6 ms·

Facebook, Google spending big bucks to fight California data privacy measure

132 points by pulisse 9y ago

pmoriarty 9y ago
Google and Facebook employees: you have the power to influence what the companies you work for do.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  pmoriarty: no you don't, not unless you are on the board or are a corporate officer. Having worked in a large tech company for quite a while now, grunts have very little (at best) influence on the decisions that upper management makes regarding where they sling their lawyers. In this time when you can be laid off for being "too old" or for other arbitrary reasons, you'll be removed/replaced for causing a stir.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - pmoriarty 9y ago
    You certainly do. First, you could just resign and choose not to participate in ongoing violations of privacy. By not giving them your help, you are already making a small difference. Second, you could threaten to resign because of this. Better, you could get together with others of like mind and threaten to resign en-masse. If enough people do this, upper management will take notice. It's just a matter of how many Google and Facebook employees have the will to do it. Third, when privacy issues come up, employees could try to influence their companies to err on the side of privacy. In companies this size there are always many situations which aren't guided by explicit policy or direction from on high, and where employees can use their own judgment or advocate for one course of action over the other. This is where people who care about privacy can make their voices heard. Finally, Google and Facebook employees are smart, creative people. They are more than capable of figuring out other ways they can make a difference -- if these issues are important to them. The main question is: are they? With all the media attention around Facebook and Google privacy violations it's becoming harder and harder for their employees to stand on the sidelines and claim ignorance or pretend there's nothing they can do. By not doing anything they are choosing to continue enabling these companies. They could act instead.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      First: You'll be replaced by someone who is either ignorant of the problem, or isn't but doesn't care. Second: You'll be replaced by someone who is either ignorant of the problem, or isn't but doesn't care. Third: Your complaints will fall on deaf ears and you'll be replaced by someone who is either ignorant of the problem, or isn't but doesn't care. The only way to reach companies of this size is by convincing their customers to go elsewhere. Throwing legislature at the problem might help, but it's unlikely that it will carry any teeth because of the lobby strength these companies possess.
      - pmoriarty 9y ago
        "You'll be replaced by someone who is either ignorant of the problem, or isn't but doesn't care." It costs companies time and money to replace people. So you'll be hitting their bottom line just by resigning. They might not even be able to find someone to replace you, but if they do you might be replaced by someone who's not as effective. When you move somewhere else, you could help a competitor that respects privacy, or maybe even start your own privacy-respecting company.
    - lainga 9y ago
      Yes, and all of Google's employees could join the IWW and organize a wildcat strike, too, maybe with a holacracy instead of worker councils; so why don't they?
      - pmoriarty 9y ago
        You're conflating being a socialist with respecting privacy. Respect of privacy is an issue that cuts across the left/right divide. You could be a capitalist or communist, libertarian or socialist and still respect privacy. Organizing for change isn't limited to socialists either.
        lainga 9y ago
        I actually meant to conflate one unlikely action of mass coordination with another. I guess I shouldn't have been so flippant.
- confounded 9y ago
  You can also devote the waking hours of the best years of your life to something else!
- xiphias 9y ago
  You should look up a guy called ,,James Damore''. Everything you have seen on the internet as a valid point towards a big company has been raised to the CEO, and usually you get an answer that doesn't really answer the questions / even consider those points. Quitting and joining a startup is not an option for any rational person because of the network effects big companies have.
- superioritycplx 9y ago
  Tell that to James Damore.
godzillabrennus 9y ago
These big tech giants have learned from Microsoft's failures in the 90's of beating back government. They all have a well funded government relations program going on with lobbyists in every important region.
sqdbps 9y ago
Patchwork state privacy and net neutrality regulations are cumbersome and ridiculous. Any such requirements should be debated and enacted on the federal level.
- barryparr 9y ago
  First, federal action on this issue is not happening in the near future, when this issue needs to be addressed. To say it's a federal issue is to say that it shouldn't be addressed. Second, huh? That's an argument for total deregulation at the state level and abdication of the state's responsibility to protect its citizens.
  - sqdbps 9y ago
    Protect them from what? this is a partisan knee jerk reaction to goings on in DC. More importantly these actions are potentially detrimental to local companies the interests of which are intertwined with the state's.
- mmanfrin 9y ago
  Second California lawmakers shouldn't introduce laws that are detrimental to their state's companies. California lawmakers should introduce laws that are beneficial to the privacy of their state's citizens. e: You just edited your post to delete your second comment, I'm leaving my response.
  - sqdbps 9y ago
    The state's interests are in the companies interests and vice versa, they share in prosperity. At a time when outsiders are going after them at least their home state should be relied upon not to follow suite. Whatever happened to 'our business is business'?
    - confounded 9y ago
      I'm afraid that you may have misunderstood the basic principles of democracy.
IBM 9y ago
Google and Facebook have been lobbying against state privacy legislation for a while now [1][2]. The latest Facebook privacy scandal will give those bills momentum. Also Marsha Blackburn's privacy bill would have applied to telcos as well as internet companies. You can guess that it went nowhere [3]. The best thing that could happen is for Congress to pass an omnibus privacy bill modeled closely after GDPR. [1] http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/facebook-google-facial-recognition-lawsuits/ http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/facebook-google-facial-recogni... [2] http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-geolocation-privacy-rauner-veto-20170922-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-geolocation-pr... [3] https://www.axios.com/blackburn-bill-would-extend-privacy-rules-to-google-facebook-1513302428-9acf6f55-5af0-4e78-9174-f769b9fb9d0b.html https://www.axios.com/blackburn-bill-would-extend-privacy-ru...
staunch 9y ago
We just need better technology. We need to stop giving our information away and then hoping it is somehow protected. We need technology to empower us without sacrificing our privacy and freedom. Decentralization and encryption are probably two big parts of the answer. Laws may help or hurt but they won't solve the problem.
- confounded 9y ago
  There's a high chance that without political activity from people who care, efforts to further decentralization and encryption will be suppressed and thwarted. In other words, the right legal environment is likely a necessary-but-not-sufficient criteria for decentralization and encryption to flourish.
narrator 9y ago
Think of all these online brands that have built huge businesses off of Facebook and Google profiling. The Dollar Shave Clubs and Tough Mudders of the world and hundreds of others who all have built incredible companies off of micro ad targeting. Are we going to go back to the world of a few big mega brands who can do untargeted saturation marketing? That's the world you're going to get with all this privacy lunacy. We've got 6 media companies that own 90% of the market[1] we can easily get 10 consumer goods companies that own everything[2] the way things are going. All in the name of privacy! 1. https://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america/ https://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-... 2. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/consumer-brands-owned-ten-companies-graphic_n_1458812.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/consumer-brands-ow...
jakeogh 9y ago
CA does not need more laws and "regulation". It's got plenty. I had two _very_ nice police officers (near the AZ border) explain it to me last time I got pulled over there: Officer: See this? (pointing to a banned inanimate object) Me: yes. Officer: That's fun. You cant have it in CA. Me: oh. Sorry. (not sure yet what is going to happen, it could have gotten very expensive) Officer: See that? (pointing to another banned inanimate object), that's fun too. Can you have it in CA? Me: I dont know? Officer2: It's fun right? Me: yes... Officer2: Then you cant have it in CA. It went on like that for awhile. Surreal experience. My point is that free speech is next (incrementally of course, starting with records restrictions similar to GDPR). They already passed a (totally unconstitutional) law punishing some people if they use the wrong pronoun.
juststeve 9y ago
this is insane

132 points by pulisse 9y ago

pmoriarty 9y ago

Google and Facebook employees: you have the power to influence what the companies you work for do.

craftyguy 9y ago
pmoriarty: no you don't, not unless you are on the board or are a corporate officer. Having worked in a large tech company for quite a while now, grunts have very little (at best) influence on the decisions that upper management makes regarding where they sling their lawyers. In this time when you can be laid off for being "too old" or for other arbitrary reasons, you'll be removed/replaced for causing a stir.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  You certainly do. First, you could just resign and choose not to participate in ongoing violations of privacy. By not giving them your help, you are already making a small difference. Second, you could threaten to resign because of this. Better, you could get together with others of like mind and threaten to resign en-masse. If enough people do this, upper management will take notice. It's just a matter of how many Google and Facebook employees have the will to do it. Third, when privacy issues come up, employees could try to influence their companies to err on the side of privacy. In companies this size there are always many situations which aren't guided by explicit policy or direction from on high, and where employees can use their own judgment or advocate for one course of action over the other. This is where people who care about privacy can make their voices heard. Finally, Google and Facebook employees are smart, creative people. They are more than capable of figuring out other ways they can make a difference -- if these issues are important to them. The main question is: are they? With all the media attention around Facebook and Google privacy violations it's becoming harder and harder for their employees to stand on the sidelines and claim ignorance or pretend there's nothing they can do. By not doing anything they are choosing to continue enabling these companies. They could act instead.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    First: You'll be replaced by someone who is either ignorant of the problem, or isn't but doesn't care. Second: You'll be replaced by someone who is either ignorant of the problem, or isn't but doesn't care. Third: Your complaints will fall on deaf ears and you'll be replaced by someone who is either ignorant of the problem, or isn't but doesn't care. The only way to reach companies of this size is by convincing their customers to go elsewhere. Throwing legislature at the problem might help, but it's unlikely that it will carry any teeth because of the lobby strength these companies possess.
    - pmoriarty 9y ago
      "You'll be replaced by someone who is either ignorant of the problem, or isn't but doesn't care." It costs companies time and money to replace people. So you'll be hitting their bottom line just by resigning. They might not even be able to find someone to replace you, but if they do you might be replaced by someone who's not as effective. When you move somewhere else, you could help a competitor that respects privacy, or maybe even start your own privacy-respecting company.
  - lainga 9y ago
    Yes, and all of Google's employees could join the IWW and organize a wildcat strike, too, maybe with a holacracy instead of worker councils; so why don't they?
    - pmoriarty 9y ago
      You're conflating being a socialist with respecting privacy. Respect of privacy is an issue that cuts across the left/right divide. You could be a capitalist or communist, libertarian or socialist and still respect privacy. Organizing for change isn't limited to socialists either.
      - lainga 9y ago
        I actually meant to conflate one unlikely action of mass coordination with another. I guess I shouldn't have been so flippant.
confounded 9y ago
You can also devote the waking hours of the best years of your life to something else!
xiphias 9y ago
You should look up a guy called ,,James Damore''. Everything you have seen on the internet as a valid point towards a big company has been raised to the CEO, and usually you get an answer that doesn't really answer the questions / even consider those points. Quitting and joining a startup is not an option for any rational person because of the network effects big companies have.
superioritycplx 9y ago
Tell that to James Damore.

godzillabrennus 9y ago

These big tech giants have learned from Microsoft's failures in the 90's of beating back government. They all have a well funded government relations program going on with lobbyists in every important region.

sqdbps 9y ago

Patchwork state privacy and net neutrality regulations are cumbersome and ridiculous. Any such requirements should be debated and enacted on the federal level.

barryparr 9y ago
First, federal action on this issue is not happening in the near future, when this issue needs to be addressed. To say it's a federal issue is to say that it shouldn't be addressed. Second, huh? That's an argument for total deregulation at the state level and abdication of the state's responsibility to protect its citizens.
- sqdbps 9y ago
  Protect them from what? this is a partisan knee jerk reaction to goings on in DC. More importantly these actions are potentially detrimental to local companies the interests of which are intertwined with the state's.
mmanfrin 9y ago
Second California lawmakers shouldn't introduce laws that are detrimental to their state's companies. California lawmakers should introduce laws that are beneficial to the privacy of their state's citizens. e: You just edited your post to delete your second comment, I'm leaving my response.
- sqdbps 9y ago
  The state's interests are in the companies interests and vice versa, they share in prosperity. At a time when outsiders are going after them at least their home state should be relied upon not to follow suite. Whatever happened to 'our business is business'?
  - confounded 9y ago
    I'm afraid that you may have misunderstood the basic principles of democracy.

IBM 9y ago

Google and Facebook have been lobbying against state privacy legislation for a while now [1][2]. The latest Facebook privacy scandal will give those bills momentum. Also Marsha Blackburn's privacy bill would have applied to telcos as well as internet companies. You can guess that it went nowhere [3]. The best thing that could happen is for Congress to pass an omnibus privacy bill modeled closely after GDPR. [1] http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/facebook-google-facial-recognition-lawsuits/ http://fortune.com/2016/06/30/facebook-google-facial-recogni... [2] http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-geolocation-privacy-rauner-veto-20170922-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-geolocation-pr... [3] https://www.axios.com/blackburn-bill-would-extend-privacy-rules-to-google-facebook-1513302428-9acf6f55-5af0-4e78-9174-f769b9fb9d0b.html https://www.axios.com/blackburn-bill-would-extend-privacy-ru...

staunch 9y ago

We just need better technology. We need to stop giving our information away and then hoping it is somehow protected. We need technology to empower us without sacrificing our privacy and freedom. Decentralization and encryption are probably two big parts of the answer. Laws may help or hurt but they won't solve the problem.

confounded 9y ago
There's a high chance that without political activity from people who care, efforts to further decentralization and encryption will be suppressed and thwarted. In other words, the right legal environment is likely a necessary-but-not-sufficient criteria for decentralization and encryption to flourish.

narrator 9y ago

Think of all these online brands that have built huge businesses off of Facebook and Google profiling. The Dollar Shave Clubs and Tough Mudders of the world and hundreds of others who all have built incredible companies off of micro ad targeting. Are we going to go back to the world of a few big mega brands who can do untargeted saturation marketing? That's the world you're going to get with all this privacy lunacy. We've got 6 media companies that own 90% of the market[1] we can easily get 10 consumer goods companies that own everything[2] the way things are going. All in the name of privacy! 1. https://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america/ https://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-... 2. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/consumer-brands-owned-ten-companies-graphic_n_1458812.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/consumer-brands-ow...

jakeogh 9y ago

CA does not need more laws and "regulation". It's got plenty. I had two _very_ nice police officers (near the AZ border) explain it to me last time I got pulled over there: Officer: See this? (pointing to a banned inanimate object) Me: yes. Officer: That's fun. You cant have it in CA. Me: oh. Sorry. (not sure yet what is going to happen, it could have gotten very expensive) Officer: See that? (pointing to another banned inanimate object), that's fun too. Can you have it in CA? Me: I dont know? Officer2: It's fun right? Me: yes... Officer2: Then you cant have it in CA. It went on like that for awhile. Surreal experience. My point is that free speech is next (incrementally of course, starting with records restrictions similar to GDPR). They already passed a (totally unconstitutional) law punishing some people if they use the wrong pronoun.

juststeve 9y ago

this is insane