Hacker News Reader

Comment by smallgovt | Hacker News Reader

You make a lot of claims without providing reasoning.

> That's amoral bullshit and we must demand better.

Why is this amoral bullshit? It seems like a lot of the outrage around this topic is born out of a 'feeling' that you have an instrinsic right to online privacy. But, I don't see this right clearly defined in the constitution, so where does it come from? Are you sure it exists?

> It should be expected that that connecting accounts means sharing little more than the subset of data required for the integration.

I think it's unrealistic to expect FB to expend resources to determine what subset of data is 'required' for every app in its ecosystem. When inspecting the utility/privacy frontier, the current model of requiring users to grant permission to an app makes the most sense to me. The problem in this case is that the permissions modal may not have been clear enough.

View on HN

With a name like "smallgovt" I would expect you to be pro-privacy in the real world as well as online. Most people on this forum would likely agree that privacy is a right (just because it's not defined in the constitution doesn't mean we don't have that right. Did people not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness before the constitution?). Also, it is entirely realistic to expect Facebook to at least do a cursory look-over of the types of data app developers are requesting while running on their platform. No reason every app needs access to every piece of data on its users.

A name like "smallgovt" should've made it clear that they would be pro-corporation above all else :)

> Did people not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

These rights have routinely been taken from people with or without their consent throughout history.

EDIT: What I mean to say is having it spelled out can only help, and if we cannot make an argument based on existing legal constructs we might need to spell it out.

I agree that we have a right to privacy, but to what extent?

When it's not defined by law, it's up for debate. And, my main point is that in such a scenario, I don't think calls for moral condemnation are in order.

I think you have your dependencies muddled.

Why? I’d like to be corrected if so.

Laws generally follow the calls for moral condemnation or the relaxation of those calls. And those calls are part of the debate on what should or shouldn't be law. Asking for moral judgment to be removed from discussions because those things are legal, is putting the cart before the horse.

I see your point. I'm not calling for the removal of moral judgement from the conversation. I'm calling for the removal of moral condemnation. That is, we can have a discussion about what is right and wrong based on your value system, but condemning someone is a destructive act which is harmful and unnecessary.

There's a popular idea that it is bad to judge others. I disagree. I think we will judge others whether we like to admit it or not and also that many of the people I have met who claim not to judge anyone have also happened to have been some of the most hypocritical people I have ever met. I think the important thing is to judge yourself and your own judgements on other people, at least as harshly as you find yourself judging others. Put your own opinions of other people up to the coldest possible light. Judge more, not less.

I disagree with that popular notion also. We're entitled to our opinions and it's natural to judge others, but I think it crosses the line when that judgement turns into action, and that action is net harmful.

In outrage scandals like this, we're so quick to condemn the actor and demand punishment. I think the more constructive action is to condemn the action (not the actor) and demand regulation (not punishment). Condemning the actor may quench our thirst for justice, but I think it's often net harmful.

I get that calling for punishment is a good disincentive for future immoral, unregulated activity, but the punishment has to fit the bill. FB lost, what, $30B of value over this 'scandal'. Is that not a big enough fine?

FB lost, what, $30B of value over this 'scandal'. Is that not a big enough fine?

Isn't that like when a rich/famous person evades punishment for a crime that the average person would get a long jail sentence for, because from loss of income etc they'd already got 'a big enough fine'? i.e. effectively only the non-rich are punished for crimes.

Well, I think you have bias on this 'scandal', or should I say scandal. It is a scandal and also to claim loss of market value from the scandal is equivalent to some sort of fine or other legal punishment is beyond ridiculous (and kind of shows your hand a little).

> When inspecting the utility/privacy frontier, the current model of requiring users to grant permission to an app makes the most sense to me. The problem in this case is that the permissions modal may not have been clear enough.

Requiring permissions is a good step, but an auditable history would be a huge gain for users world-wide.

In other words, I would like to make an api call or visit a facebook page and see what data was requested by and sent to every third party with which I have shared data. I could then use that data to see if I'm comfortable sharing that information. Automation could also be undertaken by facebook to weed out obviously malicious actors.

So everything has to be on constitution or American companies who don't have any ethics by the way, will abuse as much as possible for profit. Actually that's the message we are getting from silicon valley for some years.

> Why is this amoral bullshit?

Because

> But, I don't see this right clearly defined in the constitution, so where does it come from? Are you sure it exists?

It comes from morality. Some people think it's immoral to defraud people, whether that is money or their private information.

Some people don't want to live in immoral societies and want the government to enforce some level of moral behaviour amongst it's subjects.

> I think it's unrealistic to expect FB to expend resources to determine what subset of data is 'required' for every app in its ecosystem.

How? They have billions in profits and are in the process of hiring thousands of people to help get their news curation/reporting systems upto scratch. Why can't they setup a process where people have to justify to facebook what they would use the data for?

I could easily argue it would have been in their financial interest as it's quite possible we wouldn't be here talking about facebook if they had taken this approach.

But no, im supposed to believe it's unrealistic to have such simple process.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com