8 ms·

Still distraught that Equifax, which was so egregious, was not disciplined at this level.

dymk 7y ago
Facebook got a lot more news coverage over a longer period of time
Jach 7y ago
Has anyone done an estimate to how much it would cost to roll out an actual ID system instead of continuing to use SSNs? Perhaps this unrelated $5BN can be used towards it. /s
- dymk 7y ago
  It's not a matter of money cost. Americans are (in some ways rationally, in most irrationally) terrified of a national ID.
  - r00fus 7y ago
    Who's ginning up that terror? Where there's an irrational fear, there's usually a vested interest involved.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Comparing US society to the USSR. The US wanted to not ever become a "papers please" society, and tried to make it impossible to become one. Some of this changed after 9/11, but the underlying mentality is still somewhat there.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  Unfortunately I don't see something like that ever passing America. Nobody supports a national ID.
  - dewyatt 7y ago
    Real ID gets us much closer to having a national ID. Give it time.
    - r00fus 7y ago
      How? It's specifically not a national ID, just a set of standards for state issued IDs. It gets us closer in the sense that climbing a mountain gets one closer to the moon.
  - Jach 7y ago
    I support a national ID... But for people who don't, what is the functional difference between a SSN today and a national ID, apart from SSNs being broken for such a purpose? It still gets asked for very broadly (not just for credit-related things... let alone for social security related things) and people very easily give them up. One might also ask the same question when IDs for different purposes are used -- why not a fuss over driver's licenses and passports, which are context-dependent IDs? We can always call it something else. "National signature card". The ideal implementation would be something like Estonia's ID card.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      Drivers licenses are already contentious in some respects, and a National ID is likely to be contentious in those same respects. Namely, if you create one, is it then acceptable to require voters to present it before allowing them to vote? Partisan disagreement over this issue is likely to stall progress.
      - tzs 7y ago
        I'm not sure it would remain a partisan issue if a national ID were used, assuming that there were also good mechanisms in place to make sure everyone can easily get their ID card for free. The reasons attempts to require voter ID at polling places is currently a partisan issue include: 1. The level of voter fraud is very low, and what little there is almost always would not be prevented by voter ID at the polling place. It usually takes place by absentee ballots, or is based on registering people to vote who should not be eligible (which can be addressed someone by ID requirement--but at registration, not at the polls). 2. When deciding what forms of ID are acceptable, there has been a remarkable correlation between whether a given form is allowed, and whether or not a significantly larger fraction of white voters have that form of ID than do black or Hispanic voters. 3. The same people that pass these voter ID laws have also, in many states, cut the budgets of the state agencies that issue IDs, generally be closing offices that can issue IDs and reducing the hours of those that remain. The closures have tended to be of offices that serve largely black or Hispanic populations, and the cutbacks in hours of the remaining offices have tended to eliminate weekend and evening service. I've read several stories about people who to get an ID had to take a two hour bus ride to reach one of the remaining offices, and had to take a day off work to do it, which was quite a hardship for them. In short, the current push for voter ID has almost nothing to do with insuring the integrity of the election process. It's about trying to make it harder for to vote for groups of voters that have historically voted against the party that is pushing for voter ID laws. If we had a national ID, issued by the Federal government rather than state governments, with a strong commitment to make sure everyone who was eligible received their card, and a Federal law that said any state voter ID check must accept the national ID card, it could probably be done in a way that avoids #2 and #3.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  What does "actual ID system" mean? SSN is literally a national ID system. Assigned at birth/immigration/residency. Used by national government to pay benefits, track Medicare membership, receive taxes, etc. If you're talking about adding photos and fingerprints and stuff to SSN or equivalent...that's not a cost thing. That's 100% a privacy thing.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    Actually, the SSN is an account number, solely intended for tracking money paid into and paid out of an account. It isn't meant for identification, and the method it's used for identification is terrible. (Largely: If you know the number, you are identified.) It's treated like a secret, but as a 9-digit number you give to dozens of organizations in your life which follows a predictable and partially guessable pattern, it is an absolutely terrible secret. Absolutely good explainer video about how this travesty took place historically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus
    - paulddraper 7y ago
      SSN is absolutely an identifier. It's like given name & surname (also identifiers), but actually unique. The problem is that SSN is not only an identifier, it's also the means of authentication, which is "the process or action of verifying an identity." --- To draw an analogy, username is an identifier. Password, SSH key exchange, etc. are mean of authentication, i.e. the process of verifying a username identifies the user. SSN is both a username and a password; it needs to be one or the other.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    Assigned at birth/immigration/residency A common misperception. A SSN is not assigned at birth. A child doesn't have to have a SSN unless the parents want to use him as a tax deduction. I didn't get mine until I was 17 and needed one to get a driver's license and passport.
    - paulddraper 7y ago
awillen 7y ago
Just so incredibly disturbing. For all of Facebook's fault, it's very easy to opt out of using it. When a service that the government forces you to use loses your data, heads should roll.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  >> For all of Facebook's fault, it's very easy to opt out of using it. Not really. Facebook has shadow profiles of non-users.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Perhaps in the sense that they have a session cookie that tracks impressions of sites which reference them on the web, and that information they have that their users uploaded that happen to also reference you. But not anything like in the sense of a logged in user and the level of knowledge they have about actual users. Facebook knows a lot less about non-registered users than Google does, for instance. And in the sense of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which is what this fine is about, my understanding is that non-users were entirely unaffected.
    - skybrian 7y ago
      Why do you think Google knows more than Facebook?
      - megous 7y ago
        Search queries reveal a lot.
        djakjxnanjak 7y ago
        Do we consider people making search queries on Google to be non-users?
rolltiide 7y ago
Facebook doesn't have a consumer facing product that people pay for Equifax did and offered it for free (credit monitoring/freezing upsell), even though it didn't fix the problem its monetary value masked the settlement.
notinversed 7y ago
Which level? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_TkbPZXkAITIol.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_TkbPZXkAITIol.jpg There is zero impact to Facebook from this fine. They are celebrating with champagne and looking at new yacht prices in Menlo Park. Nobody goes to jail, everyone keeps their jobs. They only broke Democracy, it seems like that would be the one crime you wouldn't just get off scot free for. The FTC is complicit, we don't seem to have a functional regulatory system in this country any more.

dymk 7y ago

Facebook got a lot more news coverage over a longer period of time

Jach 7y ago

Has anyone done an estimate to how much it would cost to roll out an actual ID system instead of continuing to use SSNs? Perhaps this unrelated $5BN can be used towards it. /s

dymk 7y ago
It's not a matter of money cost. Americans are (in some ways rationally, in most irrationally) terrified of a national ID.
- r00fus 7y ago
  Who's ginning up that terror? Where there's an irrational fear, there's usually a vested interest involved.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Comparing US society to the USSR. The US wanted to not ever become a "papers please" society, and tried to make it impossible to become one. Some of this changed after 9/11, but the underlying mentality is still somewhat there.
dahfizz 7y ago
Unfortunately I don't see something like that ever passing America. Nobody supports a national ID.
- dewyatt 7y ago
  Real ID gets us much closer to having a national ID. Give it time.
  - r00fus 7y ago
    How? It's specifically not a national ID, just a set of standards for state issued IDs. It gets us closer in the sense that climbing a mountain gets one closer to the moon.
- Jach 7y ago
  I support a national ID... But for people who don't, what is the functional difference between a SSN today and a national ID, apart from SSNs being broken for such a purpose? It still gets asked for very broadly (not just for credit-related things... let alone for social security related things) and people very easily give them up. One might also ask the same question when IDs for different purposes are used -- why not a fuss over driver's licenses and passports, which are context-dependent IDs? We can always call it something else. "National signature card". The ideal implementation would be something like Estonia's ID card.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Drivers licenses are already contentious in some respects, and a National ID is likely to be contentious in those same respects. Namely, if you create one, is it then acceptable to require voters to present it before allowing them to vote? Partisan disagreement over this issue is likely to stall progress.
    - tzs 7y ago
      I'm not sure it would remain a partisan issue if a national ID were used, assuming that there were also good mechanisms in place to make sure everyone can easily get their ID card for free. The reasons attempts to require voter ID at polling places is currently a partisan issue include: 1. The level of voter fraud is very low, and what little there is almost always would not be prevented by voter ID at the polling place. It usually takes place by absentee ballots, or is based on registering people to vote who should not be eligible (which can be addressed someone by ID requirement--but at registration, not at the polls). 2. When deciding what forms of ID are acceptable, there has been a remarkable correlation between whether a given form is allowed, and whether or not a significantly larger fraction of white voters have that form of ID than do black or Hispanic voters. 3. The same people that pass these voter ID laws have also, in many states, cut the budgets of the state agencies that issue IDs, generally be closing offices that can issue IDs and reducing the hours of those that remain. The closures have tended to be of offices that serve largely black or Hispanic populations, and the cutbacks in hours of the remaining offices have tended to eliminate weekend and evening service. I've read several stories about people who to get an ID had to take a two hour bus ride to reach one of the remaining offices, and had to take a day off work to do it, which was quite a hardship for them. In short, the current push for voter ID has almost nothing to do with insuring the integrity of the election process. It's about trying to make it harder for to vote for groups of voters that have historically voted against the party that is pushing for voter ID laws. If we had a national ID, issued by the Federal government rather than state governments, with a strong commitment to make sure everyone who was eligible received their card, and a Federal law that said any state voter ID check must accept the national ID card, it could probably be done in a way that avoids #2 and #3.
paulddraper 7y ago
What does "actual ID system" mean? SSN is literally a national ID system. Assigned at birth/immigration/residency. Used by national government to pay benefits, track Medicare membership, receive taxes, etc. If you're talking about adding photos and fingerprints and stuff to SSN or equivalent...that's not a cost thing. That's 100% a privacy thing.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Actually, the SSN is an account number, solely intended for tracking money paid into and paid out of an account. It isn't meant for identification, and the method it's used for identification is terrible. (Largely: If you know the number, you are identified.) It's treated like a secret, but as a 9-digit number you give to dozens of organizations in your life which follows a predictable and partially guessable pattern, it is an absolutely terrible secret. Absolutely good explainer video about how this travesty took place historically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    SSN is absolutely an identifier. It's like given name & surname (also identifiers), but actually unique. The problem is that SSN is not only an identifier, it's also the means of authentication, which is "the process or action of verifying an identity." --- To draw an analogy, username is an identifier. Password, SSH key exchange, etc. are mean of authentication, i.e. the process of verifying a username identifies the user. SSN is both a username and a password; it needs to be one or the other.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  Assigned at birth/immigration/residency A common misperception. A SSN is not assigned at birth. A child doesn't have to have a SSN unless the parents want to use him as a tax deduction. I didn't get mine until I was 17 and needed one to get a driver's license and passport.
  - paulddraper 7y ago

awillen 7y ago

Just so incredibly disturbing. For all of Facebook's fault, it's very easy to opt out of using it. When a service that the government forces you to use loses your data, heads should roll.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
enraged_camel 7y ago
>> For all of Facebook's fault, it's very easy to opt out of using it. Not really. Facebook has shadow profiles of non-users.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Perhaps in the sense that they have a session cookie that tracks impressions of sites which reference them on the web, and that information they have that their users uploaded that happen to also reference you. But not anything like in the sense of a logged in user and the level of knowledge they have about actual users. Facebook knows a lot less about non-registered users than Google does, for instance. And in the sense of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which is what this fine is about, my understanding is that non-users were entirely unaffected.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    Why do you think Google knows more than Facebook?
    - megous 7y ago
      Search queries reveal a lot.
      - djakjxnanjak 7y ago
        Do we consider people making search queries on Google to be non-users?

rolltiide 7y ago

Facebook doesn't have a consumer facing product that people pay for Equifax did and offered it for free (credit monitoring/freezing upsell), even though it didn't fix the problem its monetary value masked the settlement.

notinversed 7y ago

Which level? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_TkbPZXkAITIol.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_TkbPZXkAITIol.jpg There is zero impact to Facebook from this fine. They are celebrating with champagne and looking at new yacht prices in Menlo Park. Nobody goes to jail, everyone keeps their jobs. They only broke Democracy, it seems like that would be the one crime you wouldn't just get off scot free for. The FTC is complicit, we don't seem to have a functional regulatory system in this country any more.