7 ms·

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a

"Facebook thinks we're idiots" To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as usual as this fades out over the next 1-2 months.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1]. > Shareholders know this Facebook trades 20% down from its highs and lower, to trend, than its peers [2]. [1] https://www.axios.com/exclusive-poll-facebook-favorability-plunges-1522057235-b1fa31db-e646-4413-a273-95d3387da4f2.html https://www.axios.com/exclusive-poll-facebook-favorability-p... [2] https://m.nasdaq.com/symbol/fb/real-time https://m.nasdaq.com/symbol/fb/real-time
- downandout 9y ago
  But I’ll bet usage statistics are right in line with their norms. It’s true that the deluge of headlines from liberal media sites this week has hurt their public image, and it at least cracks open the door to a competitor possibly having some success in attracting users. I’m not sure what that competitor would look like, but it would have to be vastly different than today’s concept of a social network. But the point is that if usage stays normal, this hasn’t affected anything at all other than the fact that people don’t feel as warm and fuzzy toward Facebook as they once did.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1]. The question is whether that is durable, or just something that hangs around while this is in the headlines with a focus on FB.
  - some_random 9y ago
    Absolutely, will public mistrust stay around, or is Facebook just the demon of the day to be hated at by the talking heads on tv? From everything I've seen, the greater public won't remember or care a week after the media moves on.
  - itronitron 9y ago
    given the association with Cambridge Analytica I would expect this to be an ongoing concern until beyond the next presidential election
  - tedeh 9y ago
    It just might hang around for as long as Trump is president in the US, considering how this started as an offshoot of the ”Russian interference” investigation.
bmarquez 9y ago
Yes. This is all over HN and Reddit, but when I try to introduce my friends to Signal (or encryption in general), they shrug and say they have nothing to hide. Hate to say it, but the general public needs Kim Kardashian or some tastemaker to make privacy and security "cool".
- matte_black 9y ago
  But privacy and security are not "cool", and never will be. People like transparency, people are drawn to dangerous things. Hiding shit behind closed doors or being super paranoid is not cool, and will not get you fans. The only security most people need is herd security. As long as your data can blend into a mass of other people's data to the point where you're just an anonymous face in the crowd, there's no harm. Sure, if you're some important individual who can be compromised by someone motivated enough you might have something to be afraid of, but most people never rise to that level of importance.
  - proofbygazing 9y ago
    > The only security most people need is herd security. As long as your data can blend into a mass of other people's data to the point where you're just an anonymous face in the crowd, there's no harm. Sure, if you're some important individual who can be compromised by someone motivated enough you might have something to be afraid of, but most people never rise to that level of importance. Well, yeah, maybe, but the Kardashians certainly fall into that group, and there is a cult of narcissism that would find the idea fashionable if given direction from actually famous individuals. That said, I think you're right that very few will ever give a shit about privacy and I'm not terribly convinced they are wrong, since very few have anything interesting or meaningfully criminal/subversive going on.
    - matte_black 9y ago
      So then is there a problem? Probably not. Just a way to grab headlines.
bluetwo 9y ago
Citizens of the United States have rights when they engage in consumer behavior. Yes, you have to expect anything you do on the web can get leaked, but that's not what this is about. This is about buying a cheap alarm clock and finding out it's recording videos of you and your girlfriend and selling them online.
- jlmorton 9y ago
  > This is about buying a cheap alarm clock and finding out it's recording videos of you and your girlfriend and selling them online. Not really, no. It's more like buying an alarm clock with an integrated video calling feature which will also optionally integrate with your home's existing audio/visual systems, if the user explicitly agrees to the very clear, plain-english description of the feature.
IBM 9y ago
The public doesn't care about appropriate capital ratios for "too big to fail" banks either, and yet Dodd-Frank passed. The internet industry may be banking on this blowing over, but I wouldn't be so sure. Especially if the tech industry can't provide a unified front (see Tim Cook calling for privacy regulation). GDPR has already arrived in the EU, and it will serve as a model for anyone campaigning for privacy legislation in the US. Politicians will respond to the outrage with Facebook/Google's behavior around data privacy, it doesn't matter that the public can't articulate what the response should be at a policy-making level. And it doesn't matter that these internet companies' Terms of Service allowed everything that was done or not. This isn't a legal issue, this is a political issue. What people think they're agreeing to is more important than what they actually agreed to when it comes to legislative responses.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  I think that the parallel is Snowden. Before then, people largely shrugged at the tech community’s assertions about government dragnets. Now the assumption of a dragnet is taken as a granted. This moment for Facebook, I think, is that same moment for the private sector.
- kristianc 9y ago
  What GDPR is really going to kill is the third party data sharing - cookie syncing across ad networks that the end user has never heard of and has no reason to know about. They are going to have a nightmare getting user consent and a lot of those firms have already completely exited the EU market. The timing of this blowing up is not great for Facebook GDPR wise, but the user has a 1:1 relationship with Facebook and getting consent in exchange for continued use of the site is probably not going to be a major issue for them.
downandout 9y ago
I’m just hoping that in the next election cycle, both candidates are afforded the same amount of outrage over the Facebook data they use. Because the hypocrisy revealed by the outrage over Trump’s use of years old data vs. the celebration of Obama’s vastly more extensive use is appalling and shows the very worst of partisanship.
- mehrdadn 9y ago
  The outrage is over the illegal data sharing and how that was made possible, which happened in only one of those two cases.
  - downandout 9y ago
    Neither case was illegal, but Obama’s was far more invasive. What makes it so much worse is that Obama accessed 4x as many profiles as Kogan did, and they did it with Facebook’s blessings. This enabled them to keep the data current, while Trump’s dataset was both far smaller and years older than Obama’s by the time it was used. Sadly, there are still no apologies for the gross invasion of privacy that Zuckerberg authorized Obama to commit against ~200 million people, ~199 million of whom never authorized Obama to take their information. I hope one is forthcoming, but I won’t hold my breath.
    - mehrdadn 9y ago
      The illegality I'm referring to was that CA falsely certified destruction of the data. My understanding is that was illegal, and people are mad at why Facebook made it that easy to lie and get away with it.
      - downandout 9y ago
        It wasn’t “illegal” for them to not destroy the data. Kogan had a contractual duty to not sell it to CA, and Facebook can sue him for breach of that duty (and possibly CA for using it). But, at least under US law, nothing that occurred was “illegal”. What happened was a breach of a civil contract between two private parties - nothing more.
bamboozled 9y ago
I used to think that, although I'm surprised how many of my family members have already deleted their accounts or are now seriously considering it since the news has broken about the breach. I know very few people who now aren't actually suspect of the company now.Maybe their not willing to give up their accounts yet; However I truly think there is more public awareness of the situation than you think.
newscracker 9y ago
> To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. This is what worries me most of the time. Another commenter under this thread pointed to some kind of poll about Facebook. But polls don't matter much. People may have negative sentiments about Facebook, but what really matters is if this sentiment is reflected in almost the same proportion by an exodus of users from the platform or a significant drop in usage of the platform, while showing an increasing trend (even if it is for a short time). I believe most people will be angry, but will keep expressing that anger only on Facebook while their "friends" like and react and comment, creating exactly the fuel that Facebook needs — engagement and attention-minutes on its platform! > Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as usual as this fades out over the next 1-2 months. I believe the same too. Based on all the goofs from Facebook over the years, this one is just a bit more serious but would not be the reason why millions of people would boycott it. That requires a "disaster" on a larger scale, which I'm sure will come in the future because of Facebook being Facebook.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1]. > Shareholders know this Facebook trades 20% down from its highs and lower, to trend, than its peers [2]. [1] https://www.axios.com/exclusive-poll-facebook-favorability-plunges-1522057235-b1fa31db-e646-4413-a273-95d3387da4f2.html https://www.axios.com/exclusive-poll-facebook-favorability-p... [2] https://m.nasdaq.com/symbol/fb/real-time https://m.nasdaq.com/symbol/fb/real-time

downandout 9y ago
But I’ll bet usage statistics are right in line with their norms. It’s true that the deluge of headlines from liberal media sites this week has hurt their public image, and it at least cracks open the door to a competitor possibly having some success in attracting users. I’m not sure what that competitor would look like, but it would have to be vastly different than today’s concept of a social network. But the point is that if usage stays normal, this hasn’t affected anything at all other than the fact that people don’t feel as warm and fuzzy toward Facebook as they once did.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> I hear this from my friends in technology. It is not supported by the data: Facebook’s net favourability is down 28 points [1]. The question is whether that is durable, or just something that hangs around while this is in the headlines with a focus on FB.
- some_random 9y ago
  Absolutely, will public mistrust stay around, or is Facebook just the demon of the day to be hated at by the talking heads on tv? From everything I've seen, the greater public won't remember or care a week after the media moves on.
- itronitron 9y ago
  given the association with Cambridge Analytica I would expect this to be an ongoing concern until beyond the next presidential election
- tedeh 9y ago
  It just might hang around for as long as Trump is president in the US, considering how this started as an offshoot of the ”Russian interference” investigation.

bmarquez 9y ago

Yes. This is all over HN and Reddit, but when I try to introduce my friends to Signal (or encryption in general), they shrug and say they have nothing to hide. Hate to say it, but the general public needs Kim Kardashian or some tastemaker to make privacy and security "cool".

matte_black 9y ago
But privacy and security are not "cool", and never will be. People like transparency, people are drawn to dangerous things. Hiding shit behind closed doors or being super paranoid is not cool, and will not get you fans. The only security most people need is herd security. As long as your data can blend into a mass of other people's data to the point where you're just an anonymous face in the crowd, there's no harm. Sure, if you're some important individual who can be compromised by someone motivated enough you might have something to be afraid of, but most people never rise to that level of importance.
- proofbygazing 9y ago
  > The only security most people need is herd security. As long as your data can blend into a mass of other people's data to the point where you're just an anonymous face in the crowd, there's no harm. Sure, if you're some important individual who can be compromised by someone motivated enough you might have something to be afraid of, but most people never rise to that level of importance. Well, yeah, maybe, but the Kardashians certainly fall into that group, and there is a cult of narcissism that would find the idea fashionable if given direction from actually famous individuals. That said, I think you're right that very few will ever give a shit about privacy and I'm not terribly convinced they are wrong, since very few have anything interesting or meaningfully criminal/subversive going on.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    So then is there a problem? Probably not. Just a way to grab headlines.

bluetwo 9y ago

Citizens of the United States have rights when they engage in consumer behavior. Yes, you have to expect anything you do on the web can get leaked, but that's not what this is about. This is about buying a cheap alarm clock and finding out it's recording videos of you and your girlfriend and selling them online.

jlmorton 9y ago
> This is about buying a cheap alarm clock and finding out it's recording videos of you and your girlfriend and selling them online. Not really, no. It's more like buying an alarm clock with an integrated video calling feature which will also optionally integrate with your home's existing audio/visual systems, if the user explicitly agrees to the very clear, plain-english description of the feature.

IBM 9y ago

The public doesn't care about appropriate capital ratios for "too big to fail" banks either, and yet Dodd-Frank passed. The internet industry may be banking on this blowing over, but I wouldn't be so sure. Especially if the tech industry can't provide a unified front (see Tim Cook calling for privacy regulation). GDPR has already arrived in the EU, and it will serve as a model for anyone campaigning for privacy legislation in the US. Politicians will respond to the outrage with Facebook/Google's behavior around data privacy, it doesn't matter that the public can't articulate what the response should be at a policy-making level. And it doesn't matter that these internet companies' Terms of Service allowed everything that was done or not. This isn't a legal issue, this is a political issue. What people think they're agreeing to is more important than what they actually agreed to when it comes to legislative responses.

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
I think that the parallel is Snowden. Before then, people largely shrugged at the tech community’s assertions about government dragnets. Now the assumption of a dragnet is taken as a granted. This moment for Facebook, I think, is that same moment for the private sector.
kristianc 9y ago
What GDPR is really going to kill is the third party data sharing - cookie syncing across ad networks that the end user has never heard of and has no reason to know about. They are going to have a nightmare getting user consent and a lot of those firms have already completely exited the EU market. The timing of this blowing up is not great for Facebook GDPR wise, but the user has a 1:1 relationship with Facebook and getting consent in exchange for continued use of the site is probably not going to be a major issue for them.

downandout 9y ago

I’m just hoping that in the next election cycle, both candidates are afforded the same amount of outrage over the Facebook data they use. Because the hypocrisy revealed by the outrage over Trump’s use of years old data vs. the celebration of Obama’s vastly more extensive use is appalling and shows the very worst of partisanship.

mehrdadn 9y ago
The outrage is over the illegal data sharing and how that was made possible, which happened in only one of those two cases.
- downandout 9y ago
  Neither case was illegal, but Obama’s was far more invasive. What makes it so much worse is that Obama accessed 4x as many profiles as Kogan did, and they did it with Facebook’s blessings. This enabled them to keep the data current, while Trump’s dataset was both far smaller and years older than Obama’s by the time it was used. Sadly, there are still no apologies for the gross invasion of privacy that Zuckerberg authorized Obama to commit against ~200 million people, ~199 million of whom never authorized Obama to take their information. I hope one is forthcoming, but I won’t hold my breath.
  - mehrdadn 9y ago
    The illegality I'm referring to was that CA falsely certified destruction of the data. My understanding is that was illegal, and people are mad at why Facebook made it that easy to lie and get away with it.
    - downandout 9y ago
      It wasn’t “illegal” for them to not destroy the data. Kogan had a contractual duty to not sell it to CA, and Facebook can sue him for breach of that duty (and possibly CA for using it). But, at least under US law, nothing that occurred was “illegal”. What happened was a breach of a civil contract between two private parties - nothing more.

bamboozled 9y ago

I used to think that, although I'm surprised how many of my family members have already deleted their accounts or are now seriously considering it since the news has broken about the breach. I know very few people who now aren't actually suspect of the company now.Maybe their not willing to give up their accounts yet; However I truly think there is more public awareness of the situation than you think.

newscracker 9y ago

> To be honest, about this issue of privacy and security, most of the world really doesn't care. The people who do care are not a majority and not even a significant statistic. Providing an apology is enough for most people, since they don't understand the depth and scope of the problem at hand. This is what worries me most of the time. Another commenter under this thread pointed to some kind of poll about Facebook. But polls don't matter much. People may have negative sentiments about Facebook, but what really matters is if this sentiment is reflected in almost the same proportion by an exodus of users from the platform or a significant drop in usage of the platform, while showing an increasing trend (even if it is for a short time). I believe most people will be angry, but will keep expressing that anger only on Facebook while their "friends" like and react and comment, creating exactly the fuel that Facebook needs — engagement and attention-minutes on its platform! > Shareholders know this. Mark will receive a slap on the wrist, and business will continue as usual as this fades out over the next 1-2 months. I believe the same too. Based on all the goofs from Facebook over the years, this one is just a bit more serious but would not be the reason why millions of people would boycott it. That requires a "disaster" on a larger scale, which I'm sure will come in the future because of Facebook being Facebook.