6 ms·

Facebook Warns Investors to Expect 'Additional Incidents' of User Data Abuse

115 points by gerbilly 9y ago

splitrocket 9y ago
this is my surprised face.
someonewhocar3s 9y ago
Who's buying while they push the ticker this low? The upside is the cashflow is steadier: Facebook considered the 'data breach' regular operation when it concerns advertisement. This 'Cambridge Analytica' used it for political reasons, which ofc is unheard of, and a total breach of trust. The price goes up because they're getting away without as much as a scamp. The media coverage shows them much more prepared than for e.g. the senate seemed to have been. "Senator, it was all legal.". - "Thanks Mark." Reduce the upside today, receive it when "the following breaches were all technically legal, I'm sorry about the dystopia, xxx Mark." doesn't scamp the company either. Good cashflow.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
da_chicken 9y ago
I told people ten years ago that they were doing this sort of thing and got blown off. Now I've had some of the same people come to me and tell me to get off Facebook in patronizing tones that reminded me of my grade school teachers and irritated that I didn't warn them. I don't know if I've ever been so infuriated at someone face-to-face in my whole life.
- adamnemecek 9y ago
  Haha, went through the same. Shut it down in like 08 after having used it for like three months but people were getting weirded out. I used to tell them that the service is too expensive as I couldn't afford to waste my personal data like this. They didn’t quite get it.
- hownottowrite 9y ago
  Unsolicited advice: These are people you need to let go from your life.
  - nvr219 9y ago
    If you just let go people who irritate you once then you're going to die alone
    - hownottowrite 9y ago
      Sure but this doesn’t sound like a one time thing. And if it causes emotional distress why hang on?
      - nvr219 9y ago
        the way da_chicken wrote it, it sounded like a one-time thing
        da_chicken 9y ago
        Yes, it was a one-time thing. I've just had three different people do it one time. I assume the response was for the same reason relationship advice from strangers is always "break up immediately." People are really bad at judging things they know only one thing about.
yesforwhat 9y ago
It's not abuse, it's what the platform was built for. Calling it "abuse" it following the spin, don't do it.
- mic47 9y ago
  There are two aspects: technical and legal. Technical: companies got the data in a way that system was designed. No abuse there. Legal: companies didn't adhere to TOS and used data in a way that were not supposed to. This is why is it called abuse.
  - cinquemb 9y ago
    TOS aren't necessarily enforceable legally[0], setting aside jurisdictional issues. If you have an account, sure facebook may use such to disable/delete it, but there are many ways to get data from facebook without having an account. [0] https://www.eff.org/issues/terms-of-abuse https://www.eff.org/issues/terms-of-abuse
    - mic47 9y ago
      It's still violated on agreed terms (even if not legally enforceable) so it can be called abuse. Also, how does the provided link support claim that they are not necessarily enforceable legally? I read it but saw only criticism of TOS in general, nothing about whether they are or are not legally enforceable.
      - cinquemb 9y ago
        >It's still violated on agreed terms (even if not legally enforceable) so it can be called abuse. If you grab data hosted on facebook or any other website, without having an account, where is the explicit contractual agreement? Are HTTP requests contractual agreements? MITM/DPI'ing facebook users who connect via your hardware contractual agreements? The extent that is abuse, is that facebook (or any other site) service is engineered in such a way that makes such information it collects available to any degree in the first place. True, anyone can make dubious claims of abuse. >Also, how does the provided link support claim that they are not necessarily enforceable legally? I read it but saw only criticism of TOS in general, nothing about whether they are or are not legally enforceable. "These "terms" are actually purported legal contracts between the user and the online service provider (websites MMORPGs communication services etc.) despite the fact that users never get a chance to negotiate their contents and can often be entirely unaware of their existence." purported legal contracts != legal contracts, i.e. just because someone says it's a legal contract, doesn't mean it actually is.
rudimental 9y ago
Do warnings like this have any impact on future lawsuits against Facebook? Does it help Facebook in other ways?
- bostik 9y ago
  I wouldn't dare to guess either way if I had to put money on it, but from what I have learned of US investor reports -- companies are legally obligated to list known and anticipated business risks in their filings. Maybe not in those very words, but the concept comes up quite frequently in Money Stuff[0]. Recently I've seen a recurring theme around "everything is securities fraud". Which boils down to a very utilitarian and cynical core: if you are a company and do X but don't disclose to your investors that doing X may have an effect on the value of their investment, then the investors can sue you for securities fraud and try to claw back whatever future profits they feel they had been entitled to. 0: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/topics/money-stuff https://www.bloomberg.com/view/topics/money-stuff
alex_young 9y ago
I can think of at least a couple of startups I've come into contact with that collect data from user profiles on FB and other social sites. Wouldn't surprise me if there are hundreds of them out there.
- greggarious 9y ago
  What sort of data? It's normal and expected to collect public facing stuff like profile photo, name, gender. I'd be much more irritated if they're scraping entire profiles.
eveningcoffee 9y ago
I think that they are preparing for the future where everyone will realize that the whole Facebook is a user data abuse (and more because they are tracking non users without their consent). I think they have decided to take the hit rather now (in the stock price) than in the future assuming that the hit now will be smaller now than later.
greggarious 9y ago
I deleted my Facebook because I was using it mainly for messenger. I simply didn't feel comfortable having my private conversations on their servers, so I got my close friends to (begrudgingly) pivot to Signal. Later, it would some out that Cambridge Analytica (and likely other bad actors) had been siphoning up PMs: https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17219606/cambridge-analytica-private-facebook-messenger-messages https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17219606/cambridge-analyt...
curiousguy 9y ago
That's no surprising. I already developed a game for Facebook a few years ago and was amazing how many information about the user and his friends was possible to collect. There were simple no restriction. I try to imagine games like Farmville that were played by millions of people, how many information they collected. Nowadays, Facebook has Graph API. You need to specify exactly what information about the user you want. And depending on the information, Facebook needs to review in advance.
dkrich 9y ago
The most interesting part of this story to me is apparent divide between the perception of how people should react to their data being mishandled and how they actually react. Anecdotally, most of the outrage I’ve seen has come from white men in their 50’s who don’t actively use the platform. I don’t mean this as a jab, I literally have seen the most outrage from this group although I’m not sure why. Perhaps it’s just coincidence or that is the most outspoken demographic. Meanwhile, I haven’t seen any change in usage from those people I know who actively use Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp. I think that people feel that this story should adversely affect the company and it’s earnings, but there is no evidence that it actually will.
- cirgue 9y ago
  > Meanwhile, I haven’t seen any change in usage from those people I know who actively use Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp. Over the last three years, the percentage of my friends who are active on these platforms has dropped dramatically, like ~80% to ~20%. I think most of the people who understood that Facebook and associated properties were toxic tailed off using those services well before the Cambridge Analytica thing.
originalsimba 9y ago
Making such a warning should in no way reduce the consequences that Facebook should be forced to face for their responsibility in dragging all of us kicking and screaming to this place. That is, of course, precisely why they spoke up. Their lawyers and accountants determined that would be the least costly approach. As an aside, why do we continue to tolerate this kind of behavior from corporations? They aren't _really_ people and they don't deserve and should not be afforded the freedom to experiment with their impact on our society and our lives that real people are privileged to enjoy. Regulations and massive punitive consequences are _good_ things to ensure corporate behavior serves the public interest. And yet this has been going on for almost a century and nothing ever happens to change it? It's nothing but an evolution of the robber barons.

115 points by gerbilly 9y ago

this is my surprised face.

Who's buying while they push the ticker this low? The upside is the cashflow is steadier: Facebook considered the 'data breach' regular operation when it concerns advertisement. This 'Cambridge Analytica' used it for political reasons, which ofc is unheard of, and a total breach of trust. The price goes up because they're getting away without as much as a scamp. The media coverage shows them much more prepared than for e.g. the senate seemed to have been. "Senator, it was all legal.". - "Thanks Mark." Reduce the upside today, receive it when "the following breaches were all technically legal, I'm sorry about the dystopia, xxx Mark." doesn't scamp the company either. Good cashflow.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

da_chicken 9y ago

I told people ten years ago that they were doing this sort of thing and got blown off. Now I've had some of the same people come to me and tell me to get off Facebook in patronizing tones that reminded me of my grade school teachers and irritated that I didn't warn them. I don't know if I've ever been so infuriated at someone face-to-face in my whole life.

adamnemecek 9y ago
Haha, went through the same. Shut it down in like 08 after having used it for like three months but people were getting weirded out. I used to tell them that the service is too expensive as I couldn't afford to waste my personal data like this. They didn’t quite get it.
hownottowrite 9y ago
Unsolicited advice: These are people you need to let go from your life.
- nvr219 9y ago
  If you just let go people who irritate you once then you're going to die alone
  - hownottowrite 9y ago
    Sure but this doesn’t sound like a one time thing. And if it causes emotional distress why hang on?
    - nvr219 9y ago
      the way da_chicken wrote it, it sounded like a one-time thing
      - da_chicken 9y ago
        Yes, it was a one-time thing. I've just had three different people do it one time. I assume the response was for the same reason relationship advice from strangers is always "break up immediately." People are really bad at judging things they know only one thing about.

yesforwhat 9y ago

It's not abuse, it's what the platform was built for. Calling it "abuse" it following the spin, don't do it.

mic47 9y ago
There are two aspects: technical and legal. Technical: companies got the data in a way that system was designed. No abuse there. Legal: companies didn't adhere to TOS and used data in a way that were not supposed to. This is why is it called abuse.
- cinquemb 9y ago
  TOS aren't necessarily enforceable legally[0], setting aside jurisdictional issues. If you have an account, sure facebook may use such to disable/delete it, but there are many ways to get data from facebook without having an account. [0] https://www.eff.org/issues/terms-of-abuse https://www.eff.org/issues/terms-of-abuse
  - mic47 9y ago
    It's still violated on agreed terms (even if not legally enforceable) so it can be called abuse. Also, how does the provided link support claim that they are not necessarily enforceable legally? I read it but saw only criticism of TOS in general, nothing about whether they are or are not legally enforceable.
    - cinquemb 9y ago
      >It's still violated on agreed terms (even if not legally enforceable) so it can be called abuse. If you grab data hosted on facebook or any other website, without having an account, where is the explicit contractual agreement? Are HTTP requests contractual agreements? MITM/DPI'ing facebook users who connect via your hardware contractual agreements? The extent that is abuse, is that facebook (or any other site) service is engineered in such a way that makes such information it collects available to any degree in the first place. True, anyone can make dubious claims of abuse. >Also, how does the provided link support claim that they are not necessarily enforceable legally? I read it but saw only criticism of TOS in general, nothing about whether they are or are not legally enforceable. "These "terms" are actually purported legal contracts between the user and the online service provider (websites MMORPGs communication services etc.) despite the fact that users never get a chance to negotiate their contents and can often be entirely unaware of their existence." purported legal contracts != legal contracts, i.e. just because someone says it's a legal contract, doesn't mean it actually is.

rudimental 9y ago

Do warnings like this have any impact on future lawsuits against Facebook? Does it help Facebook in other ways?

bostik 9y ago
I wouldn't dare to guess either way if I had to put money on it, but from what I have learned of US investor reports -- companies are legally obligated to list known and anticipated business risks in their filings. Maybe not in those very words, but the concept comes up quite frequently in Money Stuff[0]. Recently I've seen a recurring theme around "everything is securities fraud". Which boils down to a very utilitarian and cynical core: if you are a company and do X but don't disclose to your investors that doing X may have an effect on the value of their investment, then the investors can sue you for securities fraud and try to claw back whatever future profits they feel they had been entitled to. 0: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/topics/money-stuff https://www.bloomberg.com/view/topics/money-stuff

alex_young 9y ago

I can think of at least a couple of startups I've come into contact with that collect data from user profiles on FB and other social sites. Wouldn't surprise me if there are hundreds of them out there.

greggarious 9y ago
What sort of data? It's normal and expected to collect public facing stuff like profile photo, name, gender. I'd be much more irritated if they're scraping entire profiles.

eveningcoffee 9y ago

I think that they are preparing for the future where everyone will realize that the whole Facebook is a user data abuse (and more because they are tracking non users without their consent). I think they have decided to take the hit rather now (in the stock price) than in the future assuming that the hit now will be smaller now than later.

greggarious 9y ago

I deleted my Facebook because I was using it mainly for messenger. I simply didn't feel comfortable having my private conversations on their servers, so I got my close friends to (begrudgingly) pivot to Signal. Later, it would some out that Cambridge Analytica (and likely other bad actors) had been siphoning up PMs: https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17219606/cambridge-analytica-private-facebook-messenger-messages https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17219606/cambridge-analyt...

curiousguy 9y ago

That's no surprising. I already developed a game for Facebook a few years ago and was amazing how many information about the user and his friends was possible to collect. There were simple no restriction. I try to imagine games like Farmville that were played by millions of people, how many information they collected. Nowadays, Facebook has Graph API. You need to specify exactly what information about the user you want. And depending on the information, Facebook needs to review in advance.

dkrich 9y ago

The most interesting part of this story to me is apparent divide between the perception of how people should react to their data being mishandled and how they actually react. Anecdotally, most of the outrage I’ve seen has come from white men in their 50’s who don’t actively use the platform. I don’t mean this as a jab, I literally have seen the most outrage from this group although I’m not sure why. Perhaps it’s just coincidence or that is the most outspoken demographic. Meanwhile, I haven’t seen any change in usage from those people I know who actively use Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp. I think that people feel that this story should adversely affect the company and it’s earnings, but there is no evidence that it actually will.

cirgue 9y ago
> Meanwhile, I haven’t seen any change in usage from those people I know who actively use Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp. Over the last three years, the percentage of my friends who are active on these platforms has dropped dramatically, like ~80% to ~20%. I think most of the people who understood that Facebook and associated properties were toxic tailed off using those services well before the Cambridge Analytica thing.

originalsimba 9y ago

Making such a warning should in no way reduce the consequences that Facebook should be forced to face for their responsibility in dragging all of us kicking and screaming to this place. That is, of course, precisely why they spoke up. Their lawyers and accountants determined that would be the least costly approach. As an aside, why do we continue to tolerate this kind of behavior from corporations? They aren't _really_ people and they don't deserve and should not be afforded the freedom to experiment with their impact on our society and our lives that real people are privileged to enjoy. Regulations and massive punitive consequences are _good_ things to ensure corporate behavior serves the public interest. And yet this has been going on for almost a century and nothing ever happens to change it? It's nothing but an evolution of the robber barons.