9 ms·
Facebook employee fired over bragging about access to user information
- godzillabrennus 8y agoZuck bragged about having access to the data himself. Hardly anyone batted an eye back then: https://www.tomsguide.com/us/Facebook-Mark-Zuckerberg-Social-Networking-privacy-security,news-6794.html https://www.tomsguide.com/us/Facebook-Mark-Zuckerberg-Social...
- MasterScrat 8y agoThat was 14 years ago though, his situation was slightly different back then.
- ada1981 8y agoExactly, he was the founder and CEO of the company. Wasn’t the whole ethos’s of Facebook to aggregate a bunch of data so Zuck could get laid? Seems like this guy is a mild incarnation. Ps. “Senator, we don’t sell data!”
- hackinthebochs 8y agoHN has some serious facebook derangement syndrome going on.
- Karunamon 8y agoI find that HN is at least a little bit hypocritical when they go on about the right to be forgotten and not judging people by what they did in years past... and meanwhile judge Zuckerberg harshly for a snide comment supposedly made 14 goddamn years ago.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ada1981 8y agoHN is comprised of individuals and none of them speak for everyone. I think it's interesting someone would get fired for making a joke that is mild compared things the founder has said / done.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- snvzz 8y agoThe question is just how many have access and aren't bragging about it.
- watwut 8y agoFacebook's security engineers (and tons of other engineers) have easy access to information. They are however not supposed to use/access information about people for non-work purposes - like finding Tinder dates. So, the answer to your question is many of them have access by design.
- netsharc 8y agoIf I had access, "finding dates on Tinder" is amateur hour. You can find out a lot of details about a person if you go through their profile (usually you have to be friends with them, but if you're an admin probably not), and even more creepily, if you go through their messages. If she says "attending" to an event on FB, you'll know where the person will be at a particular time and date, you can just "randomly" bump into them and mention your love of $MUSIC_GROUP and $TRAVEL_DESTINATION. And since the mobile app probably logs locations, you could also trawl through that data on the fly to "randomly" bump into them again a few days later. "What a coincidence!".
- foldr 8y agoI guess you could do that, but it doesn't seem that it would have any greater chance of success than regular non-creepy dating.
- mywittyname 8y agoIRK. It's almost like people will tell you what they are interested in you ask them. If they don't tell you, then you never had a shot anyway. If you rely on artificial serendipity for romance, then you're going to have a bad time.
- watwut 8y agoGuys really should not take dating advice from romantic comedies. In comedy, this is romantic. In real life, this is called stalking, major red-flag since guy who does this before he even has relationship is likely to be controlling and dangerous in relationship.
- some_account 8y agoGood PR move but totally useless for actually changing anything.
- jpkeisala 8y agoIt would be great if there would be "Facebook Snowden" out soon.
- letsgetphysITal 8y agoThere is, he's called Christopher Wylie. He didn't work for Facebook, but he exposed the access available to their data.
- bertil 8y agoWell, I’ve been out of the company for almost three years now, but somehow, my comments haven’t had the same impact as Snowden’s. I didn’t flee to a new country, so that might be it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- RustySpottedCat 8y agoThat has got to be the worst pick up line I've ever seen.
- ams6110 8y agoHave you met any guys in tech? Suavity with women is not exactly the norm.
- jcfrei 8y agoI wonder how many Facebook engineers still use their own messenger for private conversations. I would guess most of them are using iMessage or Telegram or something similar.
- lumisota 8y agoBoth WhatsApp and Messenger (when secret conversation is enabled) are end-to-end encrypted.
- throwaway13337 8y agoMessenger is not by default and it's very limited when it is used.
- dannyw 8y agoMessenger is only ETE for the secret mode. Normal messages are scanned for profiling and advertising.
- gaius 8y agoThere is a famous pic of Zuck which reveals he not only puts tape over his webcam but his headphone socket too.
- thundergolfer 8y agoWhat privacy-related purpose does tape over the headphone socket serve? That makes no sense to me.
- Traubenfuchs 8y agoIt was the macbooks built in microphone: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/128247/why-does-mark-zuckerberg-cover-his-headphone-jack-with-tape https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/128247/why-does...
- bertil 8y agoI’m personal friends with many former colleagues. We use Messenger (unencrypted) pretty much exclusively, even when talking job satisfaction and moving to a new job.
- Cogito 8y agoThe bigger issue here is that they reacted to this event, rather than proactively managing it. From the article, “Access to sensitive data is logged, and the company has automated systems designed to detect and prevent abuse”,but if that were the case surely they would have acted on this before it became public. In reality they have no incentive to police this kind of behaviour until they are called out on it. In truth, I would never spend time and effort looking into potential malfeasance myself, as I would be too focused on building out new features and ideas. I don’t know if a natural incentive exists that would drive the behaviour it seems society expects.
- Maro 8y agoYou are wrong. > In reality they have no incentive to police this kind of behaviour until they are called out on it. Access to personal information of users is "policed" internally, proactively, and you can get fired over it. It's one of the things they hammer into your head the first month of bootcamp after you join. The internal tooling and frameworks have all sorts of built-on heuristics to catch this [1], and there's internal teams who're continuously improving these security measures. [1] this = accessing information not related to your job duties
- Cogito 8y agoHappy to be wrong. Are you saying this person was fired before it became public that they had misused data? Or was it reactionary?
- Maro 8y agoI don't know about this case. But I know for a fact you can get fired for this without any public/PR issue, by internal triggers/investigation only.
- Cogito 8y agoFor what it’s worth, I believe you. I sincerely believe that people would have been fired for inappropriate use/access of data. My comment is a deeper one. The incentive in general is to improve value produced, and identifying bad actors is not a short term way to increase value produced. Long term it probably is positive, but because those outcomes are somewhat removed from the immediate here and now I expect them to be disincentivised. I would love to see evidence or reason for why they aren’t, but that’s the thrust of my thinking.
- beloch 8y agoFiring employees dumb enough to snoop and brag isn't enough to restore user confidence. Facebook needs to take concrete steps to prevent employees from snooping, and it needs to be publicly seen doing so. I stopped using Facebook years ago because I felt it was just too invasive. I've felt like a technological Luddite ever since, but boy are Zuckerberg & Co. ever doing their level best to make me look prescient!
- beedogs 8y agoIf it makes you feel any better, you've missed absolutely nothing. Facebook has only gotten worse.
- chiefalchemist 8y agoFB was been and still is what it's always been...a mirror and a magnifier. What's changing is the tolerance some ppl (e.g., you, me, the HN'er above your comment) have for it's mindless minutia, as well as the privacy issues. The takeaway for me is simple: the evolution of humans - FB the Big Inc and the masses that feed its bottom line -is greatly exaggerated. Could some of the devo'ing be due to FB? I suppose. But for the most part, the signs have been there all along, FB just made it undeniable.
- psyc 8y agoI agree it's roughly the same as it's been. I think its ubiquity has made the FB situation worse.
- chiefalchemist 8y agoYes. If nothing else,easier to see, and at the same time complicity / "normalization" has increased. It's a massive collective blindspot.
- jazoom 8y agoI agree. It has gotten noticeably worse (for me) every month for several months now, possibly years. The algorithm picks such rubbish for my timeline I'd probably rather see ads. I mainly use Facebook for the messaging.
- ada1981 8y agoZuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask. Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks.
- icebraining 8y agoNever a truer word spoken.
- lumberjack 8y agoMy prediction is this: in the future data will be as regulated as regulated substances are today. Facebook and Google and a few others will be akin to the mass manufacturers of this "controlled substance" and the selling and use of data will be regulated is such a way that private entities cannot willy nilly pay to spy on people. They will however be allowed to buy certain kinds of data for commercial use. In some regards this will be an improvement, in the sense that it would be harder for actuaries to weaponise your data against you, without your explicit consent. It would make it easier to control the use of the data collected about you. On the other hand it will legitimize surveillance by state agents and very powerful private entities. Another prediction is that countries might eventually start considering data a matter of national security and might restrict the transfer of data about their citizens across borders.
- kalleboo 8y agoAren't you just describing the GDPR?
- shanghaiaway 8y agoDumb fucks.
- dang 8y agoPlease don't do this here.
- usrusr 8y agoAm I the only one who completely fails to see the smoking gun in that screenshot?
- usrusr 8y agoTo make it more clear: I'm not trying to defend anyone in a case I know nothing about, but if there is further evidence that cannot be made public, a non-exposing description of that evidence must be the central piece of the article, not some screenshot that only stirs emotion because someone used the word "stalker". With that as the focal point, the article makes it all seem like a baseless witchhunt and that can only be harmful to the cause.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jdormit 8y agoYou are not. To me it comes off like a misguided attempt to impress someone, not an admission of actual wrongdoing. The guy comes off as a creepy asshole for sure, but it's basically just bragging. But really, given everything going on with Facebook, why would an employee ever think this was a good idea? That's what is really beyond me.
- otterley 8y agoThe complete conversation was not included, to protect the identity of the complainant.
- andrewdon 8y ago"Access to sensitive data is logged, and the company has automated systems designed to detect and prevent abuse, Stamos said." Looks like FB failed again to achieve this.
- newscracker 8y agoThis reminds me of LOVEINT [1] [2], as a somewhat recent example of how available data on people can, and will, be misused. Despite any claimed heuristic software monitoring controls put in place and any instructions hammered in the first month of job orientation, it's undeniable that Facebook is a treasure trove of information on what people like or dislike, what people do, where they go, where they are, what they talk about on Messenger (think it's private), etc. I see it as a question of when, not if, we'd see more stories of stalking and abuse (including physical violence) perpetrated by those employed by Facebook. The "authentic names" policy only makes this ever so easier to find and follow people. Firing someone after some damage is done is nothing compared to what the victims have suffered and may continue to suffer. I personally question the ethics of people who even choose to work for a company like Facebook. So my (hyperbolic) view is that this is not something to be shocked about. Not with Facebook! [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT [2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24/loveint-when-nsa-officers-use-their-spying-power-on-love-interests/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/24...
- ihsw2 8y agoThere is a fairly strong heuristic for measuring who is less likely to be an anti-social maniac like the one in the article -- marriage. Throughout history and across the world, married men (and women) are universally much less likely to be exhibit anti-social behavior to the point where it is an enduring fixture (if not the enduring fixture) in the civilizing process.
- yorwba 8y agoAre you basing this on actual data or is that just your opinion? I'm under the impression that for most of history, marriage status was determined by one's age and social status rather than a choice that would allow conclusions about personality traits.
- ionised 8y agoOr that those people are more likely to conform to whatever ideal society expects of them at that time, marriage included.
- cm2187 8y agoFired for bragging about it? What about being fired for doing it? If they log these accesses that's the way he should have been caught. Reminds me of David Viniar's "unfortunate to have that on email" blunder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccjZEvBGOuk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccjZEvBGOuk
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bhhaskin 8y agoNot as good of a headline.
- dontwaitesforme 8y agoThats just the headline...
- inanutshellus 8y agoRule number one of Faceclub: You don't talk about Faceclub.
- vinchuco 8y agoPrivacy problem solved!
- quantumofmalice 8y agoThe elite code of conduct: Do what thou wilt, but for goodness sake don't say anything about it
- petropolisful 8y ago...in keeping with the virtues of silence!
- liberte82 8y agoWas that employee Mark Zuckerberg?
- loceng 8y agoGot a good laugh out of me. Upvoted. We'll probably both get downvoted though.
- fenwick67 8y agoFor those not aware, this chat log is attributed to Zuckerberg: ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard ZUCK: just ask ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns
- Rjevski 8y agoIs there any evidence of any wrongdoing here? His access to personal information is absolutely normal given his job title and frankly, I’m surprised that the other person feels unsafe after hearing this despite the fact she’s apparently a software engineer so the fact he has this access shouldn’t come to her as a surprise, and in her job she has probably the same level of access if not more.
- crypto_jeronimo 8y agoWho is going to fire Zuck, then?
- crypto-jeronimo 8y agoWho is going to fire Zuck, then?