10 ms·
Facebook taps lawyer who helped write Patriot Act as new general counsel
- crappy-doo 7y agoand you're all going pretend to be surprised by this?
- iscrewyou 7y agoSomeone tell these yahoos that optics is a thing. I expect the next statement to be about transparency and connecting communities. Just like the last one. And the one before.
- malloreon 7y agofor facebook optics is not a thing. they know they have a stranglehold on people addicted to their products, and advertisers who pay through the nose to sell things to those addicts. Honestly, why bother with optics? No one's going to like the company ever again except their employees, but no business or politician or organization is going to not take facebook's call.
- FartyMcFarter 7y agoWhy bother with optics? Well, for one thing, presumably they still need to recruit people once in a while (including people with lots and lots of options).
- malloreon 7y agoAnyone who will work for facebook now doesn't care about optics.
- m0zg 7y agoThey solve this problem with large wads of cash and FB stock. A couple of my friends there make close to a million dollars a year each in total comp just being middle managers. FB has no problem whatsoever with recruiting or retention of top talent.
- newscracker 7y agoIMO, the kind of people who work for and who would join Facebook are the ones who're self-selected to not care about morals or the ill effects of their work on billions of people. So optics doesn't come into the equation for Facebook to recruit people. Those who do care about optics would never even dream of working at Facebook.
- Kiro 7y agoYou're exaggerating. What are those ill effects exactly?
- FartyMcFarter 7y agoConsult the N apologies Zuckerberg has issued on things like privacy for some examples.
- m0zg 7y ago^ this HN reader has it right. And we'll see the extent of that truth tomorrow when FB announces their earnings. Most of the problems in the world can be solved with robust revenue growth. It's only when you're on the decline that "optics" begin to matter, and FB is most certainly not in decline, at least outside the HN bubble.
- munk-a 7y agoI disagree strongly with this, if FB manages to continue pissing off politicians they'll get the full unjust wrath of the US government turned on them for petty reasons. Just a little while ago Zuckerberg got schooled on why he should've been paying a lot more money to lobbyists.
- m0zg 7y agoBut that's not the "optics" you're likely to see. Those kinds of things only come to light much later, and FB has historically shown itself to be very amenable to such backroom deals: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-scandal-trump-election-obama-2012/ https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/facebook-data-...
- faxi 7y agoIt depends on how the ongoing Cambridge Analytica scandal goes. Gawker closed up despite it's billion-dollar Unicorn status because of a $140M verdict. A multi-billion dollar suit like the Cambridge Analytica could be devastating.
- m0zg 7y agoYou're missing one simple fact: people in the House, Senate, and Oval Office (irrespective of administration) need FB to get elected nowadays. They also need docile/agreeable Zuck. FB isn't going anywhere.
- Kiro 7y agoNormal people outside the tech bubble still like Facebook. Even inside it there are people who do (I like Facebook).
- munk-a 7y agoFacebook is absolutely terrible at optics, and I'd love it if someone with weak enough morals to be involved with the PATRIOT ACT was unable to find work again but... I honestly don't care that much, this is just a drop in the water compared to the revolving doors between the government and defense firms.
- newscracker 7y agoOptics don't seem to matter as much in some cases. There was a big hue and cry in 2014 when Condoleeza Rice was appointed to the board of directors of Dropbox. She's still around on the board. [1] All the protests with #DropDropbox, the threats to ditch the service and actions by many to ditch it didn't achieve much. I doubt if many people understand the deep implications of The Patriot Act as much as they may understand water boarding and other tactics. [1]: https://www.dropbox.com/about https://www.dropbox.com/about
- resters 7y agoFacebook is the defense contractor that is building America's Great Firewall and social credit system, so it makes sense that there is a revolving door with the authoritarian regime.
- i_am_nomad 7y agoI’m not familiar with either of those two projects. Perhaps the latter is the aggregation of numerous “good customer” scores, plus actual credit rating, plus the no-fly list. But I haven’t heard about an actual program that implements a social credit score that FB is implementing.
- gdsdfe 7y agoIt's called sarcasm
- resters 7y agoFacebook's social graph and engagement data combined with data already obtained by governments makes an elaborate social credit score easy to generate. As for the great firewall, Facebook has been in talks with lawmakers who want Facebook to do more to prevent "fake news" which is another way of saying that lawmakers want to use Facebook to control the news narrative. So far, Facebook has been extremely complaint with both of these areas. This new hire is further evidence that Facebook plans to support user privacy only after offering the government plenty of reassurance that its interests and patriot act powers will not be adversely impacted. I've been concerned/cynical about Facebook's stance on this stuff for a while, but this hire is really chilling. If anyone reading this hasn't read the Patriot Act, give it a read. It is shocking both in how stupid and technologically naive the wording is, as well as in its blatant disregard for the bill of rights. It's definitely the most shameful piece of legislation passed in my lifetime.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jakelazaroff 7y agoTo those unsure as to why this is particularly relevant: the Patriot Act is notable for drastically expanding the surveillance powers of the US government [1]. I wonder what this lawyer will do at Facebook? [1] https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/surveillance-under-patriot-act https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-su...
- OrgNet 7y agoAnd Obama promised to repeal the "PATRIOT" Act but instead signed to extend and expand it... If he had not signed anything, it would have expired all by itself... edit: sorry if you don't like the truth (I know that a lot of you commit to only one political party, but still... the truth is the truth.).
- munk-a 7y agoAs all administrations have done and will continue to do for the foreseeable future...
- hyperbovine 7y agoTwo{four, five, ten} wrongs do not a right make...
- munk-a 7y agoAbsolutely, I'm waiting for a real leader to get into office who will actually strike these recent security theatre laws down. My comment wasn't greatly worded, but in no way is Obama innocent or deserving of defense here - but at the same time Bush definitely deserves the biggest blame, Obama and Trump share blame equally.
- OrgNet 7y agoObama is more to blame because he did the opposite of what he promised during his campaign... I don't recall Trump making any promises to reduce spying on citizens... Actually, I voted for Trump because I thought that he would make the breaking point come sooner rather then later (because the way it's going, that's how it's going to end anyways).
- hsnewman 7y agoI for one don't let Facebook use me. This makes little difference to me.
- criddell 7y agoFacebook probably has a lot of data on you regardless. Are you in any friends' address book? Do you use a loyalty card at the grocery store? Ever walk in a mall? Own a car? Pay property tax? Have a mailing address?
- silversconfused 7y agoFutility is a terrible reason to stop fighting.
- georgyo 7y ago100% but just not using Facebook is not a very effective strategy. And thinking that not using Facebook protects you from Facebook could be dangerous.
- silversconfused 7y agoLegally, it does. If they use my information in a way that is not allowed, I am not required to use arbitration. I can sue. Users cannot.
- StanislavPetrov 7y agoGood luck with that.
- criddell 7y agoI didn't say the person should stop fighting or that fighting is futile. I was saying they are being naive if they think Facebook has no data on them.
- qwertox 7y ago
- SilasX 7y ago"How can we possibly form a legal case that justifies mass surveillance?" 'I think I know just the guy...' Edit: I was going to pre-emptively delete this as a joke/low-effort comment, but I think it's a tad useful in highlighting what Facebook "use case" this lawyer would be good for.
- newscracker 7y agoI don't see your comment as joke/low-effort in this context. Facebook has repeatedly shown itself to be so morally bankrupt that such "jokes" reflect reality, and aren't jokes anymore. With impending regulation that will attempt to control and/or break up Facebook, this move is yet another sign that the company has no soul left in it.
- username223 7y ago> John Yoo called her the "day-to-day manager of the Patriot Act in Congress." I'm surprised they didn't hire John "Torture Memo" Yoo himself. Was Newstead really that much of a bargain? I know this is snarky, but these people lawyered some pretty serious evil into the world.
- rocqua 7y agoAm I the only one who read this title and immediately thought of a wiretap?
- xfitm3 7y agoThe taller you are the harder you fall. Lets hope this merc gets cockblocked before destroying the last bit of our online liberties.
- _bxg1 7y agoYou'd think if nothing else their PR department would've caught this. These headlines just write themselves.
- javagram 7y agoDuplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19725489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19725489 which was discussed yesterday?
- Jerry2 7y agoUnfortunately that story was sinkholed by mods and this one too seems to be experiencing the same fate (it's dropping way faster than normal).
- adnanazadsg 7y agoI dont consider Facebook inherently evil and even their more recents f-ups around user privacy and security I had attributed to incompetence of the employees (anyone working at a large co would know - this is all very common). But when they hire people like this, I dont know how to excuse them anymore...
- gtfo_bro 7y agoHoly shit. You are an asshole, dude. Fucking commit suicide. Please.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jarym 7y agoI thought rats are meant to flee sinking ships rather than board them! Sorry - could not resist the joke!
- patrickg_zill 7y agoSomehow this seems like a homecoming... Facebook was funded in part by the CIA's In-Q-Tel investment arm. See e.g. https://dailyreckoning.com/revealed-facebooks-cia-connections/ https://dailyreckoning.com/revealed-facebooks-cia-connection...
- dredmorbius 7y agoOT: What a pathetically annoying case of autoplaying, non-dismissable, autoplaying video (mobile). Completely destroys a decent story.
- sprayk 7y agoAny time I see arguments to effect of "lawyer X lawyered for Y, and Y is bad, so lawyer X is bad," I remember an episode from Star Trek: TNG called "The Measure of a Man," in which Picard is chosen to defend Data's right to self-determination as a sentient being, and Riker is chosen to make the opposite case for the character that wants to treat Data as a machine, a weapon that can be reallocated freely like a Jeep or a rifle. Riker struggles with this, but ends up giving the best case he can so the matter can be settled without any doubts. Doing a bad job on purpose leaves room for doubt and summary judgement, which is far from ideal. I think the PATRIOT Act is complete bullshit, but I'm not going to hold a grudge against anyone that worked on it, only those who passed it and continue to vote to renew/strengthen it, who also refuse to listen to arguments against it.
- Aeolun 7y agoAside from that, I think that a lot of developers are in a terrible position to blame that lawyer. How often have you added morally dubious scripts or features to your company products/websites?
- cmonnow 7y agodidn't realize that wasn't a rhetoric.. have you actually added gray-area features ? any anecdotes without giving away your trench position ?
- SaltyBackendGuy 7y agoDamn that was a good episode. Thanks for the nostalgia. Anecdotally, my father was a criminal defense attorney. There clients he didn't want to represent for personal reasons but did due to financial obligations, part of the profession. Lucky for him later in his career he was able to pick and choose more freely. But I agree, the "lawyer X lawyered for Y" argument is a farce in most cases.
- cam_l 7y agoThat is a beautiful argument, but Star Trek is wishful fantasy. The reality is probably, most of the time, Riker was the only guy left after all the others, who could afford to, declined the case. But this is not even this kind of case, not in terms of need, nor in terms of service to a greater principle. And we do actually need to hold people to account for their actions. There can be mitigating factors, but just doing your job has not been a defense for quite some time.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- bitL 7y agoTech people should get it out of their heads that the stewards of industry follow the same virtuous passions that got these techies into tech in the first place. I became so disgusted by "leadership qualities" showcased in the past 3-4 years that I am now setting up multiple federated servers with all kinds of FANG-functionality replacements so that the new generation of techies is still allowed to dream about better world freely, instead of taking xyz-pill everyday, turning them into cynics.