Facebook Worries Emails Could Show Zuckerberg Knew of Questionable Privacy Practices (wsj.com) 101
Facebook uncovered emails that appear to show Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg's connection to potentially problematic privacy practices at the company, WSJ reported Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter. From the report: Within the company, the unearthing of the emails in the process of responding to a continuing federal privacy investigation has raised concerns that they would be harmful to Facebook -- at least from a public-relations standpoint -- if they were to become public, one of the people said. The potential impact of the internal emails has been a factor in the tech giant's desire to reach a speedy settlement of the investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, one of the people said. Facebook is operating under a 2012 consent decree with the agency related to privacy, and the emails sent around that time suggest that Mr. Zuckerberg and other senior executives didn't make compliance with the FTC order a priority, the people said.
It couldn't be determined exactly what emails the agency has requested and how many of them relate to Mr. Zuckerberg. The FTC investigation began more than a year ago after reports that personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users improperly wound up in the hands of Cambridge Analytica, a data firm that worked on President Trump's 2016 campaign. The FTC is investigating whether that lapse violated the 2012 consent decree with the agency in which Facebook agreed to better protect user privacy. Since the Cambridge Analytica affair, other privacy missteps have come to light, adding to Facebook's headaches.
It couldn't be determined exactly what emails the agency has requested and how many of them relate to Mr. Zuckerberg. The FTC investigation began more than a year ago after reports that personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users improperly wound up in the hands of Cambridge Analytica, a data firm that worked on President Trump's 2016 campaign. The FTC is investigating whether that lapse violated the 2012 consent decree with the agency in which Facebook agreed to better protect user privacy. Since the Cambridge Analytica affair, other privacy missteps have come to light, adding to Facebook's headaches.
dumb fucks (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure he knew about it from day one.
Re:dumb fucks (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure he knew about it from day one.
He didn't just know about them . . . he invented Questionable Privacy Practices.
We don't need to read his emails . . . we just need to read his mind.
Re: (Score:1)
He is right though. Anyone using facebook is a dumb fuck
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he knew. The facebook business model is built on user privacy practices that are questionable at best.
Notice how facebook isn't concerned with actual privacy here, only the PR fallout from the truth coming out.
In other words, he knew. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's basically the only reason to be concerned about emails that "could show it".
He LIED TO CONGRESS. (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe under the Trump regime we've all kind of forgotten this is still a serious felony for people who get provably accused of it? There's plenty of evidence in plain sight that Zuck lied to Congress repeatedly and intentionally.
Put him next to Trump at Rikers.
Re: (Score:1)
There's plenty of evidence in plain sight that Zuck lied to Congress repeatedly and intentionally.
What evidence specifically?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Go back and review his testimony and compare it with what we know from the emails, dipshit. I haven't made a side-by-side video yet, I'm not the prosecutor, but the evidence is in PLAIN SIGHT that Zuck's answers were intentionally false.
He pretended to not know about ANYTHING, including the hiring of PR firms his name is all over in emails. That's a single example.
(But since you're a dumb faggot phantomfive who asserts things like "Hillary Clinton invaded Iraq" and other retarded false characterizations,
BUSTED, LYING FAGGOT PHANTOMFIVE CM COCK (Score:2, Informative)
You want to see the link LYING FAGGOT? https://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=14141872&cid=58750254 BUSTED, FAGGOT
Re: He LIED TO CONGRESS. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe under the Trump regime we've all kind of forgotten this is still a serious felony for people who get provably accused of it? There's plenty of evidence in plain sight that Zuck lied to Congress repeatedly and intentionally.
Put him next to Trump at Rikers.
Rikers?
Why not Pelican Bay?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Plum Island Animal Disease Center?
Re: (Score:2)
So, what? Clapper did too.
Punishment is for the lower classes, not the political and fiscal elite.
Be careful what you say about your masters.
No Surprise (Score:5, Informative)
It no surprise that Fuckerberg knew about Fakebook's "questionable" privacy practices...Fuckerberg started Fakebook, and Fakebook has ALWAYS had zero privacy built in from the start! The entire purpose of Fakebook has ALWAYS been to collect and sell user data. It was created for that purpose. Any other functions of Fakebook are purely to get more data from more people!
To paraphrase another public figure... (Score:4, Informative)
... he probably is saying--or thinking--something like:
But, weasel that he is, I'm betting he'll wriggle out from under this. Somehow. Billionaires always do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Due to the way the corporation is structured, the shareholders don't seem to be able to do this.
But if you committed perjury in Congressional hearings, your majority stock ownership ain't gonna help you. If the government doesn't come after him, Facebook may still begin uncontrollably bleeding users and investors may have the last say after all.
Cambridge Analytica is now Emerdata (Score:2, Informative)
Emerdata [wikipedia.org]. Remember the new name. Same people, same offices, different name.
Re: (Score:2)
Not The Aristocrats?
"People familiar with the matter" (Score:1)
Even though we have no idea who these "people" are, we will believe anything they say that affirms our narrative.
The press has lost it. When they can't get a story they find someone "familiar with the matter" to make one up. We shouldn't accept such sloppiness.
Re:"People familiar with the matter" (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah! All whistleblowers should publicly disclose their identities, so that they may be properly retaliated against.
We don't have to. Congress will now be looking for those emails in the response to the subpoena. and people "familiar with the matter" may very well contact a Congresscritter in the event that they do not turn up.
Oh, you mean that you, personally, will not accept that process? That means f-all.
Re: (Score:2)
Information provided by named sources would still be hearsay, and hearsay can be evidence. You'd be wise to learn about how the two do and do not overlap.
More importantly, it's a news report, not a claim in a court proceeding. You don't demand evidence of last night's sports scores, and you don't get evidence of the school board meeting or three car accident either.
There's no indication that it w
Re: (Score:2)
Do I trust you, or years of education and practice backed up by the Federal Rules of Evidence [cornell.edu]?
The latter.
Note that these are exceptions to the rule against hearsay, not things that are not hearsay. Hearsay is, e.g., anything falling within FRE 801(c) [cornell.edu] and not carved out by 801(d).
Re: (Score:2)
Your climbdown is noted. However, rebuttals to "Hearsay cannot be evidence" are not limited to "hearsay is always evidence." The exceptions are numerous, and you've missed the biggest one despite the fact that I pointed you right to it.
Re: (Score:1)
Because you know nothing about this.
And of course you know everything about this, right?
*sigh* Another AC that's *familiar with the matter*...
Re: (Score:1)
+5 Funny!
Re: (Score:2)
Even though we have no idea who these "people" are, we will believe anything they say that affirms our narrative.
In general when the WSJ says they have a source, they aren't lying about it. Of course we should ask for further evidence, but prima facie it's probably true.
Re: (Score:1)
First I have to knock down the paywall to read the article.
Given the people involved, I fully accept the plausibility of the story, but until the facts are in it's an editorial that only reflects the suspicions of an interested party.
Intentional from day one (Score:3)
Seriously, is there even a question?
Re: (Score:2)
As a Washington State Citizen I have an inalienable right to Privacy. It's in our State Constitution.
And, in addition to being an American citizen, I'm also a Canadian citizen, and I have an inalienable right to Privacy that's in the Canadian Constitution, no matter where I go worldwide.
My neurons are mine. Not yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. Who do you think created this world?
You're trapped in here with us.
When? (Score:3, Interesting)
When will executives be held accountable? We let the banking executives get away with destroying the economy. The billionaire owners of Purdue Pharma are still on the loose. Nobody at Boeing has gone to prison over intentional design flaws that led to the deaths of hundreds. Only a few pee-ons have gone to prison over the poisoning of the Flint water supply.
In contrast, Germany has sentenced VW executive Oliver Schmidt to prison. [bloomberg.com] Vietnam has put their corrupt bankers to death. [scmp.com]
The United States needs executive accountability. Corporations should not be able to shield executives from their illegal actions.
This is what got tobacco and ... (Score:2)
... silicosis and asbestos.
Internal documents surfaced in discovery that amounted to a confession.
This is what I've been waiting for.
Shareholders are pissed at Zuck and this would be a great way to bring him down. Insiders own a lot of stock ...
alignment (Score:2)
Mr. Zuckerberg and other senior executives didn't make compliance with the FTC order a priority, the people said.
Chaotic neutral.
Is there still anyone who trust this dumbass? (Score:2)
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
nobody should be surprised (Score:3)
These companies can do ANYTHING they want with our data, as long as it's allowed by law. Period. End. Of. Story. They can say whatever they want. "We didn't know about it. We're stopping the practice. For realizes, we promise promise promise etc. etc. etc." It doesn't matter. At. All. In most cases, straight-up-lying is still legal.
The only two things that can force a company to act: government laws and the laws of economics. A company will share anything and ignore privacy if it allows them to make money, unless there is some economic reason that the company is better off holding the data private. For example, there is pretty strong evidence that Apple sells and shares user data MUCH less than the others. It's part of what you get when you pay the premium for Apple products. Their premium sales model would suffer if they failed to distinguish themselves on this front. Google and Facebook? They're bottom-line commodity services and will sell anything for a buck. Cambridge-Analytica-type events are going to happen over, and over, and over again, unless it's made explicitly illegal at the federal level and enforced with prison sentences.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not really angry about any of this. This is capitalism at work. Data is valuable and thus will be collected, hoarded, bought, sold, traded for, and sometimes stolen. We designed our system to be nearly pure capitalism, and it works pretty darn well. But please, let's be honest about what's happening.
The safest bet is to assume that EVERYTHING is shared and NOTHING is private. You do a search or watch a video on one platform with ALL the privacy boxes checked, and 10 minutes later you'll be getting creepy targeted adds on a totally unrelated platform. Your internet activity is bought and sold in real-time. "Private mode" is an illusion. Policies are not law. A company can flagrantly violate its own policies and suffer exactly zero consequences. Fundamentally, privacy policies are worth less than the (non-existent) paper they are written on. Don't believe a company will even bother to follow them unless it PROVES that they're following them. Again, see Apple. Not perfect but they put a lot more money where their mouth is on this topic.
The internet is NOT private. Don't kid yourself that it ever was. Or ever will be.
Wrong priorities (Score:2)
Facebook should be more worried about what Zuckerberg is doing, rather than what is in his emails.
Zuckerberg on privacy (Score:2)
Look up "Hoist with his own petard".
SHOCKED! (Score:2)
AntiFB propaganda going strong recently (Score:2)
The sad part about this is it seems the slashdot community is lapping it up. Critical thinking seems like a rare occurence here nowadays.