1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
|
Document: WM-038 P. Webb
Category: Rant 2019.03.07
The Bullshit of Facebook
Abstract
Platitudes, promises, and piss-poor policies
Body
Yesterday, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg published an
essay[1] where he promises a "A Privacy-Focused Vision for Social
Networking". The optimist would say he's learned the error of
his/Facebook's ways, the pessimist would write the entire thing off,
and the realist would assume this is reactionary posturing due to the
fact that Facebook is experiencing "an estimated 15 million fewer
users in the United States compared to 2017" (according to
Edison Research[2]).
I am in the latter two camps but I'm particularly incensed about how
brazen the Zuck continues to be in his lying. It IS a new era so
maybe this is his new normal. Let's dissect his several "promises"
(bold text inside quotes represent emphasis I've added).
1. Reducing Permanence
> People should be comfortable being themselves, and should not
> have to worry about what they share coming back to hurt them
> later. So *we won't keep messages or stories around for longer
> than necessary* to deliver the service or longer than people
> want them.
How long is "necessary"? Facebook stores what you've typed in the
post box but you've "have not sent"[3] or "you deleted"[4]. It is
completely unnecessary to store that information in the first
place, let alone for an indeterminate amount of time.
2. Encryption and Safety
> People should expect that *we will do everything we can to keep
> them safe on our services* within the limits of what's possible
> in an encrypted service.
People *did* expect this and some hope that Facebook tries harder.
Making private information availble to third-parties in order to
make money isn't how you protect people. In Facebook's case,
protecting users in this way comes into direct conflict with their
desire to make money. This is why they are so conflicted about it.
> At the same time, there are real safety concerns to address
> before we can implement end-to-end encryption across all of our
> messaging services. *Encryption is a powerful tool for privacy,
> but that includes the privacy of people doing bad things.* When
> billions of people use a service to connect, some of them are
> going to misuse it for truly terrible things like child
> exploitation, terrorism, and extortion. We have a responsibility
> to work with law enforcement and to help prevent these wherever
> we can. *We are working to improve our ability to identify and
> stop bad actors across our apps by detecting patterns of
> activity or through other means*, even when we can't see the
> content of the messages, and we will continue to invest in this
> work. But we face an inherent tradeoff because we will never
> find all of the potential harm we do today when our security
> systems can see the messages themselves.
There are a couple things to unpack here. Zuckerberg delivered the
flawed argument of [insert tech here] should not be used because
criminals exist. This is a straw man argument. The mere EXISTENCE
of a particular technology isn't going to make law enforcement's
jobs impossible, just like it isn't going to enable criminals to
be untouchable. Criminals and law enforcement are locked in a
perpetual arms race (sometimes literally) and will continue to be
until the heat death of the Universe and then some.
Sounds like Facebook is trying to figure out how to create a
"secure back door" and we all know that doesn't exist. At which
point we'll get an apology and a "pledge to do better" when the
inevitable data hack and resulting leak occurs. 😴
3. Secure data storage
> People should expect that *we won't store sensitive data in
> countries with weak records on human rights* like privacy and
> freedom of expression in order to protect data from being
> improperly accessed.
Reeeeeeally. China? They exist. They also have nearly 1.5 BILLION
people. No way Facebook is giving up the chance to get a slice of
that pie.
WeChat is what Facebook aspires to be, but like any company that
wants to do business in China, you've gotta have servers there
because the Chinese government demands it.
Apple recently had to put servers in China JUST for their mainland
customers. However, Apple has a proven track record in regards to
privacy and end-to-end encryption so I am less worried about
Chinese dissidents using iPhones than I am about them using
Facebook for literally anything.
Like Zuckerberg stated in his essay, encryption has saved
countless dissidents from being murdered but I am not confident in
Facebook's ability to protect them.
Conclusion
Facebook's profits are up but positive public perception is
*plummeting*. It's difficult not to think of Zuckerberg's
"candidness" as sweet talk to entice Gen Z'ers and millennials
back to the platform and to make your auntie feel safe because
"the guy who made the site said so".
However, Mark Zuckerberg does a great job of stressing the
importance of social networks:
> Public social networks will continue to be very important in
> people's lives -- for connecting with everyone you know,
> discovering new people, ideas and content, and giving people a
> voice more broadly. People find these valuable every day, and
> there are still a lot of useful services to build on top of
> them. But now, *with all the ways people also want to interact
> privately, there's also an opportunity to build a simpler
> platform that's focused on privacy first.*
Problem is, I don't think he believes his own words.
Is Facebook being refactored? Are they really going back to the
original vision, to make the world feel smaller and more
personable? Or is he talking about my social network in
progress[5], Socii[6]?
Between my day job helping create a decentralized content
platform[7] and creating Socii, I've got my hands full and I'm
also super passionate about protecting my family, friends, and
cool folks on the Internet like yourself.
Y'know, focused on privacy first. 🕸
References
[1] <https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-vision-for-social-networking/10156700570096634>
[2] <https://www.marketplace.org/2019/03/06/tech/exclusive-look-numbers-showing-users-leaving-facebook-by-the-millions>
[3] <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/14/facebook-says-new-bug-allowed-apps-access-private-photos-up-million-users>
[4] <https://slate.com/technology/2013/12/facebook-self-censorship-what-happens-to-the-posts-you-dont-publish.html>
[5] </WM-023>
[6] <https://socii.network>
[7] <https://lbry.tech>
|
