6 ms·

"Unintentionally uploaded" Because you just happened to accidentally interact with the API in just the right way and downloaded the information to just the rig

by uoaei 7y ago

"Unintentionally uploaded" Because you just happened to accidentally interact with the API in just the right way and downloaded the information to just the right database and deployed a service to production which just happens to access that data... I don't understand how that statement right there isn't literally incriminating evidence. They admitted to uploading the data explicitly, and "unintentional" is a straight up lie based on how software works.

presumably 7y ago
> "unintentional" is a straight up lie based on how software works This is a very dangerous statement to make. Large systems are not like hackathon projects where you might understand and hold the entire scope and flow in your mind. Software absolutely can and does lead to unintended outcomes, else there would be no bugs.
- not2b 7y ago
  Yes, but in this case it is a highly desirable outcome for Facebook. They didn't just get lucky.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Do you really think Facebook profited from this? I'd bet they took a million dollar PR hit if anything.
    - uoaei 7y ago
      Yes, absolutely. It provides a whole new set of connections to improve their view on the IRL social network. It's hard to quantify exactly how much it benefits Facebook but it's not hyperbole to say it contributes positively to everything that makes Facebook money.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
      Did you read the article?
- bathtub365 7y ago
  You’re saying an entire system was added to integrate with user email accounts, download all their contacts, and upload them to a database at Facebook, accidentally?
  - presumably 7y ago
    Please respond to the actual contents of my post, and not a strawman version of it. I’m saying what I said, nothing more. > Software absolutely can and does lead to unintended outcomes, else there would be no bugs. Edit: also see this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22429620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22429620 TFA explains how the system was added, it’s absurd and intellectually dishonest to interpret my post as saying what you wrote.
    - bathtub365 7y ago
      Sorry, so they built a system designed to vacuum up even more personal information and accidentally turned off the screen where they tricked people into giving the information up, leading to it being collected by default?
    - close04 7y ago
      Have you noticed how no feature that brings monetary value to the users is ever accidentally added? I never accidentally received money from these companies, extra storage quota, personalized email address, premium account, etc. And certainly never something that you get to keep once they realize the mistake. The fact that they have such weak controls when it comes to protecting you but such strong controls when it comes to protecting themselves can only be a calculated decision. And the number of precedents of such "mistakes" that are always to their advantage is the proof. It's a mistake only the first time. Knowing they get away with it every time and reap the reward is just an incentive to do it again and again. And people finding excuses and justifying this as being acceptable is one reason they get away with it. They rely on advocates for ignorance and defeatism to make such incidents feel like a banality, "oh well, what can you do", "it could happen to anyone", etc. How many situations would you consider excusable where bad things happen to you because someone "accidentally" removed the step where you were informed what's happening and could say no?
- Barrin92 7y ago
  >Large systems are not like hackathon projects where you might understand and hold the entire scope and flow in your mind. I've seen this argument repeatedly now in a defense of Facebook, recently in a twitter thread where a facebook employee in a discussion about hate speech moderation responded along similar lines of "we are simply too large and don't know what's going on in every corner of the system" I find it funny that this is used as a sort of excuse or defense. We can draw another conclusion. Like Goethe's Sorcerer's Apprentice Facebook has lost control over its own machinations and is simply too large.
fiblye 7y ago
Courts don't know how stuff like this works and congressmen are paid not to know. It's unlikely anybody will have the money, confidence, and time to bring up a case against Facebook, and they'd have a hard time going up against "expert witnesses" whose testimony amounts to "accidents happen." Until fed-up former tech workers get into politics and apply their knowledge to the law, it's basically the word of the normal people vs billions of dollars.
ikeboy 7y ago
I don't understand how people comment without reading the source. It clearly explains what happened - they had a feature in production that was disclosed to the user, and an update inadvertently removed the disclosure without removing the entire feature like they were trying to.
ryantheleach 7y ago
Some junior facebook dev: "Oh look, here's this ancient library for email logins, I can use this to create a way for people to confirm identity" Oh, the library was for 10 years out of fashion, People You May Know? Well craaap.
giancarlostoro 7y ago
That takes a lot of code and effort moreso necessary for it to ever be accidental. We really need a system where courts can have a jury of relevant people from the relevant industry. Imagine if the jury for Oracle v Google were made up of software developers every single time how much more effective and meaningful that would be...
- nojvek 7y ago
  Most VC backed apps like Notion, AirTable, Dropbox and a bunch of others do this when using Google Auth to log in. It seems very common tactic (prolly coming from Marketing & Growth). Google makes it very easy to share your contact list. When logging in the permissions are (will see your email and contact list). AirTable makes it very very hard to login with GAuth without giving permissions to your contact list. I feel Google should just disable that permission, it’s abused.
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    > I feel Google should just disable that permission, it’s abused. I should have total control over what parts are given to a third party from my email. Much like Android / iOS permission prompts.

by uoaei 7y ago

presumably 7y ago

> "unintentional" is a straight up lie based on how software works This is a very dangerous statement to make. Large systems are not like hackathon projects where you might understand and hold the entire scope and flow in your mind. Software absolutely can and does lead to unintended outcomes, else there would be no bugs.

not2b 7y ago
Yes, but in this case it is a highly desirable outcome for Facebook. They didn't just get lucky.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Do you really think Facebook profited from this? I'd bet they took a million dollar PR hit if anything.
  - uoaei 7y ago
    Yes, absolutely. It provides a whole new set of connections to improve their view on the IRL social network. It's hard to quantify exactly how much it benefits Facebook but it's not hyperbole to say it contributes positively to everything that makes Facebook money.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
    Did you read the article?
bathtub365 7y ago
You’re saying an entire system was added to integrate with user email accounts, download all their contacts, and upload them to a database at Facebook, accidentally?
- presumably 7y ago
  Please respond to the actual contents of my post, and not a strawman version of it. I’m saying what I said, nothing more. > Software absolutely can and does lead to unintended outcomes, else there would be no bugs. Edit: also see this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22429620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22429620 TFA explains how the system was added, it’s absurd and intellectually dishonest to interpret my post as saying what you wrote.
  - bathtub365 7y ago
    Sorry, so they built a system designed to vacuum up even more personal information and accidentally turned off the screen where they tricked people into giving the information up, leading to it being collected by default?
  - close04 7y ago
    Have you noticed how no feature that brings monetary value to the users is ever accidentally added? I never accidentally received money from these companies, extra storage quota, personalized email address, premium account, etc. And certainly never something that you get to keep once they realize the mistake. The fact that they have such weak controls when it comes to protecting you but such strong controls when it comes to protecting themselves can only be a calculated decision. And the number of precedents of such "mistakes" that are always to their advantage is the proof. It's a mistake only the first time. Knowing they get away with it every time and reap the reward is just an incentive to do it again and again. And people finding excuses and justifying this as being acceptable is one reason they get away with it. They rely on advocates for ignorance and defeatism to make such incidents feel like a banality, "oh well, what can you do", "it could happen to anyone", etc. How many situations would you consider excusable where bad things happen to you because someone "accidentally" removed the step where you were informed what's happening and could say no?
Barrin92 7y ago
>Large systems are not like hackathon projects where you might understand and hold the entire scope and flow in your mind. I've seen this argument repeatedly now in a defense of Facebook, recently in a twitter thread where a facebook employee in a discussion about hate speech moderation responded along similar lines of "we are simply too large and don't know what's going on in every corner of the system" I find it funny that this is used as a sort of excuse or defense. We can draw another conclusion. Like Goethe's Sorcerer's Apprentice Facebook has lost control over its own machinations and is simply too large.

fiblye 7y ago

Courts don't know how stuff like this works and congressmen are paid not to know. It's unlikely anybody will have the money, confidence, and time to bring up a case against Facebook, and they'd have a hard time going up against "expert witnesses" whose testimony amounts to "accidents happen." Until fed-up former tech workers get into politics and apply their knowledge to the law, it's basically the word of the normal people vs billions of dollars.

ikeboy 7y ago

I don't understand how people comment without reading the source. It clearly explains what happened - they had a feature in production that was disclosed to the user, and an update inadvertently removed the disclosure without removing the entire feature like they were trying to.

ryantheleach 7y ago

Some junior facebook dev: "Oh look, here's this ancient library for email logins, I can use this to create a way for people to confirm identity" Oh, the library was for 10 years out of fashion, People You May Know? Well craaap.

giancarlostoro 7y ago

That takes a lot of code and effort moreso necessary for it to ever be accidental. We really need a system where courts can have a jury of relevant people from the relevant industry. Imagine if the jury for Oracle v Google were made up of software developers every single time how much more effective and meaningful that would be...

nojvek 7y ago
Most VC backed apps like Notion, AirTable, Dropbox and a bunch of others do this when using Google Auth to log in. It seems very common tactic (prolly coming from Marketing & Growth). Google makes it very easy to share your contact list. When logging in the permissions are (will see your email and contact list). AirTable makes it very very hard to login with GAuth without giving permissions to your contact list. I feel Google should just disable that permission, it’s abused.
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  > I feel Google should just disable that permission, it’s abused. I should have total control over what parts are given to a third party from my email. Much like Android / iOS permission prompts.