4 ms·
> Trust, but verify. Especially FB. In the particular case of Facebook many of us simplify to "don't trust if not absolutely necessary" ;-)
by skinkestek 6y ago
> Trust, but verify. Especially FB.
In the particular case of Facebook many of us simplify to "don't trust if not absolutely necessary" ;-)
- happymellon 6y agoI removed all Facebook many years ago. In the particular case of Facebook many of us simplify to "don't trust" There is no upside for Facebook to have anything about me.
- qubex 6y agoUnfortunately Facebook has lots of information about you whether you have an account or not. You’re a big black hole with known characteristics inferred from those acquaintances of yours who interact with you in a manner Facebook can track. You might not have a name and an account, but there’s a big you-shaped golem in their data and there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it, unfortunately, and they’ll use it as they see fit with or without your consent.
- happymellon 6y agoCompletely agree. I block Facebook at the router but I can't stop other people giving away my PII. But I do make choices where I can.
- ljm 6y agoMakes me think of that Junji Ito comic with the person-shaped holes in the rock after an earthquake. Only now, it's an allegory for social media giants and their corrupting influence on the people they lure into their system.
- sofixa 6y agoYou can I'd you live in a jurisdiction which gives you the right to demand for all information a company has on you, and the right to be forgotten ( GDPR in the EU, maybe California as well?)
- bigiain 6y agoI totally trust Facebook. To fuck me over at every possible opportunity, even if they’ve pinky promised “we’d never do that!”. Because they have a track record of doing exactly that.
- qubex 6y ago‘Trust’ is defined as wilful forbearance toward those agencies that we can conceive of as being sources of harm to us. If you “trust Facebook to fuck [you] over” then you’re not trusting Facebook. You’re expecting Facebook to fuck you over and minimising your exposure to that process.
- mnw21cam 6y agoIf you ask a computing security (or indeed any security) professional, "trust" has a different definition. If A trusts B, then B has the capability of doing something bad to A. This is regardless of whether A has granted B that capability. So, when you drive down the road, you trust the oncoming car not to swerve into your path and crash into you. This is just another way of saying that the oncoming car has the capability to swerve into your path and crash into you. There's no wilful forbearance involved.
- qubex 6y agoI disagree insofar as the scenarios you describe (implicit trust in computer security, trust that another driver won’t swerve into your vehicle’s path) are perfectly good examples of the overall definition I posited above. Indeed, if one didn’t have forbearance of (say) a software vendor or perhaps a dependency then one would be entirely free to not use that vendor’s product or that particular package. Similarly, if you don’t swerve right to prudentially make space for an approaching vehicle to serve into your path then you’re showing them forbearance and trusting them (or swerve left, depending on one’s location on the Earth what side of the road is legally mandate). So, yep: those are perfect examples of Trust as embodied in the definition I presented above. And of course it lies at the root of initiatives such as Trusted Computing Initiative & cetera.
- qubex 6y agoA necessary evil is no less evil merely because it is necessary.