12 ms·
Both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Threatened to Sue Journalists
- sol_remmy 9y agoOngoing discussion at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16626318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16626318
- pacala 9y agoThe NYTimes article you link to doesn't contain the word "threat". This piece appears to contain a new bit of information about the ethically challenged behavior of FB and CA. It deserves a separate conversation.
- gabriel171 9y agoMelhores video de sua vizinha aqui https://videosdesuavizinha.com https://videosdesuavizinha.com
- cryoshon 9y agoso, this is effectively two solid admissions of guilt, in hand. why bother suing journalists if there isn't a truth that you don't want to get out? needless to say the idea that they want to suppress journalists is egregiously illiberal and warrants our unanimous excoriation of these businesses. zuck's silence (terror? or destroying more evidence, as they have already done?) is very telling. if we organize, the bell will toll for facebook. it is long overdue. as a bonus, zuck's presidential run is ruined, hopefully.
- mieseratte 9y ago> why bother suing journalists if there isn't a truth that you don't want to get out? Defamation, per TFA.
- pjc50 9y agoDefamation/libel is interesting; since only the already wealthy can afford it, more often than not a defamation lawsuit is a sign that someone is trying to suppress true facts. There have been several high profile cases when politicians sued for libel, won, the facts were established as true, and the politician jailed for perjuring themselves during the trial. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1424501.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1424501.stm https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/jun/08/uk https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/jun/08/uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12059037 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-12059037 (but see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17909946 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17909946 )
- the_watcher 9y agoSince truth is an absolute defense to libel, defamation lawsuits are a particularly poor method to suppress provably true facts.
- pjc50 9y agoNo, they're extremely effective in the "SLAPP" sense, because you have to be able to prove the truth in court against perjuring witnesses, and you have to be able to pay for it. To take a justified example where a ""journalist"" really did defame someone: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/katie-hopkins-libel-case-appeal-lose-jack-monroe-food-blogger-daily-mail-sun-a8155661.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/katie-hopkin... "This includes £24,000 in damages to Monroe and £107,000 to her lawyers to cover court costs." Hopkins is now selling her house to cover costs. Most people fold immediately when threatened with a convincing libel suit, because apologising (even for the truth) is a lot cheaper than a settlement which is in turn a lot cheaper than losing your house. Another high profile example of effectively suppressing true facts: Trafigura https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/sep/17/trafigura-libel-laws https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/s... Note that a litigant doesn't necessarily have to suppress facts forever, a few years while the case proceeds is often enough to turn the original issue into a historical curiosity.
- kreetx 9y agoSincere question: this article in the last paragraph says "Facebook threatening defamation against the Guardian for calling this a data breach is ludicrous and Facebook should be ashamed and apologize" -- does this conclusion hinge on the fact that Facebook should have realized earlier that the app is harvesting data? If the creator of the app said that he is doing it for academic purposes only then how should have Facebook known? Not trying to defend Facebook, but calling this a breach is at least a little bit gray area, no? EDIT: concise wording
- detaro 9y agoIf it's a "little bit gray", then you probably shouldn't sue for defamation about it. The "breach"/"something-else-that's-not-a-breach" debate from what I've seen doesn't hinge on Facebook knowing or not, it's about if all loss of data can be called a breach or if the term should be reserved for cases where the perpetrator did aquire the data without Facebook knowing.
- DCF 9y agoHow would that not be a breach? Their system allowed a malicious entity acting in bad faith to gain large amounts of data under false pretenses. If they got the data by pretending to be an employee and social engineering their way into the data that way facebook would 100% call that a breach. Is this that different?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- castle-bravo 9y ago"The processor is, in fact, operating as it is designed" - Steve Smith (Vice President, Intel)
- fauigerzigerk 9y agoI don't think it's so clear. Two things happened: (a) Users were duped into giving up their data under a false pretense. This alone cannot be called a breach. Also, one of the following occurred: (b.1) Facebook was duped into letting a fraudster install an app on their platform. If this happened, it was a breach. or (b.2) Facebook knew all along that the academic research was only a cover for duping users into giving up their data. If this happened then it was not a breach, because Facebook themselves effectively sold the data. So what Facebook appears to be saying is: There was no breach. We sold the data! [Edit] Judging by what this man says, it was probably b.2: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/20/facebook-data-cambridge-analytica-sandy-parakilas https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/20/facebook-data-c... My conclusion is that there was no breach.
- decacorn 9y agomight be time for Zuckerberg to consider resigning. house of cards is falling.
- anonnel 9y ago> The house of cards is falling. Or, perhaps the castle is reaching the next phase of construction, where users are supposed to have an appropriate level of fear.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- wongarsu 9y agoThis will blow over, Facebook is far too entrenched and without serious competition. Some people will use Facebook less and replace it with Whatsapp and Instagram, but Zuckerberg has that base covered
- tzakrajs 9y agoFacebook is entrenched because the culture allows it, but I sense a major kumbaya moment for Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Millenials that could upend this culture. Finally, the younger generations can see in practice why many of their elders were intuitively resistant to social media.
- RickS 9y ago> younger generations can see in practice why many of their elders were intuitively resistant to social media. The idea that "their elders" were "intuitively resistant" because they understood the decade-later implication of algorithmic user profiling being weaponized to undermine public thought and democracy is.... generous. They didn't understand computers or why anyone would give a shit about seeing your lunch. Both fair. But let's not repaint them as wise prophets of some future data apocalypse. The real kumbaya moment you're talking about is both self-deprecating and metacognitive: "I am not so much an individual as one of fewer-than-you'd-think archetypes, and my beliefs about the world are malleable based on cute pictures placed in front of me for pennies. I should take time out of every day of my life and spend it working to double check that the things i think are true, and the people I hate are the thing I think they are. Whole organizations of much smarter people than I will abuse me at every chance they get to take as much money from me as they possibly can. Most things that feel good on the internet are designed to turn me, somehow, into money." This is a painful, stark realization that lots of people never get to. Whole industries rely on people never coming to the realization that all of us are "basic bitches" and not anomalously unique or intelligent. I'd love to believe you that there is a multi-generational awakening to the idea that people are herdable animals, but don't bet the farm.
- jstalin 9y agoThis is fun to watch. The most evil company I can think of is being exposed for its core purpose. Are people going to realize what a monster Facebook is?
- TAForObvReasons 9y agoWhen millions of Americans get their news from Facebook, it's doubtful that many current users will find out what is happening. It is certainly similar to the Fox News effect.
- IAmEveryone 9y agoI’ve had these stories in my news feed. You really need to bring some evidence when you’re spreading conspiracy theories.
- prophesi 9y agoThe news feed of a Hacker News frequenter is very atypical. You likely have more friends in the tech industry, and thus you're likely to see posts on this story.
- aylmao 9y agoI think what he means is that Facebook doesn't filter/censor news stories your friends share if they speak negatively of Facebook.
- Whitestrake 9y agoYour comment calls into question the anecdotal evidence used to dismiss a claim made with no evidence whatsoever. I have a similar anecdote, but mine does not match the mitigating circumstance you ventured. Regardless, even a less-than-credible personal account clears the bar of required evidence to dismiss the above claim, since that requirement is currently zero.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
- matt_s 9y agoAnyone else thinking these are very similar behaviors coming from Facebook execs and the White House? Threaten lawsuits, fire/demote people that don't agree with you, etc.
- SSLy 9y agoWhen corporations and governments are in bed together they learn the best practices from each other.
- kazen44 9y agoI wonder how the UK goverment will react to this, aswell as the EU, considering they tend to value privacy in a different light then the american court system.
- bogomipz 9y agoYou left out "espouse noble ideals" - "connecting people" or "making America great again." It's behind these public "facades" that the litigating into submission and threatening into silence is done.
- dvt 9y agoNot sure why people are so hung up on the "breach" vs "not a breach" debate. The issue is this: taking a random personality quiz online is old news. We've been doing these since the 90s. The problem is that when you log in with FB, your real name, and all of your metadata is attached to that quiz. It's not just "IP 12.342.32.1 is chaotic neutral" but "'Bob Smith, with a degree in X from Y, that likes A, B, and C and is newlywed' is chaotic neutral." The issue isn't really the quiz (and it's not even CA tbh), it's Facebook giving out real names, real pictures, etc. every time you "Log in with Facebook" on any random website or app.
- akjetma 9y agoAdditionally, I think the public is now realizing how powerful the friend/follow metadata graph is. It's pretty easy/robust to infer traits about people for whom you don't have explicit information. Alan, Betty, and Charlotte filled out the quiz and all live in Florida; Dave has mutual friendships with Alan, Betty, and Charlotte; Dave probably lives in Florida. You can do this recursively and don't need to have concrete information about the majority of members in a graph in order to make pretty strong probablistic inferences about the traits of a large graph.
- IAmEveryone 9y agoI believe it’s a legal point: In case of a breach, Facebook would have been required to disclose it to the affected users. They are pushing hard against the term because it might end up determining their liability.
- dvt 9y agoFair enough, but what if data points were implied? Where does that fall on the breach-not-breach spectrum?
- darawk 9y agoBut this is how these sorts of OAuth schemes have always worked. It's always been explicit, too. You grant these apps access to this information. What exactly is the issue here? That this time it was used in a way people don't like? There's a reasonable debate to be had about how to deal with all this data, but to blame Facebook as if they made some error or leaked some data in an unauthorized way, or did anything that we didn't all know was possible this whole time is just totally disingenuous on the part of journalists and regulators.
- usmsid 9y agoInformation and data are good as long as the right people have access to it.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- logicallee 9y agoThis is a really weak-sauce dictatorship, come on! In a real autocracy, Facebook would simply suspend all involved journalists' and editors' Facebook accounts for 6 hours with a message that Big Brother is watching and the suspensions will be formalized if they don't drop their story. Any editors or journalists that don't cooperate should have their Facebook, Whatsapp, or any other service suspended. (If any other service starts gaining network effects, Facebook can just buy it when it has < 100k users - this is how a monopoly works under network effect) Anyway Mark Zuckerberg, my message to you is if you want to be remembered as one of the worst autocrats who ever lived, you are really going to have to step up the retaliation. Maybe introduce targeted executions of journalists? Just some thoughts.
- pasbesoin 9y agoThere needs to be serious discussion in society and the legal community, about the deliberate "weaponization" of legal actions. Where the purpose is not to pursue a legitimate and balanced complaint, but rather to cow another party into compliance/cooperation by threat to destroy them through legal actions rather than the outcome of a legal process. The threat of forcing the other person to spend themselves into bankruptcy, for example. Standards need to be defined and enforced, where such activity is grounds for punishment up to and including disbarment. To the extent such already exists, it is clearly proving insufficient. Law should be about justice, first. Not just another field of unfettered warfare. Also, to that end, sealed records and confidentiality should be more severely constrained. The judicial system is a public system; everyone should be able to see what you're up to in it, for better and for worse. Protecting clearly threatened victims, sure. Defined legitimate, critical secrets, for defined limited periods of time, ok (real national security, trade secrets). Beyond that, not so much. Not at all, maybe.
- mithoon 9y agoOne thing I don't understand, at one hand you are supposed to keep digital data for X amount of years ( I think 7), and on the other hand the company cannot make use of it, why would it be sitting on servers, might as well make use of it.
- harry8 9y agodelete your facebook account. It feels sooooo good!
- harry8 9y agoDownvote the above hard to confront your withrdawal symptoms then make your posts with your contact details announcing you are going to leave facebook, a few reminders then do it. Life is better without them. They really haven't got you, you can break free just by deciding to do it. (Apologies for mentioning up/down voting)
- mankash666 9y agoThe next step is for Facebook to go after individual dissenters, and train their AI to do so.