6 ms·

Some poor Senator just went on a rabbit hunt to discuss FB's bug bounty program. Who are these Congressional staffers? Tech illiteracy is on full-display; we'r

Some poor Senator just went on a rabbit hunt to discuss FB's bug bounty program. Who are these Congressional staffers? Tech illiteracy is on full-display; we're not even talking 'power-users' (who were on UseNet, btw), these people are lost. Zuckerberg had to be gracious and say his team would follow-up on many things that it was clear the Senator didn't even understand. This is supposed to be our smart chamber.

kzrdude 9y ago
This might come across as naive, but I think it is impressive that 1) A lot of politicians are getting their talking time, some more knowledgeable than others, 2) the politicians engage overwhelmingly in good faith on their own level, without being intimidated
decebalus1 9y ago
> Zuckerberg had to be gracious and say his team would follow-up on many things that it was clear the Senator didn't even understand IMO on way too many things, even when it was clear that the senators did understand what they were asking.. and it wasn't because of grace or politeness, it was the new 'I plead the fifth'
Karrot_Kream 9y ago
Disagree. Several controversial questions were dodged by saying his team would follow up. While it's attractive to paint politicians as incompetent buffoons, let's not forget each of them has their own staff and understands what it means to delegate to your staff and not have answers immediately on hand that only a staff expert would understand.
- andromeduck 9y ago
  That doesn't make any sense. If you're receiving questions that weren't published prior to the interview it's perfectly understandable that not all questions can be answered immediately. In fact, I'd be more suspicious if he answered everything without needing to follow up. If however you're the one raising a question, I think it's your responsibility to ensure that you or someone on your team someone does some basic research and due diligence beforehand. Saying that oh look it's okay they're not incompetent, it's just they just delegated to people who were incompetent doesn't make it any better.
  - Karrot_Kream 9y ago
    > If you're receiving questions that weren't published prior to the interview it's perfectly understandable that not all questions can be answered immediately. In fact, I'd be more suspicious if he answered everything without needing to follow up. Right so I'm not expecting him to answer _every_ question without referring to his staff. There were, however, key controversial questions which he did not answer by claiming he didn't know something immediately. > If however you're the one raising a question, I think it's your responsibility to ensure that you or someone on your team someone does some basic research and due diligence beforehand. Zuck was brought in front of the committee to discuss troubling behavior and troubling allegations. While you don't want to ask a nonsensical question, I don't think there's a requirement to be very informed about the subject matter. A number of questions by the committee seemed exploratory or seemed to be simply looking to clarify some rumor/allegation, some were indeed technically misinformed or misunderstood questions, but by and large a lot of the questions that were asked were competent and necessary.
    - andromeduck 9y ago
      > I don't think there's a requirement to be very informed about the subject matter. Why would you think that? This is a time limited, one day high profile public hearing.
      - hyperdimension 9y ago
        I think it's actually two days. That's what they said on the CSPAN radio stream, anyway.
        paulddraper 9y ago
        One day for each house
    - theptip 9y ago
      > There were, however, key controversial questions which he did not answer Can you give some examples please? Having not watched much of this live, nor read the paraphrased feed, I'm interested to know what controversial areas you think were dodged.
- manigandham 9y ago
  Appearing incompetent usually happens because they are actually incompetent. The fact that they were prepared with these questions only makes the matter worse with the majority being irrelevant and aimless shots in the dark. They are the designated lawmakers with the power here, they absolutely need to do a better job.
- BinaryIdiot 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure both of you are correct. There was a large amount of tech illiteracy on display but, at the same time, Mark dodged TONS of questions and spoke indirectly like a professional. That entire testimony was very unsatisfying, in my opinion.
  - Karrot_Kream 9y ago
    This was what I was trying to get at.
  - wtf_is_up 9y ago
    >That entire testimony was very unsatisfying, in my opinion. After watching dozens of hours of congressional hearings over the past 2 years, this is not at all surprising. These committees have no teeth.
    - Overtonwindow 9y ago
      He wasn’t even under oath
  - cookiecaper 9y ago
    Politics is always a performance. Regardless of the technical literacy of the individuals, they need to ask questions that their constituents will want to know they asked. They are covering their bases so that the media can't play a "Gotcha!" game and say "You were representing the people of the Great State of $YOUR_STATE_HERE, and you didn't even ask Facebook why they invite hackers into their own systems?!". This would look bad for the politician if, by some crazy happenstance, the bug bounty becomes implicated in the boogeyman of the big bad "Russian hackers". While I don't discount the possibility that many such lines of questioning were borne out of sincere ignorance, the public perception is what matters, regardless of individual competence, knowledge, or ability. These committee events are just exhibitions to allow politicians to score points back home. Any real work will be done by grossly overpaid lobbyists writing policy that benefits their clients, and grossly underpaid Congressional staffers just trying to work it through the session while protecting Their Guy from potential damage/backlash.
  - 9y ago
- samstave 9y ago
  Yep. The amount of "my staff will follow up" was on par with Sessions' "do not recall" statements. The fact that they called Zuck out on "what hotel did you stay at last night" and "if you messaged any friends in the last week, can you please share the first names of the people you messaged in the last week?" and Zuck: "no I will not share that publicly" Senator: "Well, thats the reason why we are here, isn't it?"
- Karishma1234 9y ago
  Both politicians and Facebook have different incentives. Facebook has to stay competitive and work with realities with the world. Politicians are paid from taxpayer money and don't have to pay for their decisions. Politicians are not stupid. They can hire smart tech people to ask smart questions but it does not matter to them. Ted Cruz will still keep his job even if he asks stupid questions. Marc on other hand lose billions of dollars if he makes stupid decisions. The politicians there do not care about privacy or you and me. That is just pretence. All they care about is how they can benefit from Facebook's $$$$. How can they use Facebook's success to gain more power. Most of these politicians support unauthorised searches and snooping. These hearings are all farce and I hope Zuck comes out as a winner.
rdiddly 9y ago
This is relevant to my comment below. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16806430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16806430 ) Don't make the mistake of thinking what's happening on the surface of this is what's really happening.
IncRnd 9y ago
The Senate is not supposed to be the "smart chamber" but the chamber that lessens the House's power to vote for the vagaries of the moment. This is also why the Senate but not the House confirms appointments and approves treaties.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
chenning 9y ago
I would also argue that a healthy dose of tech illiteracy (if that's what you want to call it) is precisely what we need in this situation. Tech minded people will always find a way to decide in favor of technology. They are loyal to the technology. We need people who can look at all of this from the unbiased perspective.
- stephenr 9y ago
  > Tech minded people will always find a way to decide in favor of technology. I’m pretty tech minded, and I fucking abhor Facebook and Google for the way they behave as a matter of business. Don’t assume that because you might feel inclined to give tech a pass because it’s tech, that others would too.
  - chenning 9y ago
    Fair enough. I shouldn't have used the word "always".
neom 9y ago
I'm pretty sure that he asked if someone found bias in an algorithmic implementation would they qualify for the bug bounty program? Mark deflected by saying devops? (maybe i'm confused)
Overtonwindow 9y ago
Poorly paid, overworked, with an overblown sense of importance.[0] [0].I work on Capitol Hill

kzrdude 9y ago

This might come across as naive, but I think it is impressive that 1) A lot of politicians are getting their talking time, some more knowledgeable than others, 2) the politicians engage overwhelmingly in good faith on their own level, without being intimidated

decebalus1 9y ago

> Zuckerberg had to be gracious and say his team would follow-up on many things that it was clear the Senator didn't even understand IMO on way too many things, even when it was clear that the senators did understand what they were asking.. and it wasn't because of grace or politeness, it was the new 'I plead the fifth'

Karrot_Kream 9y ago

Disagree. Several controversial questions were dodged by saying his team would follow up. While it's attractive to paint politicians as incompetent buffoons, let's not forget each of them has their own staff and understands what it means to delegate to your staff and not have answers immediately on hand that only a staff expert would understand.

andromeduck 9y ago
That doesn't make any sense. If you're receiving questions that weren't published prior to the interview it's perfectly understandable that not all questions can be answered immediately. In fact, I'd be more suspicious if he answered everything without needing to follow up. If however you're the one raising a question, I think it's your responsibility to ensure that you or someone on your team someone does some basic research and due diligence beforehand. Saying that oh look it's okay they're not incompetent, it's just they just delegated to people who were incompetent doesn't make it any better.
- Karrot_Kream 9y ago
  > If you're receiving questions that weren't published prior to the interview it's perfectly understandable that not all questions can be answered immediately. In fact, I'd be more suspicious if he answered everything without needing to follow up. Right so I'm not expecting him to answer _every_ question without referring to his staff. There were, however, key controversial questions which he did not answer by claiming he didn't know something immediately. > If however you're the one raising a question, I think it's your responsibility to ensure that you or someone on your team someone does some basic research and due diligence beforehand. Zuck was brought in front of the committee to discuss troubling behavior and troubling allegations. While you don't want to ask a nonsensical question, I don't think there's a requirement to be very informed about the subject matter. A number of questions by the committee seemed exploratory or seemed to be simply looking to clarify some rumor/allegation, some were indeed technically misinformed or misunderstood questions, but by and large a lot of the questions that were asked were competent and necessary.
  - andromeduck 9y ago
    > I don't think there's a requirement to be very informed about the subject matter. Why would you think that? This is a time limited, one day high profile public hearing.
    - hyperdimension 9y ago
      I think it's actually two days. That's what they said on the CSPAN radio stream, anyway.
      - paulddraper 9y ago
        One day for each house
  - theptip 9y ago
    > There were, however, key controversial questions which he did not answer Can you give some examples please? Having not watched much of this live, nor read the paraphrased feed, I'm interested to know what controversial areas you think were dodged.
manigandham 9y ago
Appearing incompetent usually happens because they are actually incompetent. The fact that they were prepared with these questions only makes the matter worse with the majority being irrelevant and aimless shots in the dark. They are the designated lawmakers with the power here, they absolutely need to do a better job.
BinaryIdiot 9y ago
I'm pretty sure both of you are correct. There was a large amount of tech illiteracy on display but, at the same time, Mark dodged TONS of questions and spoke indirectly like a professional. That entire testimony was very unsatisfying, in my opinion.
- Karrot_Kream 9y ago
  This was what I was trying to get at.
- wtf_is_up 9y ago
  >That entire testimony was very unsatisfying, in my opinion. After watching dozens of hours of congressional hearings over the past 2 years, this is not at all surprising. These committees have no teeth.
  - Overtonwindow 9y ago
    He wasn’t even under oath
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  Politics is always a performance. Regardless of the technical literacy of the individuals, they need to ask questions that their constituents will want to know they asked. They are covering their bases so that the media can't play a "Gotcha!" game and say "You were representing the people of the Great State of $YOUR_STATE_HERE, and you didn't even ask Facebook why they invite hackers into their own systems?!". This would look bad for the politician if, by some crazy happenstance, the bug bounty becomes implicated in the boogeyman of the big bad "Russian hackers". While I don't discount the possibility that many such lines of questioning were borne out of sincere ignorance, the public perception is what matters, regardless of individual competence, knowledge, or ability. These committee events are just exhibitions to allow politicians to score points back home. Any real work will be done by grossly overpaid lobbyists writing policy that benefits their clients, and grossly underpaid Congressional staffers just trying to work it through the session while protecting Their Guy from potential damage/backlash.
- 9y ago
samstave 9y ago
Yep. The amount of "my staff will follow up" was on par with Sessions' "do not recall" statements. The fact that they called Zuck out on "what hotel did you stay at last night" and "if you messaged any friends in the last week, can you please share the first names of the people you messaged in the last week?" and Zuck: "no I will not share that publicly" Senator: "Well, thats the reason why we are here, isn't it?"
Karishma1234 9y ago
Both politicians and Facebook have different incentives. Facebook has to stay competitive and work with realities with the world. Politicians are paid from taxpayer money and don't have to pay for their decisions. Politicians are not stupid. They can hire smart tech people to ask smart questions but it does not matter to them. Ted Cruz will still keep his job even if he asks stupid questions. Marc on other hand lose billions of dollars if he makes stupid decisions. The politicians there do not care about privacy or you and me. That is just pretence. All they care about is how they can benefit from Facebook's $$$$. How can they use Facebook's success to gain more power. Most of these politicians support unauthorised searches and snooping. These hearings are all farce and I hope Zuck comes out as a winner.

rdiddly 9y ago

This is relevant to my comment below. ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16806430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16806430 ) Don't make the mistake of thinking what's happening on the surface of this is what's really happening.

IncRnd 9y ago

The Senate is not supposed to be the "smart chamber" but the chamber that lessens the House's power to vote for the vagaries of the moment. This is also why the Senate but not the House confirms appointments and approves treaties.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

chenning 9y ago

I would also argue that a healthy dose of tech illiteracy (if that's what you want to call it) is precisely what we need in this situation. Tech minded people will always find a way to decide in favor of technology. They are loyal to the technology. We need people who can look at all of this from the unbiased perspective.

stephenr 9y ago
> Tech minded people will always find a way to decide in favor of technology. I’m pretty tech minded, and I fucking abhor Facebook and Google for the way they behave as a matter of business. Don’t assume that because you might feel inclined to give tech a pass because it’s tech, that others would too.
- chenning 9y ago
  Fair enough. I shouldn't have used the word "always".

neom 9y ago

I'm pretty sure that he asked if someone found bias in an algorithmic implementation would they qualify for the bug bounty program? Mark deflected by saying devops? (maybe i'm confused)

Overtonwindow 9y ago

Poorly paid, overworked, with an overblown sense of importance.[0] [0].I work on Capitol Hill