6 ms·

the implication of the headline is 'Facebook voluntarily doxxing a young woman who wanted an abortion', when the reality is Facebook complied with a legal reque

the implication of the headline is 'Facebook voluntarily doxxing a young woman who wanted an abortion', when the reality is Facebook complied with a legal request by the police to information in the prosecution of a crime. What do we want Facebook to do - not obey the law?

neuronic 4y ago
Internet headlines are a real big problem. They are typically designed to produce the most attention and clicks. Boulevard media newspapers had the same issue, but you could read like 1 or 2 headlines a day while now it's 50 just on the HN frontpage. Most context is then found in the article itself, often directly contradicting the headline or revealing how it was carefully designed to produce a click without making a false claim. Most people will just read the headline without clicking anyway and be emotionally riled up due to its implication. It's really dangerous in an information society.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  100%. Often not even written by the author of the post either but by sub-editors who somehow have the responsibility. Being click driven is one motivation, being a political advocate might be another. Serious problem indeed
ls15 4y ago
> What do we want Facebook to do - not obey the law? Implement end-to-end encryption, so they cannot read or hand over private communication in the first place.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  yes agree with this - but as it currently stands, they have to comply. Furthermore, looking at legislation coming out of the EU, which places interoperability between services as a key element of anti-monopolisation, it may well soon be impossible for any social network to implement end-to-end encryption and stay compliant. Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech, against big govt having fallen for the 'big tech bad' narrative and now we may well reap what we sow.
  - microtonal 4y ago
    Why would interoperability make end-to-end encryption impossible?
    - Daviey 4y ago
      I think the thought is that the encryption would be in the transport layer, and would have to be unwrapped to cross between platforms. Whereas I think this could be effectively implemented in an agreed encryption of the message itself. However, this risks oversimplifying because the next concern would be the metadata. Who is the sender / recipient? How much data is provided about these actors, phone number, email etc? Is this encrypted?
  - ls15 4y ago
    > Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech I don't see big tech as a victim here. Companies like Google and Facebook refused to implement e2ee when they had the opportunity. Their network effects and infinite money pots helped to keep more privacy-respecting options small. We failed to defend privacy against big tech and govt overreach.
    - hunglee2 4y ago
      > We failed to defend privacy against big tech and govt overreach. this optimal scenario was never in our grasp, and even if it were, we missed the opportunity when it mattered. Our task from 2014 onward was to balance big tech vs big govt against each other and make sure neither had too much power over the other. Instead, what we have now is big govt, turning big tech, into another lever of state control
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Interoperability doesn't mean cleartext.
  - pyrale 4y ago
    > Furthermore, looking at legislation coming out of the EU, which places interoperability between services as a key element of anti-monopolisation, it may well soon be impossible for any social network to implement end-to-end encryption and stay compliant. Public key cryptography has existed for decades now. With regards to your claim, the opposite is true: it's absolutely impossible to implement true and serious end-to-end cryptography and not be compliant with interoperability standards. That being said, in this situation, e2e would probably change nothing, because governments would likely mandate a backdoor for search warrants, and this particular case was not a fishing expedition since there was a probable cause. > Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech, against big govt having fallen for the 'big tech bad' narrative and now we may well reap what we sow. Big tech doesn't need defending. The truth is that big-tech and big-govt is a much more likely alliance than big-tech and the consumer.
- sneak 4y ago
  In practice, large messaging providers like Facebook or Apple do not actually have their ostensible 1A rights to publish E2EE communication software. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... They willingly self-censor and preserve these unsafe systems so that they don’t get retaliated against by the state regulatory apparatus. Apple and Facebook aren’t dumb, they know all about E2EE. So does the FBI. They are simply not allowed to close these security holes. No amount of money or commercial success lets you disobey the wishes of the FBI in America.
  - hunglee2 4y ago
    this is it - some realpolitik right here.
diffeomorphism 4y ago
False dichotomy. You want them to obey the law and say "here is all the unencrypted data we have: None at all". That is also discussed in the article.
gruturo 4y ago
> What do we want Facebook to do - not obey the law? Stop obsessively collecting every tiny bit of data, so they have nothing to give to the police in a case like this. They just harmed a teenager for profit.
locallost 4y ago
I don't expect anything from a corporation built on getting people addicted to checking their profile, but "not obeying the law" is something many people are admired for. Of course post factum which is easy when it's recognized as the right thing to do. Doing it in the present is hard and takes character, beliefs and a backbone. Which again is the reason I don't expect anything from Facebook.
hnbad 4y ago
There is a huge gradient between not obeying the law and what Facebook did and much of that gradient is entirely legal. That Facebook can't be assed to get creative in favor of its users is unsurprising but doesn't make them neutral or excuse their compliance. Meta also seems to have taken zero lessons (e.g. minimizing their access to the data they were asked to provide) from this incident. They not only don't want to avoid something like this happening in the future, they also don't want to avoid being put in a position where they would have to participate in something like this again. That said, being German, I find it deeply painful to hear people posit that not following orders is unreasonable and impossible, especially when even in their own country the majority of people disagrees with the laws in question. If big corporations with expensive legal departments can't be expected to find creative ways to comply with the bare minimum of a law that harms the users who entrust them with their data, maybe it's the corporations who are the problem.
- taylodl 4y ago
  Especially when the Nuremberg trials executed people for following orders. In the case of "crimes against humanity" the defense of "following orders" has been discredited. You would think citizens of the countries running the Nuremberg trials would understand this concept. Apparently not.
arianvanp 4y ago
Actually yes. Facebook systematically breaks so many laws all the time. (Think data protection laws; anti-competitive laws) It's their business model. So for one I'd like them to continue that practise but for ethical reasons. It doesn't seem like the biggest ask.
netsharc 4y ago
Imagine if it's Iran and it's their police enforcing a backward law that some religious leader made, should Facebook just follow that law too?
soulofmischief 4y ago
I expect Facebook to follow their ethical compass, which should be calibrated with a diverse set of opinions, regardless of the current political configuration of the environment they are in, just as I do. Let's turn up the knob a bit, what if Facebook existed in Germany during the Holocaust and doxxed Jews and other political targets, would you maintain this same argument? Probably not.

neuronic 4y ago

Internet headlines are a real big problem. They are typically designed to produce the most attention and clicks. Boulevard media newspapers had the same issue, but you could read like 1 or 2 headlines a day while now it's 50 just on the HN frontpage. Most context is then found in the article itself, often directly contradicting the headline or revealing how it was carefully designed to produce a click without making a false claim. Most people will just read the headline without clicking anyway and be emotionally riled up due to its implication. It's really dangerous in an information society.

hunglee2 4y ago
100%. Often not even written by the author of the post either but by sub-editors who somehow have the responsibility. Being click driven is one motivation, being a political advocate might be another. Serious problem indeed

ls15 4y ago

> What do we want Facebook to do - not obey the law? Implement end-to-end encryption, so they cannot read or hand over private communication in the first place.

hunglee2 4y ago
yes agree with this - but as it currently stands, they have to comply. Furthermore, looking at legislation coming out of the EU, which places interoperability between services as a key element of anti-monopolisation, it may well soon be impossible for any social network to implement end-to-end encryption and stay compliant. Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech, against big govt having fallen for the 'big tech bad' narrative and now we may well reap what we sow.
- microtonal 4y ago
  Why would interoperability make end-to-end encryption impossible?
  - Daviey 4y ago
    I think the thought is that the encryption would be in the transport layer, and would have to be unwrapped to cross between platforms. Whereas I think this could be effectively implemented in an agreed encryption of the message itself. However, this risks oversimplifying because the next concern would be the metadata. Who is the sender / recipient? How much data is provided about these actors, phone number, email etc? Is this encrypted?
- ls15 4y ago
  > Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech I don't see big tech as a victim here. Companies like Google and Facebook refused to implement e2ee when they had the opportunity. Their network effects and infinite money pots helped to keep more privacy-respecting options small. We failed to defend privacy against big tech and govt overreach.
  - hunglee2 4y ago
    > We failed to defend privacy against big tech and govt overreach. this optimal scenario was never in our grasp, and even if it were, we missed the opportunity when it mattered. Our task from 2014 onward was to balance big tech vs big govt against each other and make sure neither had too much power over the other. Instead, what we have now is big govt, turning big tech, into another lever of state control
- sofixa 4y ago
  Interoperability doesn't mean cleartext.
- pyrale 4y ago
  > Furthermore, looking at legislation coming out of the EU, which places interoperability between services as a key element of anti-monopolisation, it may well soon be impossible for any social network to implement end-to-end encryption and stay compliant. Public key cryptography has existed for decades now. With regards to your claim, the opposite is true: it's absolutely impossible to implement true and serious end-to-end cryptography and not be compliant with interoperability standards. That being said, in this situation, e2e would probably change nothing, because governments would likely mandate a backdoor for search warrants, and this particular case was not a fishing expedition since there was a probable cause. > Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech, against big govt having fallen for the 'big tech bad' narrative and now we may well reap what we sow. Big tech doesn't need defending. The truth is that big-tech and big-govt is a much more likely alliance than big-tech and the consumer.
sneak 4y ago
In practice, large messaging providers like Facebook or Apple do not actually have their ostensible 1A rights to publish E2EE communication software. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusive/exclusive-apple-dropped-plan-for-encrypting-backups-after-fbi-complained-sources-idUSKBN1ZK1CT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv... They willingly self-censor and preserve these unsafe systems so that they don’t get retaliated against by the state regulatory apparatus. Apple and Facebook aren’t dumb, they know all about E2EE. So does the FBI. They are simply not allowed to close these security holes. No amount of money or commercial success lets you disobey the wishes of the FBI in America.
- hunglee2 4y ago
  this is it - some realpolitik right here.

diffeomorphism 4y ago

False dichotomy. You want them to obey the law and say "here is all the unencrypted data we have: None at all". That is also discussed in the article.

gruturo 4y ago

> What do we want Facebook to do - not obey the law? Stop obsessively collecting every tiny bit of data, so they have nothing to give to the police in a case like this. They just harmed a teenager for profit.

locallost 4y ago

I don't expect anything from a corporation built on getting people addicted to checking their profile, but "not obeying the law" is something many people are admired for. Of course post factum which is easy when it's recognized as the right thing to do. Doing it in the present is hard and takes character, beliefs and a backbone. Which again is the reason I don't expect anything from Facebook.

hnbad 4y ago

There is a huge gradient between not obeying the law and what Facebook did and much of that gradient is entirely legal. That Facebook can't be assed to get creative in favor of its users is unsurprising but doesn't make them neutral or excuse their compliance. Meta also seems to have taken zero lessons (e.g. minimizing their access to the data they were asked to provide) from this incident. They not only don't want to avoid something like this happening in the future, they also don't want to avoid being put in a position where they would have to participate in something like this again. That said, being German, I find it deeply painful to hear people posit that not following orders is unreasonable and impossible, especially when even in their own country the majority of people disagrees with the laws in question. If big corporations with expensive legal departments can't be expected to find creative ways to comply with the bare minimum of a law that harms the users who entrust them with their data, maybe it's the corporations who are the problem.

taylodl 4y ago
Especially when the Nuremberg trials executed people for following orders. In the case of "crimes against humanity" the defense of "following orders" has been discredited. You would think citizens of the countries running the Nuremberg trials would understand this concept. Apparently not.

arianvanp 4y ago

Actually yes. Facebook systematically breaks so many laws all the time. (Think data protection laws; anti-competitive laws) It's their business model. So for one I'd like them to continue that practise but for ethical reasons. It doesn't seem like the biggest ask.

netsharc 4y ago

Imagine if it's Iran and it's their police enforcing a backward law that some religious leader made, should Facebook just follow that law too?

soulofmischief 4y ago

I expect Facebook to follow their ethical compass, which should be calibrated with a diverse set of opinions, regardless of the current political configuration of the environment they are in, just as I do. Let's turn up the knob a bit, what if Facebook existed in Germany during the Holocaust and doxxed Jews and other political targets, would you maintain this same argument? Probably not.