HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

feelin_googley

1,160 karma · joined May 14, 2016

submissionscomments
feelin_googley··on iOS, the Future of MacOS, Freedom, Security and Privacy
I dont have any issue with editing comments. I use the edit feature constantly myself.

Im just making clear I am not trying to cause agitation. Thats not the intent.

I try to be sparing with opinions. I dislike having to type prefix or postfix statements with "IMO" again and again, but I want to make explicit what is only an opinion versus what are facts or observations because ("IMO") opinions are almost always worthless. I prefer facts and questions.

Most of the volume of posts I made the past few weeks were not opinions but were excerpts and pointers to articles: facts and some journalists opinions.

The truth is I waste too much time "interacting" with this addictive forum. Its a distraction.

If you ban me from ever posting anything ever again on HN, in all honesty, you will probably be doing me a favour.

feelin_googley··on iOS, the Future of MacOS, Freedom, Security and Privacy
Its not a duplicate. @mercer suggested the last paragraph should be removed, so thats what I did. Alas, the edit period had expired.

Edit: Notice that youve toned down your original reply, which had statements like "No one cares about your opinions about Google, Apple or Facebook." It seems I have agitated you. I apologise.

feelin_googley··on iOS, the Future of MacOS, Freedom, Security and Privacy
Its encouraging to be reminded that still not everyone who uses Apple hardware runs MacOS exclusively.

https://sivers.org/openbsd

http://www.sacrideo.us/openbsd-on-macbook/

However I have not heard any reports of anyone running an alternative OS on iPhone or iPad hardware.

With every passing year I continue to think it would be interesting to observe how users would choose if Apple hardware and Apple software were sold separately.

Would all users choose Apple software?

feelin_googley··on Why is everyone so busy? (2014)
https://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21636612-t...

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...

feelin_googley··on iOS, the Future of MacOS, Freedom, Security and Privacy
Comments from me that are skeptical of Apple are always downvoted. Complaining is acceptable but doubting is not. I have tested this over the years and it is remarkably consistent. Its both amusing and sad. The clicks can sometimes take a while to come, sometimes days, but they always come. Whether I add something silly acknowedging this phenomenon makes no difference. They come either way. Its just a small price to pay for being irreverent I guess. I have plenty of karma to spare. Well worth it.
feelin_googley··on Making Ads and Pages More Transparent
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16770774

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/users-would-have-p...

feelin_googley··on iOS, the Future of MacOS, Freedom, Security and Privacy
Its encouraging to be reminded that still not everyone who uses Apple hardware runs MacOS exclusively.

https://sivers.org/openbsd

http://www.sacrideo.us/openbsd-on-macbook/

However I have not heard any reports of anyone running an alternative OS on iPhone or iPad hardware.

With every passing year I continue to think it would be interesting to observe how users would choose if Apple hardware and Apple software were sold separately.

Would all users choose Apple software?

Expecting to take a little karma subtraction from the thought police for daring to entertain such a nonpermissible idea. Par for the course here and well worth it.

feelin_googley··on Making Ads and Pages More Transparent
"... both incidental and replaceable."

Sometimes it seems like there is an underlying, unspoken presumption that no progress, no innovation making use of the internet could occur unless funding comes from exploiting data gathered from its use.

Sadly it has reached the point where some of that "progress" and "innovation" is simply in the mechanism for gathering more user data, unbeknownst to users. The beast is feeding itself. I have no interest in funding that, either directly or indirectly.

feelin_googley··on Making Ads and Pages More Transparent
This author located in the UK believes FB should be broken up:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/03/26/zuckerberg-m...

He believes that Facebook's board is susceptible to Silicon Valley groupthink and with Thiel there is clear conflict in interest due to Palantir.

He argues the board is "feeble" because Zuckerberg cant be sacked.

The author thinks Zuckerberg has made some "stupid" and "arrogant" moves.

For example last year as an experiment, he cut professionally produced news from the main newsfeed in Sri Lanka, Guatemala, Bolivia, Cambodia, Serbia and Slovakia making those countries "beta-testers" for "a political debate free of facts".

He recalls in 2007 he wrote two news stories about FB for a former employer. One was about some software that "connected to Facebook's then-new "social graph" and siphoned off personal information for resale." The other was about an advertiser, Vodafone, who pulled its ads from Facebook because it had been placed on a page promoting the British National Party.

He suggests that because stories like these could easily have been written as recent as last week, it shows how FB's problems are not new and how Zuckerberg has refused to acknowledge them for the last ten years let alone try to "fix" them.

He thinks FB should not be "fixed"; rather, it should be "broken and remade".

feelin_googley··on Making Ads and Pages More Transparent
He has also announced that he now supports the Honest Ads Act.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy/facebook...

Perhaps he will announce next that he supports competition.

Isnt it true that before being acquired by FB, WhatsApp charged users a subscription fee and did not show ads?

feelin_googley··on Making Ads and Pages More Transparent
There really is a feeling of "too little, too late".

Not in the sense FB cannot make improvements. Of course they can.

What is too little, too late is reversing the direction that the Zuckerberg story has taken.

The media can build someone up and they can also destroy someone.

As the recent Rolling Stone article suggested in no uncertain terms, there has been great damage done to media and journalism (and arguably to society) by having FB as a "filter" between the reader and the news source.

They have not managed the relationships well enough it seems.

Have a look at this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/06/mark-zuck...

Anecdotally I have heard Zuckerberg discussed in the ways described in this article. I have no doubt he was trying to carefully craft an image for the American public.

But, today, who can trust this young man who has the personal lives of billions of people on his servers... now that they have seen how he reacts in a crisis? (Perhaps we should say "fails to react".)

There is a certain irony I see in the failure of Zuckerbergs PR team. Someone who has been in PR for many years once explained to me the effect of FB on PR. Needless to say, it wasnt positive. PR traditionally relied on the media and its ability to reach the targeted audience. To a large extent, FB controls this now.

Whether any of this will matter long-term, who knows? Ask Wall Street?

But if and when FB assures us that they have everything under control, I will have doubts. This is an evolving story. We are seeing only the tip of the FB iceberg.

feelin_googley··on Making Ads and Pages More Transparent
How about making ads go away?

FB appears locked in to a business model that relies on continually pushing the limits of invasiveness.

Does that model have a breaking point?

Does FB know where that point lies?

feelin_googley··on Comcast, AT&T and Verizon pose a greater surveillance risk than Facebook
Naive questions:

What has been the US legal/regulatory framework governing "privacy" that telecomunications operators have had to work within for the past thirty years?

Has Facebook had to operate within that same framework? As FB grew, has it been subject to the same restrictions?

Has Facebook, with the billions they have made through collecting and monetising user data, and with the competition they have given to the telecommunications providers, played any role in any "shrinking" of past privacy protections afforded telecom subscribers?

I have not lived very long but the big difference I see from past decades is that collecting user data and monetising it is viewed as a "core business".

While I was not yet born at the time, I am confident that the telegraph was not funded by reading peoples telegrams and trying to sell that information to merchants. As far as I know telephone service was not funded by recording peoples conversations and marketing the value of the collected information to advertisers. Even consumer internet service, first appearing in the 1990s, was not funded by collecting user data and trying to "monetise" it.

"Free" communication thanks to the internet has brought us a new type of company. It operates in a legal grey area, free from many of the restrictions that applied to its predecessors. Until proven otherwise, it appears that without collecting data on users and marketing it to third parties, this type of company cannot survive.

Yet, whether these new companies exist or not, as far as I can see communication over the internet is still "free". (The cost being the internet subscription fees.) Of course when a user chooses to utilise the "services" of these companies to "simplify" their internet use (or even their first introduction to the internet), that notion of "free" becomes rather complicated.

feelin_googley··on Facebook will add “unsend” feature after secretly deleting Zuckerberg’s messages
What permission does the user give FB in terms of how FB can use the messages?

The message might "disappear" after a few seconds, but at that point FB may have already extracted the information they want from it, information they will use to further their business.

Assuming users want some sort of privacy, from whom is it that they want their messages to remain "private"?

Will there ever be options in FB "privacy settings" such as:

[ ] Do not share with Facebook

[ ] Do not share with advertisers, political campaigns, etc.

Absurdity aside, the mere feasibilty of this is itself debatable.

Do users want their messages to remain private from companies like Facebook?

How about from FB's clients, e.g., advertisers, political campaigns, hospitals, etc.?

How about from the rest of the general public?

We now know as confirmed by FB that this user data has been shared for years. Perhaps FB can argue this was "informed consent".

However users can change their minds in light of more information. They should be able to revoke that consent going forward.

Will all that "leaked" user data FB has intentionally shared self-destruct after some period of time? Unfortunately, no.

It seems to me that, in the main, the parties that have the greatest incentive to monitor users messaging are in fact companies like FB and their clients.

They have a financial incentive that is in the aggregate far greater than any individual (petty criminal, etc.). Collecting user data has become their business. "It is literally just what we do." Period.

Finally, thanks to the explosive growth of single websites into vast monopolies like Facebook that extend their reach into nearly every corner of the internet, they, the companies behind these websites, are in the best position to do it.

It should be self-evident but maybe needs to be restated: These companies cannot protect the user from the company itself. The amount of trust required of the user depending on these websites is simply mind-blowing (from the perspective of someone who has lived in times when no such trust was necessary).

Thats only an opinion. I respect any disagreement and welcome karma subtraction as a means to express it.

feelin_googley··on Facebook was in talks with hospitals about a proposal to share data
Heres an interesting "letter to Mark Zuckerberg" from a professor of health informatics who has worked with the NHS for the last 34 years.1

It discusses the issue of "the creepy line" and how to manage it in terms of getting informed consent to use electronic patient records.

He suggests NHS has "25 years of data on 50 million people" but because consent is required they cannot extract much meaningful information from it.

He tells that in an effort to "get around" this problem, the government proposed the concept of "implied consent".

A former shipyard worker in one of the authors workshops evaluated this concept plainly as thus: "Clearly some London-based bollocks. Nobody implies my consent."

1 https://www.digitalhealth.net/2018/04/joes-view-dear-mr-zuck...

feelin_googley··on Myanmar group questions Zuckerberg’s claim on Facebook hate speech prevention
I do not see the issue with this letter to Zuckerberg as suggested by some of the comments here.

I see the issue as one of Zuckerbergs choice of words, how he is portraying the facts.

It was his words in the interview that triggered the letter.

FB has now apologised for Zuckerbergs comment:

https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/companies/2018-04-06-faceb...

Facebook users and others are paying very careful attention to what Zuckerberg says.

Here is a piece that discusses why choice of words can be important, for example when giving testimony before US Congress. There are some provocative examples from past CEOs who have appeared to testify.

https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2018/04/06/what-to-...

Whether "trust" matters to FB business (selling ads) is another question.

Poll: Does FB need to have trust to succeed in the future?

feelin_googley··on Facebook was in talks with hospitals about a proposal to share data
Building 8, who is responsible for this project, is under the direction of the same person who wrote the memo about "questionable practices", incidental deaths and "connecting people".

The previous director quit after less than two years. There are videos on YouTube of motivational speeches for Building 8 projects. I watched one; it felt like cult-like.

One of these Building 8 projects, Aloha - a video chat device, was set to launch next month but they have sidelined it, for obvious reasons.

Apparently they took surveys and users did not trust FB; they were worried the device would be used to spy on them.

Then they considered marketing it as "a device for letting the elderly easily communicate with their families." They also considered selling it under a name other than Facebook.

Source:

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebooks-andrew-bosworth-to-...

feelin_googley··on Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes
Send your old comms with Zuckerberg to the FTC for safekeeping.

The three sources asked to remain anonymous for fear of "angering Zuckerberg".

But they still wanted to share their story with TC.

feelin_googley··on Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes
Mike Myers (Dr Evil) thinks Zuckerberg is more hated than Donald Trump.

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/mike-myers...

feelin_googley··on Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes
Apparently Sandberg went on a press tour giving five or so interviews, apologising according to script in each one.

But apparently she veered a bit off script in one of them, on the Today show.

She said "our service depends on your data."

Apparently she said something like "If they want to opt out of sharing all their data, they will have to pay for it."

Source:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sheryl-sandberg-sticks-to-scrip...

feelin_googley··on Facebook retracted Zuckerberg’s messages from recipients’ inboxes
The folks in Myanmar apparently have taken issue with how Zuckerberg referred to FB's "tools" and "systems" for detection of hate speech in his Vox interview. They sent him a letter:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/technology/zuckerberg-fac...

feelin_googley··on Facebook Building 8 explored data sharing agreement with hospitals
Some analysts think this may actually be a "good thing" for FB long-term.

They are "salivating" at the lower priced FB shares.

Large cash reserves, no debt and superior competitive positioning.

Are they missing anything?

Source:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4161213-facebook-concerns-o...

feelin_googley··on Extra Technical Obstacles for Facebook Quitters
The chief investment officer of the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) deleted his Facebook account yesterday because of FB's management re: privacy.

CalSTRS owned $650.4 million in FB shares at end of year 2017. I wonder if he experienced any of these technical problems when deleting his account.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/calstrs-cio-deletes-facebook...

feelin_googley··on Extra Technical Obstacles for Facebook Quitters
And these two about Sandberg are the first ones that got downvoted. (But one of them just got upvoted, so... Touche Sandberg PR team. :)

The bracketed comments (so-called "commentary") are what drew the demerits I suspect, not the copy-paste. I apologise to anyone who was offended. No more sarcasm from me, and no more copy-paste, I promise.

Almost all other posts have gotten generous amounts of upvotes. None got downvotes.

HN has some ethical readers who are bolstering the faith I have in the future of the internet!

One post (the one about the story comparing FB to an engorged tick) got 98 upvotes.

feelin_googley··on Extra Technical Obstacles for Facebook Quitters
"I feel deeply personally responsible, because a lot of mistakes were made," Sandberg said in an interview with Bloomberg.

[ Dont feel bad. You are doing a fantastic job! ]

"What we didn't do until recently and what we are doing now is just take a broader view looking to be more restrictive in ways data could be misused. We also didn't build our operations fast enough -- and that's on me," she added.

...

Sandberg addressed that comment as well, emphasizing that "all of that was public information."

...

"This is a forever process, because security is always an arms race," Sandberg said during an interview with Bloomberg.

[ No worries! Take as much time as you need. ]

Source:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/facebook-coo-feels-deeply-pe...

feelin_googley··on Extra Technical Obstacles for Facebook Quitters
"Facebook has asked several major U.S. hospitals to share anonymized data about their patients, such as illnesses and prescription info, for a proposed research project.

Facebook was intending to match it up with user data it had collected, and help the hospitals figure out which patients might need special care or treatment."

Source:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/facebook-building-8-explored...

feelin_googley··on Extra Technical Obstacles for Facebook Quitters
"We've seen a few advertisers pause with us and they're asking the same questions that other people are asking," Sandberg said Thursday in an interview at Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, California. "They want to make sure they can use data and use it safely."

Sandberg said she is having "reassuring conversations with advertisers, just as we are with people," about how Facebook has built privacy into its system.

[ This is very reassuring. ]

The company makes almost all its revenue and profit from advertising.

[ This too. ]

...

In a wide-ranging interview, Sandberg discussed the company's shifting responsibilities as it thinks about what can go wrong with its network, following the Cambridge Analytica revelations.

[ "Shifting responsibilities". Hmmm. ]

...

The company will also apply new European user-privacy rules globally, Sandberg said.

While the service may look different depending on the country, "the fundamental core principles of those settings and controls we are going to apply all over the world," she said. "Whether or not laws are passed."

[ Why does it need to "look different"? Less confusing that way I guess. ]

Separately, in an interview with Emily Chang of Bloomberg Television, Sandberg took the blame for not ensuring that Facebook's operations were staffed at the right level to protect users' privacy and for failing to look at security issues in total rather than dealing with specific problems as they arose.

"We also didn't build our operations fast enough, and that's on me," Sandberg said, explaining that the company will have 20,000 people working on security by year's end.

[ How brave to take the blame, considering the repercussions for this sort of negligence or carelessness with respect to privacy in the US are... nonexistent. ]

Source:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-05/facebook-...

feelin_googley··on Patch runs ed, and ed can run anything
"By 1982, Stallman's aversion to passwords and secrecy had become so well known that users outside the AI Laboratory were using his account as a stepping stone to the ARPAnet, the research-funded computer network that would serve as a foundation for today's Internet.

...

"[When] passwords first appeared at the MIT AI Lab I [decided] to follow my belief that there should be no passwords," Stallman would later say. "Because I don't believe that it's really desirable to have security on a computer, I shouldn't be willing to help uphold the security regime.""

Source:

http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch07.html

feelin_googley··on Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It
"These days, you might get more applause for not being on social media than for reaching a follower milestone in Europe's liberal hubs such as Berlin or Paris.

...

The mechanisms used by Cambridge Analytica and the "malicious actors" cited by Facebook appear to have been legal and do not constitute a data hack, but rather a deliberate exploitation of information through tools or loopholes Facebook itself provided in the past.

...

At least two foreign governments, Australia and Germany, threatened or launched investigations into the practices on Thursday.

...

Meanwhile, in India, where more than a half-million users are estimated to be affected, the allegations have resulted in a governmental request to Facebook and Cambridge Analytica for more detailed information, with a Saturday deadline.

Even though India is now Facebook's biggest market - ahead of the United States - no Indian media outlets were able to ask questions in a conference call with CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Wednesday.

The heavy U.S. focus immediately triggered criticism because privacy advocates are still looking into reports that Cambridge Analytica may have used Facebook data to influence Indian politics, as well.

...

German justice minister Katarina Barley already called for an E.U.-wide investigation into the misuse of Facebook's data by Cambridge Analytica and other companies on Thursday.

"Facebook has gambled away people's trust," Barley said.

...

But in Europe, Germany's justice minister and others already fear that the latest regulations aren't enough."

Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/05...

feelin_googley··on Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It
"Poll: Do you trust Facebook?

...

THIS MORNING, IT emerged that nearly 45,000 Irish Facebook profiles may have been affected by the giant data breach involving as many as 87 million accounts harvested by UK data intelligence firm Cambridge Analytica.

Those 45,000 accounts could have been breached due to just 15 Irish people accessing a questionnaire app, thisisyourdigitallife, which included in its permissions the granting of access to all an individual's friends' profiles."

Source:

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-do-you-trust-facebook-3941194-...

Page 1 of 15Next →