and that's hard to beat when you have the likes of BP and Volkswagen... Do they really think that just ignoring the issue will make the problem go away?

tzakrajs 9y ago
This problem may be both existential and intractable for Facebook to solve, which is why they have been giving it the silent treatment. I believe the operators and investors are just now realizing how damaging the business model was for consumers.
ams6110 9y ago
When have they really ever had their feet held to a fire on a controversial issue? Zuckerberg is still a pretty young guy, despite his position and all he's done he's still inexperienced in some things. Ever since he started Facebook things have pretty much gone his way. Maybe he just doesn't instinctively know what to do.
- baq 9y ago
  In which case he knows exactly what to do, which is shut up. There's nothing he can say right now that will make things better.
  - marshray 9y ago
    My guess is he's been cognizant of the magnitude of this disaster all along. This is why he had been getting his picture taken driving tractors. It was an act of image management, not because he planned to run for office.
  - augbog 9y ago
    Pretty sure it's just the lawyers telling him that.

propman 9y ago

Why can't we legislate regulations on Facebook, like Europe is set to do? They've already done the hard work by laying down the groundwork.

zer00eyz 9y ago
For the same reason the US was the one who brought FIFA to court. It is easier if an "outsider" makes the first move.

jawnjawn 9y ago

Alex Stamos sure likes calling attention to himself and making a fuss when he leaves a company in supposed protest.

dirtyhand 9y ago

CEO of Cambridge Analytica caught on camera saying they have used bribes and sex workers to entrap politicians. https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-trumps-election-consultants-filmed-saying-they-use-bribes-and-sex-workers-to-entrap-politicians-investigation https://www.channel4.com/news/cambridge-analytica-revealed-t...

daodedickinson 9y ago
No different than Spez @ Reddit saying he knows the Facebook accounts of anonymous users accessing adult content and can cross-reference that with their reddit accounts when they are logged in and sell that information to third parties. Reddit probably makes more money that way than any other, but that's just my guess because they clients are loaded and include sovereign states. Tons of sites are no better, probably worse. A huge chunk of the internet is about trusting to few untrustable flawed human beings (that's everybody) with way to much information, and therefore power.
- khazhoux 9y ago
  Very different. CA offered an unethical and possibly illegal service for sale. Show me where Spez did that and I'll agree with you.
  - bpicolo 9y ago
    Blackmailing politicians is definitively on the illegal side.
    - khazhoux 9y ago
      I'd love to read up on spez blackmailing politicians, if you could please provide a link.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  No, that's massively different. Engaging in passive observation and reselling that data, while sleazy, is not the same as actively setting someone up.

downandout 9y ago

I’m sorry but show me even 10 voters nationwide who were going to vote for Hillary, and then saw a Russian-created fake news post on Facebook and changed their vote to Trump. This Security Chief was clearly upset that his candidate lost, but blaming Facebook or the Russians is ludicrous. It seems that they attempted to influence the election, but there is zero evidence that they were successful in changing the outcome. I admire his devotion to his candidate, and for trying to find an explanation for her defeat. But sometimes the correct explanation is the simplest one: she was just unpalatable to many voters. Deal with it, and spend your energy finding a better candidate next time, rather than trying to blame Russia or Facebook for influencing even a single vote, which likely did not happen.

mattnewton 9y ago
You don’t need to flip the voters, just get them to not show up, and get more republicans to show up. This isn’t about politics, this is about buisiness interests, and professional reputation. Some examples of ads using this technique: http://amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/11/03/text-vote-hillary-clinton http://amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/11/03/text-vote-hillary-... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-e...
- narrator 9y ago
  Does propaganda work or doesn't it? The idea being pushed that since it does, only approved propaganda should be let through. Trump winning is proof that there's a need for regulation of propaganda.
  - mattnewton 9y ago
    Propaganda works, which is why we have laws that require the source of messages in other mediums be identified, and why we regulate it in a variety of other ways. IANAL but these ads are not covered by the regulation because they were not written in the internet era, and the law likely needs a refresh or at least some case law examples to figure out how to apply it.

mattnewton 9y ago

On the CA story, I get where the guy is coming from with the “It was not a breach.” He’s a technical guy, and this wasn’t a technical hack. It’s like a lock manufacturer wanting to let everyone know that the customer had the door open, and their locks weren’t broken. But in this case, he wasn’t just a lock manufacturer, he was in charge of security for the home. I can’t help but think of Steve Jobs parable of the Janitor and the Vice President[0]. Reasons stop mattering at his level. Part of the job was to convince Facebook that these permissions were bad for privacy. Stamos likely knows this. To me, it looks like he resigned when he realized he couldn’t persuade the other executives of things like this. [0] http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the-difference-between-a-vice-president-and-a-janitor-2011-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-on-the-difference-...

dragonwriter 9y ago
> On the CA story, I get where the guy is coming from with the “It was not a breach.” He’s a technical guy, and this wasn’t a technical hack. “Not a technical hack” and “not a breach” are hardly even related concepts, and anyone, in a technical role or not, working around private data ought to understand that.
dglass 9y ago
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the word "breach" is reserved for specific security incidents that fall above a certain threshold. Something like if X amount of users were affected it must be considered a breach, which means the company must alert the authorities and alert all users who have been affected. If he's saying it wasn't a breach it's probably because it doesn't fit the actual criteria for considering something a breach, but doesn't mean he's trying to downplay the severity of what happened. Edit: difference between a data breach vs. a security incident - https://www.alienvault.com/blogs/security-essentials/whats-the-difference-between-a-data-breach-and-a-security-incident https://www.alienvault.com/blogs/security-essentials/whats-t...

evgen 9y ago

While it is buried in the article, an interesting data point that I noticed as a former alum of the team is that the FB security team has apparently been picked apart and divided up between the prod and infra orgs. Being able to stand apart from these two massively powerful entities within FB and tell them when they were screwing up had been one of the moderating influences between the desire of the prod team for 'increase engagement, fuck privacy', and the desire of the infra team for 'move fast, screw safety.' This will not end well...

eganist 9y ago
It also relieves Facebook of any sufficiently necessary capability to surveil, centralize, and manage risk. Given the firm's susceptibility to GDPR and its newfound position under the microscope of a series of international criminal and counter intelligence investigations, this would seem objectively to be the wrong move.

rrdharan 9y ago

I guess this had already been brewing for a while: "After his day-to-day responsibilities were reassigned to others in December, Mr. Stamos said he would leave... He was persuaded to stay through August to oversee the transition... executives thought his departure would look bad".

bogomipz 9y ago

>"Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook, often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer..." This is quite a telling - advocating for transparency and disclosure put this individual at odds with the C0O Sheryl Sandberg. It's worth noting that Chapter 6 of Sandberg's very successful book "Lean In" is titled "Seek and Speak the Truth."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_In edit COO

jumelles 9y ago
She's the COO, not the CEO :)
mathattack 9y ago
Her conference room is also called “Only Good News”
Xorlev 9y ago
Only when the truth is convenient.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

trhway 9y ago

well, somebody is going to be scapegoated at FB when FB's attempt to push full weight of the blame squarely on CA fails. And Security Chief i think wouldn't be a bad scapegoat ... I expect some other high people also to leave to avoid being made to take one for the team.

msangi 9y ago

Update from his twitter account: > Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security. https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433

robbiet480 9y ago

"Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security." 2 minutes ago https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433

tptacek 9y ago
Note that doesn't contradict the NYT story, which claims that he essentially gave 8 months notice in December, which he would now be ~3 months into.
- Mahn 9y ago
  Makes you wonder why are they running this story now then. Hell of an interesting timing, almost as if to fit a narrative.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Probably because they just learned about it? Doesn't seem all that complicated.
    - eganist 9y ago
      If anything, it wouldn't surprise me if the CA revelations led current staff to speak out to the press to make the internal division known. Alex is pretty effective as a leader; I'd be shocked if the vast majority of his team, if not his entire team, did not have his back on this.
stefan_ 9y ago
That sounds like a "I can do this job from home" kinda opportunity

icpmacdo 9y ago

Stamos's response https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433

utopcell 9y ago

When Stamos left Yahoo, I assumed it was because of the leaked accounts information. I wonder if he saw similar compromises at Facebook that were not disclosed.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

"Mr. Stamos had been a strong advocate inside the company for investigating and disclosing Russian activity on Facebook , often to the consternation of other top executives, including Sheryl Sandberg, the social network’s chief operating officer, according to the current and former employees, who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters."

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ekanes 9y ago

Leaving FB? Exporting all your posts/data is easy: Login > little arrow at top-right > Settings > "Download a copy of your Facebook Data"

raverbashing 9y ago
This is gold. Because it shows you info that's not accessible through the interface, like whom you unfriended or who unfriended you. It even shows which advertisers have your info.

bluetwo 9y ago

I hope they at least got a fair price for selling out U.S. democracy. If they sold it too cheap I'm going to be pissed.

dqpb 9y ago
Gerrymandering has already destroyed our democracy

maneesh 9y ago

Hmm just posted by @alexstamos: “Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security.” https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433?s=21 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433?s=2...

Dangeranger 9y ago

Alex Stamos claims to not be leaving Facebook as reported. https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433

supergirl 9y ago

of all the 1000s of companies collecting user data, the full focus of the world is now on this one? why is that?

zer00eyz 9y ago
Because they have a lot of data. Because they leak like a submarine diving with its hatches open. Because they have a history of being scummy. Google could find it self in the same boat. Technologys hydras are as dangerous as the mythical ones.

tzakrajs 9y ago

Time for Facebook to pivot, and pivot quickly they must. edit: Daniel Ive of GBH Insights supports this notion: “Changes to their business model around advertising and news feeds/content could be in store over the next 12 to 18 months,” Ives wrote in a note to investors. http://time.com/5205336/facebook-shares-fall/ http://time.com/5205336/facebook-shares-fall/

oflannabhra 9y ago

My greatest hope with all of the noise surrounding this, is that the engineers and employees at Facebook realize that Facebook and Zuckerberg’s vision does not line up with reality. Zuckerberg believes that Facebook will connect people and change the fabric of society and communities for good in a way that was heretofore impossible. Between Facebook’s political issues and the happiness-depressing effects of its use, I think it is pretty easy to draw the conclusion that Facebook is a net negative for society. This is without even taking into account the amount of PII that has been concentrated into a single entity (who monetizes it), or the effects of algorithmically appealing to people’s desires. A hundred years from now, Equifax, YouTube, and Facebook will be lumped into the same pile: companies who profit off of information about consumers. The algorithmic veneer that protects YouTube and Facebook will be gone by then. I’m not trying to condemn anyone, and I’m not in the position of having to weigh providing for my family with making ethical choices. But, I think it is clear that change for Facebook will not come from the top. It will only come as people leave.

javajosh 9y ago
Why would people leave? Facebook knows your buttons and pushes them just right. In aggregate this is terrible for society, but individually it feels good.
- opportune 9y ago
  my relationship with Facebook reminds me more of an abusive girlfriend than one which is on the whole good
- oflannabhra 9y ago
  I was referring to employees in the last paragraph. I agree that users will probably not leave, unfortunately.
  - traek 9y ago
    I very much doubt that most employees at Facebook share your viewpoint that Facebook is a net negative for society. It’s almost a tautology—people who feel that way won’t seek employment there.

knodi 9y ago

I think its time to ditch Facebook.

tomohawk 9y ago

collusion with more politicos https://ijr.com/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign-director-fb/ https://ijr.com/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign-director-f...

TAForObvReasons 9y ago

People have been openly complaining about sexual impropriety in Hollywood for decades. There were comedic references to Harvey Weinstein [1] and Kevin Spacey [2] in shows like 30 Rock and Family Guy. Suddenly people started caring. What changed was the cultural moment of the 2016 election. Specifically with Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, the Mueller investigation may have taken a turn towards them in recent months. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ceNfXrccbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ceNfXrccbQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4dHf6jnwaU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4dHf6jnwaU

CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
> Suddenly people started caring. Yes, but why? And why now, rather than years/decades ago? There's another layer to these stories that I'm very interested in.
- ionforce 9y ago
  Probably a critical mass. It's just like technological adoption: there's an early adopters group and then the masses come in waves.
  - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    A bunch of individual scattered movements were under attack at once. Women's movements were crushed by this overt misogynist who bragged about sexual harassment. Minority movements were crushed by the overt racist who started his campaign on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Mexican-Americans were murderers and rapists. Many people believed that America as a whole would reject the regressiveness of Trump. When that didn't happen, it was a wake-up call for a bunch of different groups. Post-election, we had the white nationalist rally and death at Charlottesville, which was eerily similar to Nazi rallies.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      What you are saying doesn't really add up. If the environment is really that hostile because Trump was elected, it should not be fostering movements like #MeToo. It should have crushed dissent. A wake up call doesn't lead to something like that. There has to be some positive factor being overlooked.

driverdan 9y ago

I'd love to hear what current FB employees have to say about this. Why do you continue working for FB?

Tepix 9y ago
Perhaps a healthy dose of Fuck You money?

hueving 9y ago

>who started his campaign on the idea that the overwhelming majority of Mexican-Americans were murderers and rapists. This is blatantly false. Where did you get this idea and why doesn't it raise a red flag for being so rediculous when you repeat it?

TAForObvReasons 9y ago
Here's the original quote from his speech in 2015: > When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best ... They're sending people that have lots of problems...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. "They're rapists." is pretty self-explanatory. "And some, I assume, are good people." is indicative of Trump's sense of the scale of "good" versus "bad" people.
- thefirstfirefox 9y ago
  Go look up what a rape tree is, or the percent of women who are raped making the crossing and you'll understand the context.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  That's a disingenuous transcript. "They're rapists" is much more likely to be, "their rapists". And it makes a big difference. (as in, "...they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, their rapists.") In other words, they aren't sending their best, they are sending drug dealers, criminals, rapists, etc. That's completely different than that transcript's implication, which would be like saying, "they aren't sending their best, they are sending their drug dealers, their criminals, and all of them are rapists as well." Unless you aren't a native speaker, I'm inclined to believe that you are being willfully disingenuous by spreading that the latter was what he meant to say. Trump has enough insanity that no one needs to make up stuff to make him look bad. This is just like the other stupid "bigly" meme. Even linguists have had to weigh in to agree that he was saying "big league" not bigly. Again, his grammar and syntax is elementary enough that we don't have to make crap up.
  - 9y ago

chapill 9y ago

I don't believe this story. The same Alex Stamos who did http://exfiltrated.com/research-Instagram-RCE.php http://exfiltrated.com/research-Instagram-RCE.php Suddenly he's so concerned about transparency he's leaving over it? This report seems very fishy. All the sources are "according to current and former employees." Not one person willing to go on record?

owly 9y ago

My hope is this will prompt people to delete their Facebook data (as much as they can now) and then their accounts...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

AzzieElbab 9y ago

One day a team of talented psychiatrists will explain how a group of people who spend countless hours by solving "freind-of-a-friend-of-a-friend" types of puzzles for living can act in shock and awe over this "data breach"

mancerayder 9y ago

I'm reposting just this link from another (my) comment below, because I find it incredibly relevant and insightful to anyone who wants to understand how adtech, news and Facebook combined programmatically to create a divisive (but catchy) morass of news: https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511488de https://medium.com/the-mission/the-enemy-in-our-feeds-e86511...

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

Mark can go Zuck himself. He and Sheryl hiding their heads. Stamos is a decent dude left holding the filth bucket. Thanks for helping weaken democracy and making Vladimir's dreams exceed his wildest expectations. #DeleteFacebook

golemiprague 9y ago

I wonder if anybody would have cared had Hillary won the elections.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ggg9990 9y ago

With the benefit of hindsight, it seems almost cute how strongly the DOJ went after Microsoft in the ‘90s, when they were just victimizing competitors rather than destabilizing democracies.

mhneu 9y ago

Stamos has weighed in on twitter: >Alex Stamos >Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security. https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975875310896914433 >To be clear, the security team has never been prevented or discouraged from investigating any Russian activity by any executives. >Josh Sternberg >The NYT reporting that Facebook Chief Information Security Officer, Alex Stamos, leaving the company. He lost the debate to Sandberg and other execs on investigating and disclosing Russian activity. … https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975926737111367680 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/975926737111367680 The question in my mind is - what's the real story? You don't go from a team of 120 to a team of 3 for no reason, and Stamos hasn't denied that reporting.

hasanphd 9y ago

Sad.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

yAnonymous 9y ago

What gets me is that people are usually ok with stuff like this until it's being used to promote ideas they don't support.

skilled 9y ago

I just don't see how anyone can give any credibility to Facebook at this point. For a while now, the newsfeed has been overhauled so much that it doesn't make any sense. It's a mindless stream of worthless content that doesn't have any real and tangible effect on people's lives. More than anything, Facebook seems to have turned into a trigger-happy platform where people can quickly express their emotional state of being in exchange for some comments and likes. There doesn't seem to be any 'protein' to the platform in terms of everyone using the platform equally. Should you comment something wrong, or something that the other person doesn't agree with -- all hell breaks loose because people want to have their voices heard. Maybe that's just my opinion. Messenger as an app is definitely still useful and comes in handy to talk with close friends and family when away from them physically. I am sure that some Groups generate decent content, specifically for sales, and crafty subjects, but business pages look more like billboards where a company changes their advertising message every other day. There's no sustenance to content, which makes the platform mindlessly boring.

sdmadf2834 9y ago

"Data Security Chief" lol okay. Chief of giving everyone's data away, maybe

fermienrico 9y ago

What does it mean when they say "Stood Down"?