4 ms·

Here’s What A Facebook Response To A User Data Subpoena Looks Like

43 points by johnr8201 15y ago

natch 15y ago
Serious privacy fail, Facebook. You should not provide information on the friends unless their accounts are also subpoenaed as well (as John/Jane Doe if necessary). Without that, your response should be redacted so friends are listed only with non-identifying strings. IANAL, but this is common sense.
- lukeschlather 15y ago
  How so? It sounds like this is a case where the police had a demonstrable need to find out who he had communicated with, and presumably they also had access to his cell phone records. I don't see how names are any more worthy of protection than phone numbers. Especially since the name is really metadata associated with a Facebook ID, which is exactly like a phone number.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Because fishing expedition, and the law of unintended consequences.
verelo 15y ago
I guess i need to start doing my online drug deals through a less obvious source... I was surprised that there seemed to be no mention of chat transcripts, or no relationship history. Perhaps these things are not retained centrally?
Slimy 15y ago
Hacker News discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3811319 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3811319 Techmeme discussion: http://www.techmeme.com/120407/p10#a120407p10 http://www.techmeme.com/120407/p10#a120407p10
simonw 15y ago
Aside, but WOW the TechCrunch iPhone version is annoying. It's automatically paginated in the middle of sentences and (cardinal sin) there's no way to opt out and get access to the desktop version.
- rdl 15y ago
  tcfast in the "news.yc" style is my favorite.
nicpottier 15y ago
The piece I find most interesting about this is what isn't there. For example, what pages or friends did the user look at, without posting or sending messages to? That there isn't the entire 'browsing' history is either a sign that Facebook didn't hand over as much as they actually have or that they aren't tracking it. My bet would be on the former, so kudos to Facebook?

43 points by johnr8201 15y ago

natch 15y ago

Serious privacy fail, Facebook. You should not provide information on the friends unless their accounts are also subpoenaed as well (as John/Jane Doe if necessary). Without that, your response should be redacted so friends are listed only with non-identifying strings. IANAL, but this is common sense.

lukeschlather 15y ago
How so? It sounds like this is a case where the police had a demonstrable need to find out who he had communicated with, and presumably they also had access to his cell phone records. I don't see how names are any more worthy of protection than phone numbers. Especially since the name is really metadata associated with a Facebook ID, which is exactly like a phone number.
- rhizome 15y ago
  Because fishing expedition, and the law of unintended consequences.

verelo 15y ago

I guess i need to start doing my online drug deals through a less obvious source... I was surprised that there seemed to be no mention of chat transcripts, or no relationship history. Perhaps these things are not retained centrally?

Slimy 15y ago

Hacker News discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3811319 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3811319 Techmeme discussion: http://www.techmeme.com/120407/p10#a120407p10 http://www.techmeme.com/120407/p10#a120407p10

simonw 15y ago

Aside, but WOW the TechCrunch iPhone version is annoying. It's automatically paginated in the middle of sentences and (cardinal sin) there's no way to opt out and get access to the desktop version.

rdl 15y ago
tcfast in the "news.yc" style is my favorite.

nicpottier 15y ago

The piece I find most interesting about this is what isn't there. For example, what pages or friends did the user look at, without posting or sending messages to? That there isn't the entire 'browsing' history is either a sign that Facebook didn't hand over as much as they actually have or that they aren't tracking it. My bet would be on the former, so kudos to Facebook?