Hacker News Reader

Since they were also targeting children, 13 yo and up, they probably fit into both categories and is extra unethical...

As far as I know, when Apple discovered Uber doing some shady, but way less messed up things, they were flat out threatened to be kicked out. Problem is, this isn't Facebook's first rodeo, their previous app that did this was kicked off.

Wait a sec, 2 is wrong but 1 sounds positive to me. For some people this money could be incredibly important.

> For some people this money could be incredibly important.

That's exactly the problem. In Human Subjects Research this might be considered a violation of Informed Consent in the form of undue influence. From the Belmont Report [1]:

An agreement to participate in research constitutes a valid consent only if voluntarily given. This element of informed consent requires conditions free of coercion and undue influence. Coercion occurs when an overt threat of harm is intentionally presented by one person to another in order to obtain compliance. Undue influence, by contrast, occurs through an offer of an excessive, unwarranted, inappropriate or improper reward or other overture in order to obtain compliance. Also, inducements that would ordinarily be acceptable may become undue influences if the subject is especially vulnerable.

Note the "especially vulnerable" part at the end there.

[1] https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-repo...

> > For some people this money could be incredibly important.

> That's exactly the problem.

I thoroughly disagree, and I feel like speaking up about this particular philosophy of consent.

If I buy a used iPhone for $100 from someone who would die if they didn't get the $100, have I acted unethically? Whereas if I bought it from someone who didn't really need the $100, I wouldn't be acting unethically?

This sounds not only wrong, but highly counter-productive to me, since the consequence of not entering into this trade, just because the seller really needs the money, is that the seller dies. How does that make any of us better off?

As a society, we should encourage trading with people who really need the money, not label it as unethical. Whether a trade is unethical or not can be determined solely from the trade itself, not how much either (or both of the parties) needs the proceeds from the trade.

Example illustrating the absurdity: imagine two people who both really need the proceeds trading with each other. Ouch! According to your philosophy, they are both acting unethically (when in fact they are doing the only reasonable thing).

> If I buy a used iPhone for $100 from someone who would die if they didn't get the $100, have I acted unethically?

In some cases, you have clearly acted unethically. For instance, if the iPhone is worth $800 and you have more money, but you're getting the $100 price because the man is dying now and there's nobody else around to offer him more than $100.

Doesn’t this argument give us child labour and sweat shops? Fortunately most places have laws that set a minimum standard to protect society against those who have lower ethical standards.

>If I buy a used iPhone for $100 from someone who would die if they didn't get the $100, have I acted unethically?

Yes, it would be unethical to both parties.

In the first case, it is unethical because you are taking advantage of someone's dire need to get a better price on an iPhone.

In the second case you are denying yourself a clear cut opportunity to really help someone in need.

To be in a position to help someone in such a state is a privilege that does not come around often.

So say I don't buy the iPhone because I consider it unethical to pay only $100, but since I don't actually need a new phone, I'm not going to pay $200+. The seller dies because they were $100 short of some essential medicine they needed, or whatever. Is this really the outcome you want to see?

In an ideal world, I would just pay the person $100 and not take their phone—but, c'mon, this isn't the world we're living in. People die every day in the US—never mind the rest of the world—because they couldn't afford medicine/shelter/food/etc

You're contriving a situation where the seller doesn't have any other options AND you also don't have any ability to buy it to later sell at a profit (which would give the seller the ability to negotiate a better price than $100 with you while still allowing you a reasonable profit when you sell it).

I agree you can contrive a situation where the best ethical option is to pay the seller $100 for the phone but you really have to work on it (and the situation is pretty contrived to begin with)

> In an ideal world, I would just pay the person $100 and not take their phone—but, c'mon, this isn't the world we're living in.

In this case you could make it that kind of world, for that person, just for $100.

To be placed in a position where it's so easy to help someone is a privilege.

And if I have enough money, work in tech and still value $20 more than the (additional) data I give up? Especially knowing what's already collected the difference isn't necessarily that big. Am I not allowed to give consent then?

Tough question: would targeting the offer away from poor people make it more ethical?

Are we, as a society, ok with people being desperate enough to need $20 more than privacy?

Or maybe privacy isn't something we should care about or at least value as much as we do as a society. Maybe I'm wrong. I think I see the dangers down the road but maybe it's just a mirage and privacy will die and it won't be used against use by people in power or with money.

> Are we, as a society, ok with people being desperate enough to need $20 more than privacy?

This is not the question that's being asked here. The fact is, there are people like that, and for them, these things are great.

They're not solutions, they're band-aids. But if you're not ok with the situation existing, removing band-aids isn't particularly productive.

That's kind of what I was trying to get at, probably unsuccessfully. That maybe the anger shouldn't lie with FB or the fact this program exists but with the fact we are in place that people will accept that little for so much.

This is like saying child labor is a band-aid, not a solution, but that we shouldn't ban it because it helps children. The whole point is that it's an inherently exploitative thing that is a net negative for society even with people who need money getting paid.

Right, because installing spyware is the same thing as forcing young kids to work. What?

No questions, this is creepy. But nobody was talking about a ban. The post I replied to asked whether we should be okay with people who need $20 that badly.

The answer is no, we shouldn't be ok with it. But you're not solving the situation by banning this, you're making it worse if anything.

"We shouldn't be ok with people being homeless." "Okay, let's make 'being homeless' illegal. Problem solved!" "???"

And yes, this logic has been used before. It hasn't solved homelessness, btw.

We shouldn't be ok with people needing money that badly, and we also shouldn't be ok with creating an economic dependency on those people selling their privacy, the same way we've banned economic dependency on child labor. That is not at all equivalent to banning homelessness. It's more like banning hiring homeless people to fight lions with their bare hands for entertainment.

This is probably something you should ask the person who's desperate enough to need that $20, than to decide for them from your point of reference.

I'm not attacking them for taking it, I harbor no ill will toward either group #1 or #2 of my original comment. I'm asking if we are ok with this being necessary in the first place. I'm not ok with it.

I have the app installed on my phone. I have it installed because I want the $20 amazon. I don't know if I really "need" the $20 amazon but it is 100% passive once it is installed. You literally need to do nothing. Every month they send you $20. I would not uninstall it even given the privacy concerns.

If you guys are so concerned about it then create something that puts cash in my pocket. I'll gladly run whatever app you want on my phone if you pay me.

Now you actually do make me have ill will toward #2. Enjoy your $20. A free lunch/month, right?

Edit: and now they shut it down. You can thank us privacy advocates later.

nobody is judging the desperate person, we are judging the net effect of the rest of sociiety on them.

it's provably affordable to give everyone the average rent of the world which covers housing (rent of buildings), food (rent of farmland), energy (rent of space used for solar panels, windmills, ...), natural resources (rent of mines).

Perhaps. I notice in most societies we say there are all sorts of things that you can’t do for money with your own time and body, however desperate you may be. Selling your organs and selling sex being examples.

Selling your organs and selling sex being examples.

Resulting in thousands of deaths due to organ shortages, and sex workers being abused by pimps and corrupt cops.

Read “never let me go” by Kazuo Ishiguro, or actually even watch the movie that was made of it (same title)

That illustrates fairly well why having an underclass who provides healthy organs to the rich is a utterly barbaric idea.

> and sex workers being abused by pimps and corrupt cops

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but my understanding is that it's very very far from proven that legalizing prostitution improves the lot of sex workers -- I am led to believe that trafficking becomes _more_ of a problem in localities where sex work is legal.

Further, and again no strong personal opinion on the matter, but I suspect you'd see a huge rise in coerced organ selling if it became legalized.

These are questions societies need to answer for themselves, and my central point was that there's already precedent for societies deciding that they don't benefit when some things are available for sale, even if an individual in the moment says they want to sell it.

how is it any different than not being willing to pay $3/month for private email, and instead getting it free from google/microsoft?

I don't have a good answer for you. My bad answer is I trust Google/Microsoft a little more when they say they aren't looking at your emails than I trust FB with Everything you do on your phone and no guarantee of what they are doing with it.

I probably misunderstood you. From the very beginning of Gmail, Google has been very upfront that they do look at your emails, each and every one of them. They use automation for that, is that what you meant? No fleshy humans physically reading with their own eyeballs?

I mean, do you think we should outlaw strippers? They sure give up more privacy than this for money. What about other things people sacrifice for money? Coal miners? Crab fisherman?

Please demonstrate how a naked person is giving up more privacy than what is being discussed in the linked article.

When a person is paid to strip you, nor the house, get to read everything they do on their smartphones.

I agreed with TheSpiceIsLife, I don't see how those compare. Seeing someone naked is so completely different than having full access to what they do on their smart phone. In fact, on their smart phone there are probably naked pictures.

Teenage strippers are frowned upon in most jurisdictions.

You have made the assumption that the sellers are desperate. Do you have evidence for that?

I was replying to the parent of my comment

> For some people this money could be incredibly important.

So I took this to mean "desperate enough" as in there are scales/levels of "desperate"-ness. Maybe desperate is the wrong word and the "enough" modifier wasn't obvious in my meaning.

Maybe a better way to put it:

Are we, as a society, ok with people needing $20 more than their privacy?

I was trying to convey that I imagine I would have to be pretty desperate to give up my privacy for $20/mo.

First of all I doubt that most people who go into this have a feeling of desperation, especially not the teenagers that are targeted. (I do sort of have an issue with the targeting, though when I think about it, I bet that teenagers actually understand what they are giving up better than 50 year olds). So I would rephrase that as "are we, as a society, ok with people _wanting_ $20 more than privacy", to which my answer is yes. I guess I would have a problem if it were desperation, but then I don't think that in this sense being "desperate" for $20 off a smart phone plan is correct usage of the term.

The app in question monitors all private communication that you have with others, who most certainly did not consent to have their own privacy taken away. So no, it's not okay to steal someone else's private information and put it on sale, however desperate you may be.

It's even more unethical to encourage people to do so, like FB did.

what if parents force their children to participate?

Wowsers! That hadn’t crossed my mind.

What if you have five kids. That’s $100 a month.

That... is... disgusting and will be very hard to pass up. This whole thing just makes me sad.

That's like the dictionary definition of "exploitation".

> d need $20/mo more than they need privacy

What if you simply don't care if some researchers have access to your data?

I'd honestly consider doing this myself, even though I am a highly paid software engineer, because it really does sound like "free money".

Although I probably won't, because I don't want to go through the hassle of sideloading an app on my phone (but if it was a 1 click thing, I'd seriously consider it).

You are leaving out group three. Those who want the money and will put it on a spare phone and game Facebook by using the phone for nonsense that has little to do with their personal life. As a similar example, just because I use Facebook doesn't mean I click "like" on things I actually believe in. Or click on ads of products I would be interested in. Quite the opposite.

This is fair, I know when I was younger we loved finding ways to game systems like this but we never were playing with the fire that is a monitored VPN. Yes a separate phone solves most the issues but this pales in comparison to shit like clicking on ads for pennies in high school to get paid.

I didn't mean to imply that group 3 includes kids. The targeting to kids I consider unethical. I agree with you that a monitored VPN is not something someone under legal adult age should be considered capable of consenting to. In fact I would say it's one of those cases that even the parents can't consent to. It might be comparable to a parent consenting to their child's phone line being tapped by a third party for a monthly payment. Clearly unethical, and probably illegal in a lot of places.

>Preying on either group is disgusting and wrong.

I think it's fine for group #1. If the $20 is that important to them then I'd rather not deny them the opportunity.

I would just sign up for it and use on a seedbox.