5 ms·

Attorneys General in Six States Are Now Investigating Facebook's Data Practices

79 points by jmsflknr 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
As a New Yorker who commutes to the Bay Area once a month (and grew up there), there is a distinct East Coast-West Coast divide on this issue. In the Bay Area, there is recognition of a problem but a sense that Facebook is invincible. In New York, there is productive outrage.
- duxup 8y ago
  The US government system can be weird (well I guess they all can be) but the way this plays out, I like it.
- 40acres 8y ago
  I wonder if this is simply tied to history, due to the nature of American expansion the Atlantic and Midwestern cities have a longer history of corporations and have more history of tackling large controversial industry (railroads, banks, even baseball!), off the top of my head I can't think of a history defining action vs. a West coast based industry (probably just lack of knowledge on my part), but it seems big tech will be the first.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
tombert 8y ago
I really hope this leads to a reform in the whole EULA thing. I've always really disliked that they have a fifty page document outlining all the minutia in a legal language that I personally don't know a lot about. You could argue that I should thoroughly read everything, and that's fair enough for stuff I do at home, but very often I have to install things for work, and if I say that I need to spend four hours consulting with the legal team to install Microsoft Office, I honestly feel that they'll think I'm just trying to waste time.
- rjf72 8y ago
  While I completely agree, I think there's a more fundamental problem. Imagine Facebook's T&C said, "We will spy on you in any and all ways we can imagine. We will take every piece of information we can possibly collect about you and use it however we want. You have no rights and if you ever sue us, you agree that we win by default. We have the right to add whatever we want to this agreement, whenever we want with immediate effect." How many people would read it, and decide not to install their software or use their site? For sure some might, but for the most part I think people would mostly just shrug and click next. Many people don't seem to understand the value of things unless it hits them directly in the wallet.
  - slededit 8y ago
    The “we win by default” phrase is also in some scummier payday loan contracts and is apparently legal. But I don’t think it should be legal to waive your court rights like that.
    - tombert 8y ago
      I remember during the Equifax breach of 2017, they put that clause in there if you signed up for their credit monitoring system. I always thought those clauses were funny...would that hold up anywhere else? "Hey, sorry I shot you...here's a bandaid, now you can't sue me!"
- tzs 8y ago
  Making EULAs easier to deal with could be part of privacy legislation or tied to such legislation. The things covered by privacy legislation will generally fall into three groups. 1. Things that you cannot agree to forego or allow, 2. Things that you can agree to forego or allow, but only as part of an actual negotiation, not implicitly by saying you agree to a EULA, and 3. Things that you can agree to forego or allow by indicating agreement to a EULA, such as by clicking an "I agree" link on a EULA screen. The privacy legislation could say that in order to get such agreement a EULA must list in a separate section all the items it has from #3, explicitly citing the section and name for each item from the privacy law. The idea behind the explicit cite to the privacy law is to provide a standard term for each item, so you won't get confused by different companies having different names for the same thing. This wouldn't cover all the things one might find in a EULA, such as liability limitations, choice of law or choice of venue clauses, arbitration clauses, etc., but it would make it a lot easier to quickly check to see what privacy rights you might be giving up if you click through.
o10449366 8y ago
I'd rather they go after Equifax first, thanks.
- samcday 8y ago
  I disagree. Firstly, Facebook is much more dangerous than Equifax. Yeah, Equifax has data on hundreds of millions of US citizens, plus a few million more in other countries. Facebook has all that data plus MORE on some 2 billion people. Secondly, why can't it be both? :)
  - djohnston 8y ago
    equifax is far worse, but they could do both
  - MiddleEndian 8y ago
    Equifax can directly affect people's mortgage rate and everyone in the United States is forced to interact with them. US political figures can be concerned with both, but I'd say Equifax is a higher priority.
at-fates-hands 8y ago
Like all the scandals FB is involved in, nothing will happen. Sure, lots of hand wringing and talk about breaking them up will surface again like it always does. Nothing that will really put a kink in their revenues or get them to change anything about how they handle user's privacy will happen.
samcday 8y ago
At some point in the future, we'll be looking back at news like this in one of two ways. Either with fondness - this was how we reformed companies like Facebook and Google and their rampant invasion of privacy for the individual! Or we'll not look back at it at all. Because they'll win, enslave us all, and have the Ministry of Truth rewrite it out of history entirely. EDIT: fixed failed 1984 reference ;)
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  our reality seems closer to Brave New World than 1984
  - moosey 8y ago
    Different impulses for different people. Basically, both are actively happening (1984: 'The Party', realities built on lies and tightly controlled information, etc.), and on Brave New World, which is something that we see in contemporary social media, the opiate of the masses. I've noted how much an effect marketing has had in my own cultural leaning and decision making process throughout my life of late, and I'm quite blown away. It seems that the only information source that I can read that isn't immediately trying to shape my opinion about something to my detriment are actual scientific papers, at this point. It's quite exhausting to be informed.
    - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
      interesting and I agree with you. sorry if my original comment sounded like I was correcting you or something. I had my mind made up after watching an actual 90 mins panel[1] on this subject - then after watching I re-read both books and since then thought I finally had my answer to this annoying question. that is until you just tore it all up again with more facts I hadn't considered :) the problem you describe with reading feels very familiar. I haven't had time to read any fiction for 20 years and only focused on papers (or stuff that I felt had some kind of immediate value to my career). The only pleasure I allowed myself was social media, shallow type of blogs and regurgitated opinions from books that were published not longer than the previous 2 years. then one day I noticed something was missing in my life and I missed the fiction of my childhood. I then switched to reading only old books (nothing published after 1970 preferably before WWII ...) and the more old stuff I read the less I wanted to write. I felt there is no point in reading new books because everything that could have ever been said has already been said. (NNTaleb pointed me to this "fact" in Antifragile which also triggered my abstinence from anything new). I used to write a lot of blogs before too but after reading old things I realize I have little to add to the conversation (and if I do it's just diluting the pool of good existing content). maybe we're just all totally overloaded from the amount of data our brains are being asked to process these days. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31CcclqEiZw&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31CcclqEiZw&t=1s
simplecomplex 8y ago
And who has actually been materially harmed by using Facebook, because of Facebook’s actions? No one, as far as I can tell. > investigation of “existing allegations,” though the report does not mention what those are. Okay...

79 points by jmsflknr 8y ago

As a New Yorker who commutes to the Bay Area once a month (and grew up there), there is a distinct East Coast-West Coast divide on this issue. In the Bay Area, there is recognition of a problem but a sense that Facebook is invincible. In New York, there is productive outrage.

duxup 8y ago
The US government system can be weird (well I guess they all can be) but the way this plays out, I like it.
40acres 8y ago
I wonder if this is simply tied to history, due to the nature of American expansion the Atlantic and Midwestern cities have a longer history of corporations and have more history of tackling large controversial industry (railroads, banks, even baseball!), off the top of my head I can't think of a history defining action vs. a West coast based industry (probably just lack of knowledge on my part), but it seems big tech will be the first.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

tombert 8y ago

I really hope this leads to a reform in the whole EULA thing. I've always really disliked that they have a fifty page document outlining all the minutia in a legal language that I personally don't know a lot about. You could argue that I should thoroughly read everything, and that's fair enough for stuff I do at home, but very often I have to install things for work, and if I say that I need to spend four hours consulting with the legal team to install Microsoft Office, I honestly feel that they'll think I'm just trying to waste time.

rjf72 8y ago
While I completely agree, I think there's a more fundamental problem. Imagine Facebook's T&C said, "We will spy on you in any and all ways we can imagine. We will take every piece of information we can possibly collect about you and use it however we want. You have no rights and if you ever sue us, you agree that we win by default. We have the right to add whatever we want to this agreement, whenever we want with immediate effect." How many people would read it, and decide not to install their software or use their site? For sure some might, but for the most part I think people would mostly just shrug and click next. Many people don't seem to understand the value of things unless it hits them directly in the wallet.
- slededit 8y ago
  The “we win by default” phrase is also in some scummier payday loan contracts and is apparently legal. But I don’t think it should be legal to waive your court rights like that.
  - tombert 8y ago
    I remember during the Equifax breach of 2017, they put that clause in there if you signed up for their credit monitoring system. I always thought those clauses were funny...would that hold up anywhere else? "Hey, sorry I shot you...here's a bandaid, now you can't sue me!"
tzs 8y ago
Making EULAs easier to deal with could be part of privacy legislation or tied to such legislation. The things covered by privacy legislation will generally fall into three groups. 1. Things that you cannot agree to forego or allow, 2. Things that you can agree to forego or allow, but only as part of an actual negotiation, not implicitly by saying you agree to a EULA, and 3. Things that you can agree to forego or allow by indicating agreement to a EULA, such as by clicking an "I agree" link on a EULA screen. The privacy legislation could say that in order to get such agreement a EULA must list in a separate section all the items it has from #3, explicitly citing the section and name for each item from the privacy law. The idea behind the explicit cite to the privacy law is to provide a standard term for each item, so you won't get confused by different companies having different names for the same thing. This wouldn't cover all the things one might find in a EULA, such as liability limitations, choice of law or choice of venue clauses, arbitration clauses, etc., but it would make it a lot easier to quickly check to see what privacy rights you might be giving up if you click through.

o10449366 8y ago

I'd rather they go after Equifax first, thanks.

samcday 8y ago
I disagree. Firstly, Facebook is much more dangerous than Equifax. Yeah, Equifax has data on hundreds of millions of US citizens, plus a few million more in other countries. Facebook has all that data plus MORE on some 2 billion people. Secondly, why can't it be both? :)
- djohnston 8y ago
  equifax is far worse, but they could do both
- MiddleEndian 8y ago
  Equifax can directly affect people's mortgage rate and everyone in the United States is forced to interact with them. US political figures can be concerned with both, but I'd say Equifax is a higher priority.

at-fates-hands 8y ago

Like all the scandals FB is involved in, nothing will happen. Sure, lots of hand wringing and talk about breaking them up will surface again like it always does. Nothing that will really put a kink in their revenues or get them to change anything about how they handle user's privacy will happen.

samcday 8y ago

At some point in the future, we'll be looking back at news like this in one of two ways. Either with fondness - this was how we reformed companies like Facebook and Google and their rampant invasion of privacy for the individual! Or we'll not look back at it at all. Because they'll win, enslave us all, and have the Ministry of Truth rewrite it out of history entirely. EDIT: fixed failed 1984 reference ;)

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
our reality seems closer to Brave New World than 1984
- moosey 8y ago
  Different impulses for different people. Basically, both are actively happening (1984: 'The Party', realities built on lies and tightly controlled information, etc.), and on Brave New World, which is something that we see in contemporary social media, the opiate of the masses. I've noted how much an effect marketing has had in my own cultural leaning and decision making process throughout my life of late, and I'm quite blown away. It seems that the only information source that I can read that isn't immediately trying to shape my opinion about something to my detriment are actual scientific papers, at this point. It's quite exhausting to be informed.
  - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
    interesting and I agree with you. sorry if my original comment sounded like I was correcting you or something. I had my mind made up after watching an actual 90 mins panel[1] on this subject - then after watching I re-read both books and since then thought I finally had my answer to this annoying question. that is until you just tore it all up again with more facts I hadn't considered :) the problem you describe with reading feels very familiar. I haven't had time to read any fiction for 20 years and only focused on papers (or stuff that I felt had some kind of immediate value to my career). The only pleasure I allowed myself was social media, shallow type of blogs and regurgitated opinions from books that were published not longer than the previous 2 years. then one day I noticed something was missing in my life and I missed the fiction of my childhood. I then switched to reading only old books (nothing published after 1970 preferably before WWII ...) and the more old stuff I read the less I wanted to write. I felt there is no point in reading new books because everything that could have ever been said has already been said. (NNTaleb pointed me to this "fact" in Antifragile which also triggered my abstinence from anything new). I used to write a lot of blogs before too but after reading old things I realize I have little to add to the conversation (and if I do it's just diluting the pool of good existing content). maybe we're just all totally overloaded from the amount of data our brains are being asked to process these days. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31CcclqEiZw&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31CcclqEiZw&t=1s

simplecomplex 8y ago

And who has actually been materially harmed by using Facebook, because of Facebook’s actions? No one, as far as I can tell. > investigation of “existing allegations,” though the report does not mention what those are. Okay...