10 ms·

This article cites a Forbes contributor (Kalev Leetaru) whose articles are endlessly self-cited with no outside sourcing. Can anyone confirm that any of this is

This article cites a Forbes contributor (Kalev Leetaru) whose articles are endlessly self-cited with no outside sourcing. Can anyone confirm that any of this is actually real? I got 3 layers deep and could find nothing of substance.

Skunkleton 7y ago
Does it really matter? We already know that these companies are willing to collaborate with intelligence services. We already know that Facebook is hoovering up your data. We know Jan Koum already left Facebook over privacy issues. Maybe the article is click bait trash, maybe it isn't, but we should assume that whatsapp isn't secure.
- root_axis 7y ago
  Does it matter if things are true or made up? Yes.
  - gnode 7y ago
    Except the landscape here is: it is known to be true, or it is unknown and should be assumed to be true.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      I don't trust Facebook and thus I wouldn't trust WhatsApp. That has nothing to do with whether or not it matters if specific allegations against Facebook are true.
  - fragmede 7y ago
    Unfortunately, it's likely we'll never get a rigorous proof of malfeasance. Thus do you go with WhatsApp as a homosexual in Russia or Iran, or as protestor in Hong Kong against the Chinese government, given that Facebook has given us plenty of reasons to distrust them?
    - root_axis 7y ago
      I'm not saying to trust Facebook. I think it is wise not to trust them. Just because I don't trust Facebook doesn't mean that I should assume by default that every allegation against Facebook is true.
  - Skunkleton 7y ago
    Yeah, that is a very good point. As consumers we need to demand more ethical reporting. Further, we should be demanding some mechanism to remove unethical reporting from our social news sites (like HN). This sort sort of moderation is ripe for abuse, but I don't think there is an alternative. Social media has proven that crowd consensus does not select for truthful or in-depth reporting.
- vorticalbox 7y ago
  Yes it matters, these sorts of thing is what sets the standard for all future apps. We are moving ever more towards 1984.
  - feanaro 7y ago
    Perhaps it's time to push back and start using better apps then.
  - Skunkleton 7y ago
    That is what I was trying to say. The article might be garbage, but WhatsApp is still effectively compromised.
- gnode 7y ago
  It doesn't even matter whether they're willing, that they're capable is enough reason for prejudice. Software which people's civil liberties depend upon should be developed in the open, auditable by the public, as a minimum. Even then, developers need to be vigilant about tainting by state actors.
- reeves23423 7y ago
  By that argument, w all are going to be dide someday does it matter we nuke the planet. The point is "Resistence is not futile".
codesushi42 7y ago
It doesn't sound implausible. What do you want? An official announcement from Facebook?
- captn3m0 7y ago
  This is not something live yet. The source (4 level deep) mentions this as future work and doesn’t mention WhatsApp. Could be FB Messenger or Instagram DMs for all we know.
testplzignore 7y ago
I went 4 layers deep and finally found this: https://developers.facebook.com/videos/2019/applying-ai-to-keep-the-platform-safe/ https://developers.facebook.com/videos/2019/applying-ai-to-k... The relevant stuff seems to start at about 23:00.
- OrwellianChild 7y ago
  UPDATE: Per @mic47 in a comment below, the video does not actually discuss content moderation on the E2E encrypted systems (Messenger & WhatsApp). It is only discussing the FB website itself, which is already in the open (to Facebook). Original message follows for continuity: Thank you for this! The 4-layers-deep source is an F8 talk on using AI to filter for FB TOS-violating content. The relevant portion of the talk is discussing hyperlink website previews of the kind that show up next to URLs posted in Messenger/WhatsApp that show the title and feature image next to the link. In order for this functionality to work at all, the app must crawl the link to pull the metadata for display. This AI team is attempting to pre-emptively block URL-masking attempts that fool the Preview into showing benign content before redirecting users to bad content. To do this, FB must "pierce the veil" of E2E encryption in order to see what the URL is and test the content. This opens the possibility that FB can further expose supposedly encrypted content in the chat/message. The actual talk refers to putting this AI on the device itself, preserving user privacy (a difficult technical challenge). If this leaking of URL data is status quo on FB messaging systems, is it reasonable to assume that the supposed encryption is more or less invalid? Are there any ways that this could be a secure system with this kind of content validation going on?
  - mic47 7y ago
    The presentation actually talks about FB needed to solve challenges of training and evaluating the AI without getting the data to it's server, and I haven't noticed any point where whey would suggest that they need to break encryption, or get the unencrypted data to the servers. If everything happens on the device and noting is sent to servers, how does it break encryption? In case I am wrong, and they actually suggest that they will really send data back to its servers, where it is suggested? I really failed to find it.
giancarlostoro 7y ago
I posted that one before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20549610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20549610 He has hyperlinks to further articles.

Skunkleton 7y ago

Does it really matter? We already know that these companies are willing to collaborate with intelligence services. We already know that Facebook is hoovering up your data. We know Jan Koum already left Facebook over privacy issues. Maybe the article is click bait trash, maybe it isn't, but we should assume that whatsapp isn't secure.

root_axis 7y ago
Does it matter if things are true or made up? Yes.
- gnode 7y ago
  Except the landscape here is: it is known to be true, or it is unknown and should be assumed to be true.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    I don't trust Facebook and thus I wouldn't trust WhatsApp. That has nothing to do with whether or not it matters if specific allegations against Facebook are true.
- fragmede 7y ago
  Unfortunately, it's likely we'll never get a rigorous proof of malfeasance. Thus do you go with WhatsApp as a homosexual in Russia or Iran, or as protestor in Hong Kong against the Chinese government, given that Facebook has given us plenty of reasons to distrust them?
  - root_axis 7y ago
    I'm not saying to trust Facebook. I think it is wise not to trust them. Just because I don't trust Facebook doesn't mean that I should assume by default that every allegation against Facebook is true.
- Skunkleton 7y ago
  Yeah, that is a very good point. As consumers we need to demand more ethical reporting. Further, we should be demanding some mechanism to remove unethical reporting from our social news sites (like HN). This sort sort of moderation is ripe for abuse, but I don't think there is an alternative. Social media has proven that crowd consensus does not select for truthful or in-depth reporting.
vorticalbox 7y ago
Yes it matters, these sorts of thing is what sets the standard for all future apps. We are moving ever more towards 1984.
- feanaro 7y ago
  Perhaps it's time to push back and start using better apps then.
- Skunkleton 7y ago
  That is what I was trying to say. The article might be garbage, but WhatsApp is still effectively compromised.
gnode 7y ago
It doesn't even matter whether they're willing, that they're capable is enough reason for prejudice. Software which people's civil liberties depend upon should be developed in the open, auditable by the public, as a minimum. Even then, developers need to be vigilant about tainting by state actors.
reeves23423 7y ago
By that argument, w all are going to be dide someday does it matter we nuke the planet. The point is "Resistence is not futile".

codesushi42 7y ago

It doesn't sound implausible. What do you want? An official announcement from Facebook?

captn3m0 7y ago
This is not something live yet. The source (4 level deep) mentions this as future work and doesn’t mention WhatsApp. Could be FB Messenger or Instagram DMs for all we know.

testplzignore 7y ago

I went 4 layers deep and finally found this: https://developers.facebook.com/videos/2019/applying-ai-to-keep-the-platform-safe/ https://developers.facebook.com/videos/2019/applying-ai-to-k... The relevant stuff seems to start at about 23:00.

OrwellianChild 7y ago
UPDATE: Per @mic47 in a comment below, the video does not actually discuss content moderation on the E2E encrypted systems (Messenger & WhatsApp). It is only discussing the FB website itself, which is already in the open (to Facebook). Original message follows for continuity: Thank you for this! The 4-layers-deep source is an F8 talk on using AI to filter for FB TOS-violating content. The relevant portion of the talk is discussing hyperlink website previews of the kind that show up next to URLs posted in Messenger/WhatsApp that show the title and feature image next to the link. In order for this functionality to work at all, the app must crawl the link to pull the metadata for display. This AI team is attempting to pre-emptively block URL-masking attempts that fool the Preview into showing benign content before redirecting users to bad content. To do this, FB must "pierce the veil" of E2E encryption in order to see what the URL is and test the content. This opens the possibility that FB can further expose supposedly encrypted content in the chat/message. The actual talk refers to putting this AI on the device itself, preserving user privacy (a difficult technical challenge). If this leaking of URL data is status quo on FB messaging systems, is it reasonable to assume that the supposed encryption is more or less invalid? Are there any ways that this could be a secure system with this kind of content validation going on?
- mic47 7y ago
  The presentation actually talks about FB needed to solve challenges of training and evaluating the AI without getting the data to it's server, and I haven't noticed any point where whey would suggest that they need to break encryption, or get the unencrypted data to the servers. If everything happens on the device and noting is sent to servers, how does it break encryption? In case I am wrong, and they actually suggest that they will really send data back to its servers, where it is suggested? I really failed to find it.

giancarlostoro 7y ago

I posted that one before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20549610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20549610 He has hyperlinks to further articles.