3 ms·

“Oh and by the way, you are not allowed to disclose any part of this conversation; it is a secret that we are even having this conversation” If this is true, i

by diego 14y ago

“Oh and by the way, you are not allowed to disclose any part of this conversation; it is a secret that we are even having this conversation” If this is true, it's practically begging for the blogger to research the law, and publish the whole conversation because FB has no right whatsoever to make such demand. I wouldn't call it scandalous, but it would certainly be a pretty dumb thing to say. If I had to guess, I would imagine the conversation was slightly different. Perhaps a polite request to keep quiet. Who knows, Facebook is still a teenager in many respects so it's anybody's guess. Edit: why would anyone downvote this comment? Curious.

beagle3 14y ago
I have no specific knowledge of this case, but ... > Perhaps a polite request to keep quiet. Who knows, Facebook is still a teenager in many respects so it's anybody's guess. My experience with just about any company is that they would state their hopes as facts, and expect you to accept that as a fact. And it works with the vast majority of people. Case (from outside the US): Credit card got a fraudulent charge. Called up the credit card company, disputing the charge (After credit card company was already paid by an automated payment service). Credit card company: "Well, we're keeping your money, the law says we have 60 days to figure out if you are right or the merchant is right; if you are right, we'll give you back the money". Me: "Ahhm. The law says you have to give me back the money this instant, and you have 60 days to figure out if you believe that the charge wasn't fraudulent; and if you do, you can explain it to me, and if I still disagree then there's a whole section in the law about that but you don't get any money automatically either" Credit company: "Oh, you're right. Here's your money back, we'll be in touch in at most 6o days".
- spindritf 14y ago
  > My experience with just about any company is that they would state their hopes as facts, and expect you to accept that as a fact. And it works with the vast majority of people. You're right but it also backfires with others, like this guy.
- diego 14y ago
  I understand. However, this is a savvy blogger who is looking for publicity. Facebook contacted him to defuse a potential PR situation, he didn't call them. You'd imagine they would be smarter than that, after all they are the world experts in virality and social media. Like I said, it's anybody's guess.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    > Facebook contacted him to defuse a potential PR situation, he didn't call them From the description, it sounds like the security department called him, not the PR department. And sounds like they're sort of OK as a security department, but that they DID need to coordinate with the PR department in this case, and they didn't. > You'd imagine they would be smarter than that, after all they are the world experts in virality and social media Their product people are experts in virality and social media. Their PR people - I don't know, I guess they're ok. Their security people? Obviously not. They just moved quickly and broke things for the PR department to fix. If the blogger is lying, I'm sure facebook will shame them publicly - they have a recording, after all.
louwrentius 14y ago
I did not read the 'mixed feelings' blogpost with that quote. If that quote is genuine, it still reeks of a stupid statement of an individual working for Facebook than a deliberate policy of Facebook to silence such people who find security issues. It's such an obvious dumb request. Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. Facebook is not incompetent, but it's not infallible either. I'm withholding judgement here. I'm not sure all info is available.

by diego 14y ago

beagle3 14y ago

I have no specific knowledge of this case, but ... > Perhaps a polite request to keep quiet. Who knows, Facebook is still a teenager in many respects so it's anybody's guess. My experience with just about any company is that they would state their hopes as facts, and expect you to accept that as a fact. And it works with the vast majority of people. Case (from outside the US): Credit card got a fraudulent charge. Called up the credit card company, disputing the charge (After credit card company was already paid by an automated payment service). Credit card company: "Well, we're keeping your money, the law says we have 60 days to figure out if you are right or the merchant is right; if you are right, we'll give you back the money". Me: "Ahhm. The law says you have to give me back the money this instant, and you have 60 days to figure out if you believe that the charge wasn't fraudulent; and if you do, you can explain it to me, and if I still disagree then there's a whole section in the law about that but you don't get any money automatically either" Credit company: "Oh, you're right. Here's your money back, we'll be in touch in at most 6o days".

spindritf 14y ago
> My experience with just about any company is that they would state their hopes as facts, and expect you to accept that as a fact. And it works with the vast majority of people. You're right but it also backfires with others, like this guy.
diego 14y ago
I understand. However, this is a savvy blogger who is looking for publicity. Facebook contacted him to defuse a potential PR situation, he didn't call them. You'd imagine they would be smarter than that, after all they are the world experts in virality and social media. Like I said, it's anybody's guess.
- beagle3 14y ago
  > Facebook contacted him to defuse a potential PR situation, he didn't call them From the description, it sounds like the security department called him, not the PR department. And sounds like they're sort of OK as a security department, but that they DID need to coordinate with the PR department in this case, and they didn't. > You'd imagine they would be smarter than that, after all they are the world experts in virality and social media Their product people are experts in virality and social media. Their PR people - I don't know, I guess they're ok. Their security people? Obviously not. They just moved quickly and broke things for the PR department to fix. If the blogger is lying, I'm sure facebook will shame them publicly - they have a recording, after all.

louwrentius 14y ago

I did not read the 'mixed feelings' blogpost with that quote. If that quote is genuine, it still reeks of a stupid statement of an individual working for Facebook than a deliberate policy of Facebook to silence such people who find security issues. It's such an obvious dumb request. Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. Facebook is not incompetent, but it's not infallible either. I'm withholding judgement here. I'm not sure all info is available.