8 ms·

What's utterly horrifying about this whole thing is how the media is acting as if this is some sort of surprise. Like what did you think was happening at a comp

What's utterly horrifying about this whole thing is how the media is acting as if this is some sort of surprise. Like what did you think was happening at a company collecting data about billions of people? Especially at a company that has a CEO who is famous for calling its own users dumb fu * * s? A company that experimented on at risk teens. Like come on. --edit--- Or lordy, didn't expect this comment to blow up this much. Do forgive me if it sounded a bit smug, that was not my intention. But the fact of the matter is this was something we were all warned about, we were shown countless examples of exactly this, not just us nerds, everyone, people like Edward Snowden risked their lives telling us about how all this data was being used against all of us. and yet everyone kept giving more and more, you were looked at like a tin foil wearing nutter when you told people not to give away so much information about themselves so easily. At the end of the day, this is not really 100% facebook's fault, this is our fault, the fault of everyone who so readily made their information available without giving much thought to who sees it and what happens to it. And no just because you are not a techie you are not off the hook for not caring enough about your own privacy. I mean what level of technical knowledge is needed to know that once you post something online others can see it? Funny thing is, this would all blow over after a few months, and everyone will go back to the usual habbits.

fredley 9y ago
It's not a surprise to most readers of HN, but most people are not readers of HN, and take things at face value, where face value is what they see in advertisements and hear from their friends. People still have an expectation of privacy, even when, from an HN perspective they should be extremely skeptical about having such an expectation.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
1337biz 9y ago
Fascinating to watch - it shows how much power media has to put a topic on the global agenda if it fits into their preferred narrative.
- scottmf 9y ago
  Let me guess. It’s a globalist media conspiracy to take down Trump?
  - jimmy1 9y ago
    No but in the grand scheme of things, things like the Yemen Civil War that has been ongoing since 2015 has gotten less attention in our media than a single Donald Trump tweet. For lack of a better word: sad!
    - Angostura 9y ago
      It would be sad if you were correct, but you're not https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=yemen+civil+war https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=yemen+civil+war
      - jimmy1 9y ago
        I would be optimistic if most Americans actually read the BBC ( or read, for that matter). I would venture to say most however, do not. For example, a popular right wing propaganda news source that most Americans watch has had a handful of articles this year, and skimpy coverage on air.
        purple-again 9y ago
        Do you find it hard to believe that an organization based in the UK, and citizens of that union, are more interested in whats going in Yemen than an organization based in the US, and of course the citizens of that union. I know whats happening in Yemen, I've read the facts, and now I don't care anymore. I don't want to see it in the news everyday because it wasn't relevant to me when I read about it and it has practically zero chance of every being relevant to me. What Trump said about xxx person at yyy place is varying degrees of relevant to my life, all of those degrees more so than Yemen. If Fox had a large Middle Eastern demographic that it's advertisers cared about, you would see Yemen Nightly at 7:30 without question.
rando444 9y ago
Surely you understand the difference between the media reporting on facts vs. general public speculation.
jjoonathan 9y ago
A lack of novelty is no reason to be dismissive.
tmalsburg2 9y ago
As a matter of fact, this is news and surprising for most users of Facebook even if it's not for you. By saying that no one should be surprised, are you not taking the same condescending attitude that you're pointing out in Zuckerberg?
- meuk 9y ago
  Well, it is extremely naive to think that Facebook does not use all the data they get about you. Then again, most people are very naive about this kind of everyday technology.
  - scottmf 9y ago
    That isn’t what this article is about.
  - tmalsburg2 9y ago
    That's just your perspective. I live in the Germany where we have very strong data protection laws. Is it natural for people to assume that these laws are broken at such a large scale? And that abuse goes completely unchallenged for years?
    - dspillett 9y ago
      > Is it natural for people to assume that these laws are broken at such a large scale? Across international boundaries where those laws may be difficult to enforce because other countries are not in sync with them? Hell yes. Call me cynical, but...
    - deltron3030 9y ago
      Data protection laws are so strong in Germany that they let registration offices sell your data if you don't explicitly opt out. Most people don't even know whats going on and that they have to opt out to avoid that. Or German credit scoring institutions, who are allowed collect data about you even if you don't have any mutual agreement with them.
freyir 9y ago
Just so the quote [2004] isn't out of context: Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Friend]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuckerberg: People just submitted it. Zuckerberg: I don't know why. Zuckerberg: They "trust me" Zuckerberg: Dumb fucks
- na85 9y ago
  Got the original screenshot perhaps?
  - whyleyc 9y ago
    https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--BFicKJf4--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/18mrvs5i9x4pkjpg.jpg https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--BFicKJf...
- relyio 9y ago
  I'm sure you can do a better job at illustrating your point than ressucitating a +10y old quote from Zuck, 19 at the time. Teenagers and college students say a lot of condescending, dumb, immature stuff in group discussions. It's not news and no evidence at all.
  - freyir 9y ago
    > I'm sure you can do a better job at illustrating your point than ressucitating a +10y old quote from Zuck, 19 at the time. I don't need to. Facebook just illustrated it for me.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    It’s a raw quote. Is it inaccurate? IMO it’s very apropos because it sums up the core attitude of the company. That 19 year grew up to become one of the richest and most powerful men on the planet, with unchecked power.
  - Feniks 9y ago
    The internet never forgets. You should know that Mark.
IAmEveryone 9y ago
“The media” has always been sceptical of Facebook, and I’d love to see examples of them “acting surprised”. In fact I would guess your scepticism was always informed mostly by what you and those you socialize with read in “the media”. The current scandal’s staying power in the news is similarly based on journalists’ pent-up suspicions finally finding a vehicle to be expressed in public. These stories are newsworthy because they represent the break from generalized scepticism to specific examples of harm. If the New York Times had waged a nebulous campaign against Facebook without clear evidence it would have rightly been accused of getting ahead of the facts.
ybrah 9y ago
I would call my users dumb fucks too if I was 19
simias 9y ago
It reminds me of the Snowden leaks about mass surveillance programs like PRISM. I think most technical people expected something like that to exist ever since the internet became mainstream. Still, if it's just an "educated rumor" without hard evidence there's not much for the media to talk about. Up until now you could only say "it seems pretty likely that Facebook is doing something like that, but we don't know for sure". That's not enough to make an article and that's not enough to convince the general populace apparently. In general it's pretty amazing how trusting the average human being seems to be as soon as computer are involved. I suppose that it's mostly out of ignorance and complacency. People seem a lot more careful when physical mail is involved than emails for instance. They also don't hesitate to share extremely intimate details about their private lives with a faceless corporation. Some of my friends willingly opt into streaming their position in real time continuously through their smartphones. That's terrifying to me but apparently very convenient for them. I think Zuckerberg agrees with my sentiment since that's the source of his "dumb fucks" comment. I hope these articles will help change that mentality but I'm not overly optimistic. I read a comment on a forum earlier today that basically said "screw Facebook, I'll close my account and do everything from WhatsApp instead". I don't think it was sarcastic.
- jclardy 9y ago
  I think the trust is a new thing though, new to the social media age. I remember growing up with computers in the 90's and people I knew wouldn't even consider entering a credit card number on a website. Now we give them freely. People used anonymous handles on AIM. At some point this changed and people decided they could be themselves on the internet, which is a fine idea, but the trust just went too far.
  - wuliwong 9y ago
    And I believe Facebook was largely the site that got people comfortable using their real names and personas online.
  - epalm 9y ago
    This was visible when using credit cards in stores, too. 1990s: your signature needs to match exactly so we know it's really you! 2000s: you must enter a PIN that hopefully only you know? 2010s: fuck it just tap the card near the reader
hackermailman 9y ago
Everybody knew about the data leaking for 'quizzes and games' since 2009 http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/facebook-breaches-canadian-privacy-law-commissioner-1.851486 http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/facebook-breaches-can... WikiLeaks also covered this earlier in their spyfiles warning. People don't care that a political opinion survey being spammed around by their friends is actually harvesting their details in a campaign dossier to manipulate them directly later.
Angostura 9y ago
What did you think was happening at a company collecting data about billions of people? I'd expect it to use it for advertising targeting. The privacy settings I've put on there exclude other uses.
flexie 9y ago
"Parakilas, 38, who now works as a product manager for Uber, ..." So from one reckless company that doesn't give a damn about the law to the next. Who teaches developers that it's okay to work for anyone as long as the tech is cool and the salary is great?
- exelius 9y ago
  I actually know Sandy and he’s a conscientious guy who cares about this stuff. He’s a good dude who wants to make positive change by being in the conversation.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- zbentley 9y ago
  > Who teaches developers that it's okay to work for anyone as long as the tech is cool and the salary is great? Who teaches them otherwise? Absent parental/primary-school-instilled ethics, rather a lot of engineers operate in a bubble of like-minded (and similarly-employed) people, making large amounts of money, and are often insulated (voluntarily, deliberately, or accidentally) from the impact of their work. What could be changed to improve on that situation? I've heard simplistic suggestions to "sue the C-class until they learn/abandon the incredibly lucrative profit motive", "fire/imprison engineers whose changes harm people", and "make the bridge-builder stand under bridge they built" (whatever that means in a software context). Those seem utopian. What tangible, plausible changes can be made to improve on developer accountability (for their work) and discernment (about prospective employers)?
  - JabavuAdams 9y ago
    Make your new hires watch the multiple camera feeds and lidar of that woman being run over again and again until they really really understand that they're working on life-critical systems.
    - 9y ago
switch007 9y ago
I know this is HN (where it is probably less of a surprise) but for a wider audience taking this kind of opportunity to write a smug comment might just be harmful to them, their privacy and their rights.
sydd 9y ago
Yeat, especially considering that: - This was part of an open API, you just needed to sign up for free. There is no data breach. - EVERYONE was using it - this consisted mostly of games like Farmville. This is how they can show your friends progress and their profile pic. - It was shut down more than a year ago. Actually there is no newsworthy thing at Facebooks side at all, the new thing is that companies built games just to harvest this data and use it for something else.
mtgx 9y ago
Well, for the past few years, the media has been a "partner" of Facebook. Now it's not any longer. Seems like a wrong move for Facebook to dump the media like old clothes. Whoops. I even remember such articles from TheGuardian before decrying that people are "going dark" - no, it wasn't about using Tor or VPNs. It was simply about using tracking protection.
merpnderp 9y ago
This exact same scandal broke in 2012 only it was with Obama’s campaign. It is humorous to see the media much more outraged when Republicans do it, as if it wasn’t that big of a deal when Obama did it. https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752 Edit for interesting link to the 2012 Facebook election data story.
ptero 9y ago
> What's utterly horrifying about this whole thing is how the media is acting as if this is some sort of surprise I agree. A couple of generations ago the media was much more combative and willing to take on the powers that be (and each other). By this time most media outlets would have been saying "told you so (many times)". Unfortunately, now media mostly follows trends and competes on beauty of their talking heads, which is a lot safer than, say, investigating slavery or organized crime.
anonymouz 9y ago
As someone who considered himself reasonably well-informed about the privacy implications of Facebook, the "friend permission" was still news to me. That Facebook would share my profile data with a third party because some Facebook contact of mine "allowed" it, is utterly horrific. It is also a clear and massive breach of EU data privacy laws. (Which unfortunately seem difficult to enforce against international companies at the moment; the GPDR can't come soon enough!) In any case, if this should have been known by everyone already, I guess Facebook has no reason to panic if it's all over the news now. Just a bit of publicity for them, right?
- IshKebab 9y ago
  There were settings to disable it, but really they should have been private by default: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/04/03/how-to-stop-your-friends-facebook-apps-from-accessing-your-private-information/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/04/03/how-to-stop-your... It was fairly well known at the time I thought.
- mancerayder 9y ago
  I 100% agree, it's the friend permission thing that is criminal. Facebook no doubt covered their asses legally via the TOC, but I hope that the misleading nature of the (complex and ever-changing) privacy settings is mentioned in a lawsuit one day.
matt_s 9y ago
The media likes to get people's eyeballs just as much as FB. They will over react to get views. If those little radio buttons in privacy settings do literally nothing on the backend, then FB could have a massive legal/financial battle if they knowingly ignored user preferences and sold off unaggregated data for profit.
TomK32 9y ago
A CEO Mark Zuckerberg who started (or so) the whole thing to get data on his study buddies.
lumberjack 9y ago
I just posted a comment but I will reply here too. The bullshit excuse that used to circulate, even on HN, is that Facebook would never sell the data directly because it was too valuable. Instead they would just sell targeted advertisement.
fancyfacebook 9y ago
Yes, I think we are ready to grow out of the "arrogant jerk" phase of tech. The tech wizards who build things and run these companies: 1. Are not smarter than you 2. Do not have your best interests in mind 3. Will lie to you repeatedly 4. Will do everything to avoid negative attention or consequences Stop worshipping anyone. Not Jobs, not Zuckerberg, not Gates, not Musk, not anyone. They aren't on your team. I don't care if they look like you or represent something you are really passionate about, you still need to be skeptical.
- stochastic_monk 9y ago
  Bravo! While I hope that some (IE, Musk) have our best interests in mind, it’s of utmost importance to keep in mind that any individual (and particularly, any organization) has their bottom line as their top priority.
9889095r3jh 9y ago
Would you rather the media report on unsubstantiated rumors and assumptions, or would you rather they wait to report things until they have evidence, or a source who can verify the information?
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> as if this is some sort of surprise Most people don’t think “the data used to sell me milk could be used by politicians.” And those that do didn’t think “political ads today could be replaced by surreptitious foreigners tomorrow.” If your reaction is “they should have known” you are in a Silicon Valley thought bubble. (I was until recently, too.) What you find “horrifying” is that bubble’s edges fraying. * “Of all the news crises Facebook has faced during the past year, the Cambridge Analytica scandal is playing out to be the worst and most damaging. Why it matters: It's not that the reports reveal anything particularly new about how Facebook's back end works — developers have understood the vulnerabilities of Facebook's interface for years. But stakeholders crucial to the company's success — as well as the public — seem less willing to listen to its side of the story this time around.” https://www.axios.com/facebook-reaches-tipping-point-cb7e0e9a-125c-46a5-a37d-0f8b3def3ba6.html https://www.axios.com/facebook-reaches-tipping-point-cb7e0e9...
- CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
  > If your reaction is “they should have known” you are in a Silicon Valley thought bubble. (I was until recently, too.) What you find “horrifying” is that bubble’s edges fraying. What if your reaction isn't "they should have known" but rather "they should have listened when I told them this!"?
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > What if your reaction isn't "they should have known" but rather "they should have listened when I told them this!"? Then you, like me, are still figuring out how to message privacy as a priority to non-technical folks. Maybe it’s an issue of timing. My “delete Facebook from your phone and log out, by default, on your desktop” pitch was more productive yesterday than ever before.
    - harryf 9y ago
      Last Week Tonight did this bit brilliantly when they interviewed Edward Snowden - https://youtu.be/XEVlyP4_11M?t=1437 https://youtu.be/XEVlyP4_11M?t=1437 - in essence we need to get dramatically better at telling this story so everyone understands.
magic_beans 9y ago
Facebook offers their service FOR FREE. What did people expect?
forgottenpass 9y ago
> Like what did you think was happening at a company collecting data about billions of people? "A more productive answer to someone saying something you agree with is “I agree”, not mistakenly berating them for not agreeing sooner." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16627766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16627766) It's not like huge numbers of people didn't know about global warming before society started caring about fixing it.
johnchristopher 9y ago
I don't understand how you seem to be surprised some people find this horrifying. /s
barrkel 9y ago
It's like the diesel scandal, IMO. Everybody in the industry knows what's going on, but that doesn't mean the industry's Overton window isn't liable to be reset with severe repercussions once the general public gets looped in.
hedonistbot 9y ago
None of this would have come to light if the "right" person had won the elections. The moment Trump won, the campaign against social media began, first with the "Fake news" meme, then "Russian hacking", YouTube's adpocalypse and now "Facebook data breach". Some people are getting very scared that the traditional manufacturers of consent are losing their grip on people's minds. And I am not in support of the mass surveillance exercised by those companies, just noticing the timing. When Obama won, his data scientists were hailed as geniuses. What do you think they were doing?
- kamaal 9y ago
  I don't think anybody is arguing against using data science in elections. What people are talking about is data theft, stealing private info(like emails, photos, etc) and stuff like that. Its a bit like comparing withdrawing money from your bank account and robbing a bank.
  - hedonistbot 9y ago
    > Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing. > They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side. An Obama Campaign data scientist from the 2012 campaign explaining how they did the exact same thing but Facebook were ok with it "because they were on our side". https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752
hinkley 9y ago
“I am shocked to learn that there is gambling going on in this establishment.” “Here are your winnings, sir”
bowlofpetunias 9y ago
> Funny thing is, this would all blow over after a few months, and everyone will go back to the usual habbits. It can't blow over in the UK or the EU, because it is seriously f-ing illegal in those places. Yes, we "knew" it was happening before this (hence all the regulatory steps taken that were dismissed as anti-American protectionism), but we were lacking hard evidence, so all we could do was reinforce regulations and regulatory authorities. Now that shit has leaked, it's simply not an option for those authorities to not act. Not to mention the fact that they really, really want to act. So no, this will not blow over. Maybe in the US and/or the media, but not where it matters.
jhayward 9y ago
I can't disagree enough with a "blame the user" attitude. First, it absolves the perpetrators, who are definitely in the wrong. I include both FB and CA in this category. Second, it is becoming clear that there can be no such thing as "informed consent" in a networked world with respect to data privacy. Zeynep Tufekci, whose writings I heartily commend, had a good article on it a few weeks back.[1] She argues both that the actual uses known of that data are not fully described in consent waivers, and also that it is not possible to know ahead of time how that data will be combined, recombined, projected, analysed, and used in the future to fully consent to all those things. Even if you could do so for yourself as an individual it's not possible to consent to the effects of the combination of an entire society's data as a whole, on others. Again, it's not possible to obtain informed consent in today's privacy environment, so let's stop blaming the victims. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/30/opinion/strava-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/30/opinion/strava-privacy.ht...

fredley 9y ago

It's not a surprise to most readers of HN, but most people are not readers of HN, and take things at face value, where face value is what they see in advertisements and hear from their friends. People still have an expectation of privacy, even when, from an HN perspective they should be extremely skeptical about having such an expectation.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

1337biz 9y ago

Fascinating to watch - it shows how much power media has to put a topic on the global agenda if it fits into their preferred narrative.

scottmf 9y ago
Let me guess. It’s a globalist media conspiracy to take down Trump?
- jimmy1 9y ago
  No but in the grand scheme of things, things like the Yemen Civil War that has been ongoing since 2015 has gotten less attention in our media than a single Donald Trump tweet. For lack of a better word: sad!
  - Angostura 9y ago
    It would be sad if you were correct, but you're not https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=yemen+civil+war https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=yemen+civil+war
    - jimmy1 9y ago
      I would be optimistic if most Americans actually read the BBC ( or read, for that matter). I would venture to say most however, do not. For example, a popular right wing propaganda news source that most Americans watch has had a handful of articles this year, and skimpy coverage on air.
      - purple-again 9y ago
        Do you find it hard to believe that an organization based in the UK, and citizens of that union, are more interested in whats going in Yemen than an organization based in the US, and of course the citizens of that union. I know whats happening in Yemen, I've read the facts, and now I don't care anymore. I don't want to see it in the news everyday because it wasn't relevant to me when I read about it and it has practically zero chance of every being relevant to me. What Trump said about xxx person at yyy place is varying degrees of relevant to my life, all of those degrees more so than Yemen. If Fox had a large Middle Eastern demographic that it's advertisers cared about, you would see Yemen Nightly at 7:30 without question.

rando444 9y ago

Surely you understand the difference between the media reporting on facts vs. general public speculation.

jjoonathan 9y ago

A lack of novelty is no reason to be dismissive.

tmalsburg2 9y ago

As a matter of fact, this is news and surprising for most users of Facebook even if it's not for you. By saying that no one should be surprised, are you not taking the same condescending attitude that you're pointing out in Zuckerberg?

meuk 9y ago
Well, it is extremely naive to think that Facebook does not use all the data they get about you. Then again, most people are very naive about this kind of everyday technology.
- scottmf 9y ago
  That isn’t what this article is about.
- tmalsburg2 9y ago
  That's just your perspective. I live in the Germany where we have very strong data protection laws. Is it natural for people to assume that these laws are broken at such a large scale? And that abuse goes completely unchallenged for years?
  - dspillett 9y ago
    > Is it natural for people to assume that these laws are broken at such a large scale? Across international boundaries where those laws may be difficult to enforce because other countries are not in sync with them? Hell yes. Call me cynical, but...
  - deltron3030 9y ago
    Data protection laws are so strong in Germany that they let registration offices sell your data if you don't explicitly opt out. Most people don't even know whats going on and that they have to opt out to avoid that. Or German credit scoring institutions, who are allowed collect data about you even if you don't have any mutual agreement with them.

freyir 9y ago

Just so the quote [2004] isn't out of context: Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Friend]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuckerberg: People just submitted it. Zuckerberg: I don't know why. Zuckerberg: They "trust me" Zuckerberg: Dumb fucks

na85 9y ago
Got the original screenshot perhaps?
- whyleyc 9y ago
  https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--BFicKJf4--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/18mrvs5i9x4pkjpg.jpg https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--BFicKJf...
relyio 9y ago
I'm sure you can do a better job at illustrating your point than ressucitating a +10y old quote from Zuck, 19 at the time. Teenagers and college students say a lot of condescending, dumb, immature stuff in group discussions. It's not news and no evidence at all.
- freyir 9y ago
  > I'm sure you can do a better job at illustrating your point than ressucitating a +10y old quote from Zuck, 19 at the time. I don't need to. Facebook just illustrated it for me.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  It’s a raw quote. Is it inaccurate? IMO it’s very apropos because it sums up the core attitude of the company. That 19 year grew up to become one of the richest and most powerful men on the planet, with unchecked power.
- Feniks 9y ago
  The internet never forgets. You should know that Mark.

IAmEveryone 9y ago

“The media” has always been sceptical of Facebook, and I’d love to see examples of them “acting surprised”. In fact I would guess your scepticism was always informed mostly by what you and those you socialize with read in “the media”. The current scandal’s staying power in the news is similarly based on journalists’ pent-up suspicions finally finding a vehicle to be expressed in public. These stories are newsworthy because they represent the break from generalized scepticism to specific examples of harm. If the New York Times had waged a nebulous campaign against Facebook without clear evidence it would have rightly been accused of getting ahead of the facts.

ybrah 9y ago

I would call my users dumb fucks too if I was 19

simias 9y ago

It reminds me of the Snowden leaks about mass surveillance programs like PRISM. I think most technical people expected something like that to exist ever since the internet became mainstream. Still, if it's just an "educated rumor" without hard evidence there's not much for the media to talk about. Up until now you could only say "it seems pretty likely that Facebook is doing something like that, but we don't know for sure". That's not enough to make an article and that's not enough to convince the general populace apparently. In general it's pretty amazing how trusting the average human being seems to be as soon as computer are involved. I suppose that it's mostly out of ignorance and complacency. People seem a lot more careful when physical mail is involved than emails for instance. They also don't hesitate to share extremely intimate details about their private lives with a faceless corporation. Some of my friends willingly opt into streaming their position in real time continuously through their smartphones. That's terrifying to me but apparently very convenient for them. I think Zuckerberg agrees with my sentiment since that's the source of his "dumb fucks" comment. I hope these articles will help change that mentality but I'm not overly optimistic. I read a comment on a forum earlier today that basically said "screw Facebook, I'll close my account and do everything from WhatsApp instead". I don't think it was sarcastic.

jclardy 9y ago
I think the trust is a new thing though, new to the social media age. I remember growing up with computers in the 90's and people I knew wouldn't even consider entering a credit card number on a website. Now we give them freely. People used anonymous handles on AIM. At some point this changed and people decided they could be themselves on the internet, which is a fine idea, but the trust just went too far.
- wuliwong 9y ago
  And I believe Facebook was largely the site that got people comfortable using their real names and personas online.
- epalm 9y ago
  This was visible when using credit cards in stores, too. 1990s: your signature needs to match exactly so we know it's really you! 2000s: you must enter a PIN that hopefully only you know? 2010s: fuck it just tap the card near the reader

hackermailman 9y ago

Everybody knew about the data leaking for 'quizzes and games' since 2009 http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/facebook-breaches-canadian-privacy-law-commissioner-1.851486 http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technology/facebook-breaches-can... WikiLeaks also covered this earlier in their spyfiles warning. People don't care that a political opinion survey being spammed around by their friends is actually harvesting their details in a campaign dossier to manipulate them directly later.

Angostura 9y ago

What did you think was happening at a company collecting data about billions of people? I'd expect it to use it for advertising targeting. The privacy settings I've put on there exclude other uses.

flexie 9y ago

"Parakilas, 38, who now works as a product manager for Uber, ..." So from one reckless company that doesn't give a damn about the law to the next. Who teaches developers that it's okay to work for anyone as long as the tech is cool and the salary is great?

exelius 9y ago
I actually know Sandy and he’s a conscientious guy who cares about this stuff. He’s a good dude who wants to make positive change by being in the conversation.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
zbentley 9y ago
> Who teaches developers that it's okay to work for anyone as long as the tech is cool and the salary is great? Who teaches them otherwise? Absent parental/primary-school-instilled ethics, rather a lot of engineers operate in a bubble of like-minded (and similarly-employed) people, making large amounts of money, and are often insulated (voluntarily, deliberately, or accidentally) from the impact of their work. What could be changed to improve on that situation? I've heard simplistic suggestions to "sue the C-class until they learn/abandon the incredibly lucrative profit motive", "fire/imprison engineers whose changes harm people", and "make the bridge-builder stand under bridge they built" (whatever that means in a software context). Those seem utopian. What tangible, plausible changes can be made to improve on developer accountability (for their work) and discernment (about prospective employers)?
- JabavuAdams 9y ago
  Make your new hires watch the multiple camera feeds and lidar of that woman being run over again and again until they really really understand that they're working on life-critical systems.
  - 9y ago

switch007 9y ago

I know this is HN (where it is probably less of a surprise) but for a wider audience taking this kind of opportunity to write a smug comment might just be harmful to them, their privacy and their rights.

sydd 9y ago

Yeat, especially considering that: - This was part of an open API, you just needed to sign up for free. There is no data breach. - EVERYONE was using it - this consisted mostly of games like Farmville. This is how they can show your friends progress and their profile pic. - It was shut down more than a year ago. Actually there is no newsworthy thing at Facebooks side at all, the new thing is that companies built games just to harvest this data and use it for something else.

mtgx 9y ago

Well, for the past few years, the media has been a "partner" of Facebook. Now it's not any longer. Seems like a wrong move for Facebook to dump the media like old clothes. Whoops. I even remember such articles from TheGuardian before decrying that people are "going dark" - no, it wasn't about using Tor or VPNs. It was simply about using tracking protection.

merpnderp 9y ago

This exact same scandal broke in 2012 only it was with Obama’s campaign. It is humorous to see the media much more outraged when Republicans do it, as if it wasn’t that big of a deal when Obama did it. https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752 Edit for interesting link to the 2012 Facebook election data story.

ptero 9y ago

> What's utterly horrifying about this whole thing is how the media is acting as if this is some sort of surprise I agree. A couple of generations ago the media was much more combative and willing to take on the powers that be (and each other). By this time most media outlets would have been saying "told you so (many times)". Unfortunately, now media mostly follows trends and competes on beauty of their talking heads, which is a lot safer than, say, investigating slavery or organized crime.

anonymouz 9y ago

As someone who considered himself reasonably well-informed about the privacy implications of Facebook, the "friend permission" was still news to me. That Facebook would share my profile data with a third party because some Facebook contact of mine "allowed" it, is utterly horrific. It is also a clear and massive breach of EU data privacy laws. (Which unfortunately seem difficult to enforce against international companies at the moment; the GPDR can't come soon enough!) In any case, if this should have been known by everyone already, I guess Facebook has no reason to panic if it's all over the news now. Just a bit of publicity for them, right?

IshKebab 9y ago
There were settings to disable it, but really they should have been private by default: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/04/03/how-to-stop-your-friends-facebook-apps-from-accessing-your-private-information/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/04/03/how-to-stop-your... It was fairly well known at the time I thought.
mancerayder 9y ago
I 100% agree, it's the friend permission thing that is criminal. Facebook no doubt covered their asses legally via the TOC, but I hope that the misleading nature of the (complex and ever-changing) privacy settings is mentioned in a lawsuit one day.

matt_s 9y ago

The media likes to get people's eyeballs just as much as FB. They will over react to get views. If those little radio buttons in privacy settings do literally nothing on the backend, then FB could have a massive legal/financial battle if they knowingly ignored user preferences and sold off unaggregated data for profit.

TomK32 9y ago

A CEO Mark Zuckerberg who started (or so) the whole thing to get data on his study buddies.

lumberjack 9y ago

I just posted a comment but I will reply here too. The bullshit excuse that used to circulate, even on HN, is that Facebook would never sell the data directly because it was too valuable. Instead they would just sell targeted advertisement.

fancyfacebook 9y ago

Yes, I think we are ready to grow out of the "arrogant jerk" phase of tech. The tech wizards who build things and run these companies: 1. Are not smarter than you 2. Do not have your best interests in mind 3. Will lie to you repeatedly 4. Will do everything to avoid negative attention or consequences Stop worshipping anyone. Not Jobs, not Zuckerberg, not Gates, not Musk, not anyone. They aren't on your team. I don't care if they look like you or represent something you are really passionate about, you still need to be skeptical.

stochastic_monk 9y ago
Bravo! While I hope that some (IE, Musk) have our best interests in mind, it’s of utmost importance to keep in mind that any individual (and particularly, any organization) has their bottom line as their top priority.

9889095r3jh 9y ago

Would you rather the media report on unsubstantiated rumors and assumptions, or would you rather they wait to report things until they have evidence, or a source who can verify the information?

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> as if this is some sort of surprise Most people don’t think “the data used to sell me milk could be used by politicians.” And those that do didn’t think “political ads today could be replaced by surreptitious foreigners tomorrow.” If your reaction is “they should have known” you are in a Silicon Valley thought bubble. (I was until recently, too.) What you find “horrifying” is that bubble’s edges fraying. * “Of all the news crises Facebook has faced during the past year, the Cambridge Analytica scandal is playing out to be the worst and most damaging. Why it matters: It's not that the reports reveal anything particularly new about how Facebook's back end works — developers have understood the vulnerabilities of Facebook's interface for years. But stakeholders crucial to the company's success — as well as the public — seem less willing to listen to its side of the story this time around.” https://www.axios.com/facebook-reaches-tipping-point-cb7e0e9a-125c-46a5-a37d-0f8b3def3ba6.html https://www.axios.com/facebook-reaches-tipping-point-cb7e0e9...

CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
> If your reaction is “they should have known” you are in a Silicon Valley thought bubble. (I was until recently, too.) What you find “horrifying” is that bubble’s edges fraying. What if your reaction isn't "they should have known" but rather "they should have listened when I told them this!"?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > What if your reaction isn't "they should have known" but rather "they should have listened when I told them this!"? Then you, like me, are still figuring out how to message privacy as a priority to non-technical folks. Maybe it’s an issue of timing. My “delete Facebook from your phone and log out, by default, on your desktop” pitch was more productive yesterday than ever before.
  - harryf 9y ago
    Last Week Tonight did this bit brilliantly when they interviewed Edward Snowden - https://youtu.be/XEVlyP4_11M?t=1437 https://youtu.be/XEVlyP4_11M?t=1437 - in essence we need to get dramatically better at telling this story so everyone understands.

magic_beans 9y ago

Facebook offers their service FOR FREE. What did people expect?

forgottenpass 9y ago

> Like what did you think was happening at a company collecting data about billions of people? "A more productive answer to someone saying something you agree with is “I agree”, not mistakenly berating them for not agreeing sooner." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16627766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16627766) It's not like huge numbers of people didn't know about global warming before society started caring about fixing it.

johnchristopher 9y ago

I don't understand how you seem to be surprised some people find this horrifying. /s

barrkel 9y ago

It's like the diesel scandal, IMO. Everybody in the industry knows what's going on, but that doesn't mean the industry's Overton window isn't liable to be reset with severe repercussions once the general public gets looped in.

hedonistbot 9y ago

None of this would have come to light if the "right" person had won the elections. The moment Trump won, the campaign against social media began, first with the "Fake news" meme, then "Russian hacking", YouTube's adpocalypse and now "Facebook data breach". Some people are getting very scared that the traditional manufacturers of consent are losing their grip on people's minds. And I am not in support of the mass surveillance exercised by those companies, just noticing the timing. When Obama won, his data scientists were hailed as geniuses. What do you think they were doing?

kamaal 9y ago
I don't think anybody is arguing against using data science in elections. What people are talking about is data theft, stealing private info(like emails, photos, etc) and stuff like that. Its a bit like comparing withdrawing money from your bank account and robbing a bank.
- hedonistbot 9y ago
  > Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing. > They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side. An Obama Campaign data scientist from the 2012 campaign explaining how they did the exact same thing but Facebook were ok with it "because they were on our side". https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752 https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975564499297226752

hinkley 9y ago

“I am shocked to learn that there is gambling going on in this establishment.” “Here are your winnings, sir”

bowlofpetunias 9y ago

> Funny thing is, this would all blow over after a few months, and everyone will go back to the usual habbits. It can't blow over in the UK or the EU, because it is seriously f-ing illegal in those places. Yes, we "knew" it was happening before this (hence all the regulatory steps taken that were dismissed as anti-American protectionism), but we were lacking hard evidence, so all we could do was reinforce regulations and regulatory authorities. Now that shit has leaked, it's simply not an option for those authorities to not act. Not to mention the fact that they really, really want to act. So no, this will not blow over. Maybe in the US and/or the media, but not where it matters.

jhayward 9y ago

I can't disagree enough with a "blame the user" attitude. First, it absolves the perpetrators, who are definitely in the wrong. I include both FB and CA in this category. Second, it is becoming clear that there can be no such thing as "informed consent" in a networked world with respect to data privacy. Zeynep Tufekci, whose writings I heartily commend, had a good article on it a few weeks back.[1] She argues both that the actual uses known of that data are not fully described in consent waivers, and also that it is not possible to know ahead of time how that data will be combined, recombined, projected, analysed, and used in the future to fully consent to all those things. Even if you could do so for yourself as an individual it's not possible to consent to the effects of the combination of an entire society's data as a whole, on others. Again, it's not possible to obtain informed consent in today's privacy environment, so let's stop blaming the victims. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/30/opinion/strava-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/30/opinion/strava-privacy.ht...