4 ms·

(disclosure: i used to work for FB). This article left out words like "publicly available information" and "user consent". Why?

fredoliveira 8y ago
I'm confused about what is publicly available information in private messages. Can you explain?
- jonathanehrlich 8y ago
  I'm not sure either but i don't believe there is such a thing. No private message data was shared publicly.
  - fredoliveira 8y ago
    I mean, the articles don't suggest it was shared publicly :-) They suggest it was shared with specific companies - but that it was shared nevertheless. That sounds like a serious violation of users' privacy.
    - jonathanehrlich 8y ago
      If they did it without user consent, it would be an issue for sure.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
retSava 8y ago
If by "publicly available information" you mean the EULA, this can in practice not really be expected to be read and understood by the average user. A wall of text with vague remarks is par for such things. Add to this a constantly moving set of settings that change meaning over time (who can read this post now again?).
- jonathanehrlich 8y ago
  you don't need to give consent for publicly available information. if we are friends FB and you like a song on spotify and share that on fb publicly, why shouldn't I be able to see that when i'm on FB or Spotify? It makes my experience better on both. That's what instant personalization was. Again, the times failed to talk about that.
IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
Yes: why? Or better: what. As in: what are you trying to tell us? That private messages are publicly available information, anyway? Or friends list, when set to private? But to fulfill your yearning, the original NYT report mentions “consent” 12 times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-priva... (Although two of those mentions are in the context of “consent decree”, which arguably doesn’t make it look any better) A taste: “This is just giving third parties permission to harvest data without you being informed of it or giving consent to it,” said David Vladeck, who formerly ran the F.T.C.’s consumer protection bureau. “I don’t understand how this unconsented-to data harvesting can at all be justified under the consent decree.”
- jonathanehrlich 8y ago
  No where in this article do they say users gave consent to have their information shared which they were required to do before such services could be implemented. At best, that's bad reporting and misleading at worst it's an agenda.
  - anonunt 8y ago
    Sometimes I wonder if everyone at facebook is this naive and that is what is actually going on.
    - nindalf 8y ago
      Thinly veiled insults at someone who used to work for facebook is hardly within the rules of HN. Let's not start flame wars.
      - anonunt 8y ago
        I am sorry if i offend.. that is not the intention, this is an important question - is the naivety of the staff part of the problem? maybe i am wrong but user blaming seems so very basic to me, and completely ignores how you are responsible for the things you create and the damage they do - and the false confidence or foolish acts they lead people into. I would like to believe that on average we are ready to just not accept user blaming for privacy and security issues. if they are not qualified to wield the tools then we should not have given them out. as in: "blaming the user is an immature response" seems like a statement it should be okay to say.
Despegar 8y ago
There's a difference between tech industry "consent" and informed consent.

fredoliveira 8y ago

I'm confused about what is publicly available information in private messages. Can you explain?

jonathanehrlich 8y ago
I'm not sure either but i don't believe there is such a thing. No private message data was shared publicly.
- fredoliveira 8y ago
  I mean, the articles don't suggest it was shared publicly :-) They suggest it was shared with specific companies - but that it was shared nevertheless. That sounds like a serious violation of users' privacy.
  - jonathanehrlich 8y ago
    If they did it without user consent, it would be an issue for sure.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

retSava 8y ago

If by "publicly available information" you mean the EULA, this can in practice not really be expected to be read and understood by the average user. A wall of text with vague remarks is par for such things. Add to this a constantly moving set of settings that change meaning over time (who can read this post now again?).

jonathanehrlich 8y ago
you don't need to give consent for publicly available information. if we are friends FB and you like a song on spotify and share that on fb publicly, why shouldn't I be able to see that when i'm on FB or Spotify? It makes my experience better on both. That's what instant personalization was. Again, the times failed to talk about that.

IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago

Yes: why? Or better: what. As in: what are you trying to tell us? That private messages are publicly available information, anyway? Or friends list, when set to private? But to fulfill your yearning, the original NYT report mentions “consent” 12 times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/technology/facebook-priva... (Although two of those mentions are in the context of “consent decree”, which arguably doesn’t make it look any better) A taste: “This is just giving third parties permission to harvest data without you being informed of it or giving consent to it,” said David Vladeck, who formerly ran the F.T.C.’s consumer protection bureau. “I don’t understand how this unconsented-to data harvesting can at all be justified under the consent decree.”

jonathanehrlich 8y ago
No where in this article do they say users gave consent to have their information shared which they were required to do before such services could be implemented. At best, that's bad reporting and misleading at worst it's an agenda.
- anonunt 8y ago
  Sometimes I wonder if everyone at facebook is this naive and that is what is actually going on.
  - nindalf 8y ago
    Thinly veiled insults at someone who used to work for facebook is hardly within the rules of HN. Let's not start flame wars.
    - anonunt 8y ago
      I am sorry if i offend.. that is not the intention, this is an important question - is the naivety of the staff part of the problem? maybe i am wrong but user blaming seems so very basic to me, and completely ignores how you are responsible for the things you create and the damage they do - and the false confidence or foolish acts they lead people into. I would like to believe that on average we are ready to just not accept user blaming for privacy and security issues. if they are not qualified to wield the tools then we should not have given them out. as in: "blaming the user is an immature response" seems like a statement it should be okay to say.

Despegar 8y ago

There's a difference between tech industry "consent" and informed consent.