Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Has Fired Multiple Employees for Snooping on Users: Motherboard (vice.com)

Joseph Cox and Max Hoppenstedt, reporting for Motherboard: On Tuesday, Facebook fired an employee who had allegedly used their privileged data access to stalk women online. Now, multiple former Facebook employees and people familiar with the company describe to Motherboard parts of the social media giant's data access policies. This includes how those in the security team, which the fired employee was allegedly a part of, have less oversight on their access than others. The news emphasizes something that typical users may forget when scrolling through a Silicon Valley company's service or site: although safeguards against abuse may be in place, there are people who have the power to see information you believe to be private, and sometimes they may look at that data.

Motherboard granted the sources in this story anonymity to speak more candidly about Facebook's policies and procedures. One source specifically mentioned Facebook's strict non-disclosure agreement. One former Facebook worker said when they joined the company multiple people had been terminated for abusing access to user data, including for stalking exes. Another former Facebook employee said that they know of three cases where people were fired because they mishandled data, one of which included stalking. Typically, these incidents are not publicly reported.

35 comments

  1. Nothing new. by laughingcoyote · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is really nothing new under the sun.

    Some years ago now, I ran a MUD (a multiplayer text game, for those of us who wouldn't know what that is). We had strict rules as to under what circumstances the immortals (administrators) were allowed to monitor what the players were doing on private and local channels, essentially good cause to believe the player in question was engaged in cheating, harassing other players, etc. And if asked, you better be able to say just what those reasons were.

    I had to remove more than one immortal for inappropriately snooping on players when they didn't have good cause to, including watching some, shall we say, rather intimate encounters. Unfortunately, some people apparently find the allure of spying irresistible. It's at least good in this case, as in the one I'm describing, that someone actually seems to be watching the watchers.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    1. Re:Nothing new. by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The skeptical part of me thinks that we're only hearing about this now because, as much as Facebook wouldn't like it to be known that their employees have been pulling this kind of shit all throughout the company's history, they'd rather have us talking about this than the other ways your data has been and is being abused by the company. From how Facebook has behaved, perhaps the only crime that these employees committed in Facebook's eyes was a failure to pay Facebook's going rate for access.

    2. Re:Nothing new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is stupid though. Using it just for spying/snooping/"playing god" are dumb uses. Working for Facebook and launching your own AI using their data, that's where it's at. But they'd probably just take your project and call it their own.

    3. Re:Nothing new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is something kids today will never understand. My first admin job in IT was network monitoring, the last thing I ever wanted to do was confront anyone on their browsing habits. Granted it was a School so the pressure was certainly there to spy on everyone. I didn't care, still don't. I made it clear what we could do and you were free to ask. Get caught looking at porn in a lab though and you most certainly ended up on my radar. Even then it wasn't to get you terminated or suspended. Certainly didn't go around telling anyone about you.

      Admins today are completely the opposite. It's a big reason why security groups are for the most part given immunity from even middle managers. They are also not to be hired without proper vetting, something few companies actually do properly (I'm not talking background checks). Sociopaths need not apply.

    4. Re: Nothing new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What can one expect from the consulting windows/java world? Real experience, or lapdog behaviour. Often managers make these abuses happen.

    5. Re:Nothing new. by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Look at the GDR, nearly half the population was working for the STASI in some form or another and spying on the rest. In policing, it's the neighborhood busybody you go to when investigating crimes as well.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re: Nothing new. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The ones who love it the most are those with empty, meaningless lives.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:Nothing new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The STASI probably drowned in an excess of information, and thus was probably inefficient as a result. And then the Berlin wall fell, but that was The Hoff, Reagan and the Pope's doing. Maybe also Bono.

    8. Re:Nothing new. by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      This post brings back some good memories. I remember playing MUDs a lot back in the day. I was an immortal in the Heroes of the Lance game. At some point we were working on building an entirely new world..... and then that never happened and the MUD more or less vanished. Granted I also kind of vanished as a player and immortal so I've no clue entirely what all happened. Good memories, though.

    9. Re: Nothing new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the guy with multiple posts to every /. story for the past decade.

    10. Re:Nothing new. by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      The STASI probably drowned in an excess of information, and thus was probably inefficient as a result. And then the Berlin wall fell,

      The STASI files paint a completely different picture on that. Read them yourself.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    11. Re:Nothing new. by Escogido · · Score: 1

      Many years ago from now, I also ran a MUD. Being able to spy on other players, and also cheat in favor of your friends, were the main reason players WANTED to become immortals. For those who don't yet know how boring and predictable others are, yeah, the pull is too strong.

    12. Re:Nothing new. by GoTeam · · Score: 1

      Very true. They collected any and all information and waited until they needed or wanted something from you to let you know they had "interesting" information about you. At that point it was in your best interest to cooperate. It didn't really matter if the information they had on you was accurate or not.

    13. Re:Nothing new. by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Indeed it is nothing new. It is predictable as anything. It even has a term used by the U.S. intelligence agencies LOVEINT.

      If you follow the news you will be aware that every organization that maintains records on private individuals, or has access to surveillance systems, will have some percentage of staffers using it titillate themselves, or stalk others. Spying on calls with loved ones from U.S. servicemen deployed overseas, the NSA staffers trading naked pictures, police looking up information on people they have interests in, etc., etc.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  2. Meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Facebook Has Fired Multiple Employees for Snooping on Users

    Facebook fired an employee who had allegedly used their privileged data access to stalk women online.

    Bullshit.

    Spying on you. Tracking you. Stalking you. All for the purpose of selling you to advertisers. This is Facebook's business. This is Facebook's ONLY business. Everything else is incidental.

    This is simply an attempt to pretend that Facebook is actually doing something. Facebook has many thousands of employees, and they will gladly sacrifice a couple of them in an attempt to to generate some positive PR.

    1. Re:Meaningless by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Damn right it's their business. So you better cough up the dough if you want to stalk someone, these people were essentially stealing from their company by not paying for it.

      I'm somewhat certain that was the actual reason why they were fired. Not that they spied and stalked users, but that they didn't pay for the privilege.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Zuckerberg should be the #1 firing then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Punk ass spies on EVERYBODY

    1. Re: Zuckerberg should be the #1 firing then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's why he started facebook in the first place.

  4. Nothing new-Email. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    E-mail is probably the biggest one for abuse.

  5. Uhm... by kenh · · Score: 1

    Good. Right?

    --
    Ken
  6. Facebook may be exposing themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Facebook inform the police, and the victim and divulge the name of the perpetrator?
    If not, they could find themselves in great legal jeopardy.

    1. Re: Facebook may be exposing themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? It's traffic you sent to Facebook. Your expectation of privacy should be just about zero.

    2. Re: Facebook may be exposing themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? It's traffic you sent to Facebook. Your expectation of privacy should be just about zero.

      Really? So, if I send a letter, my privacy - regarding the postal service - is expected to be about zero? What about mobile calls (landline is for grandpa and grandma) and the possibility of the phone company snooping in or accessing my message logs unwarranted? Am I to expect zero privacy?

      No matter what it is, only in a third world country will I have zero privacy expectation regarding such services (and even there...).
      In pretty much all European countries this would be a matter for a court case against Facebook - and the employee - and a guaranteed win if proven the employee had unwarranted access (and Facebook doesn't have a say in what is considered warranted access, their TOS means jack when it comes to law).

  7. partial red herring by thePsychologist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although I agree adhering to their internal policies is a good thing, I fear that these stories only serve to detract from the data abuse that Facebook performs as part of their business model.

    It's true that people sign up and willingly use this service. But, if you interact with those not so familiar with technology, you'll realize that they are being taken advantage of in ways that could not be anticipated by those crafting older privacy laws.

    Besides education on this issue, many countries should take a serious look at the EU's data privacy laws approach and consider applying it in their own country.

    --
    "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
    1. Re:partial red herring by Falconnan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All of this is true. But at the same time, the theory is that if the data is only accessed/used by systems and not people, there are fewer ethical concerns. Note, I mean Facebook's theory. And to a limited degree this is likely true. Also, no matter how good the tools to avoid abuse are, this can and does happen everywhere sometimes. I don't see this as a newsworthy story, frankly. But here's the thing, and the potential problem with privacy in general: The services people want depend on their information being available to the service provider.

      The Internet is new, social media is newer. We don't yet have this properly incorporated into our society. People forget the telephone itself took nearly two generations for that to happen. This is going to take some time, and smart legislation.

  8. Fire him? by cerberusss · · Score: 2

    "Employees who abuse these controls will be fired”, Alex Stamos, Facebook’s chief information security officer, told Motherboard in a statement.

    Is that all? Why isn't he prosecuted?

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    1. Re:Fire him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, that's the same guy?!

      So much of this is making sense now, thank you.

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Hardly surprising by scdeimos · · Score: 2

    there are people who have the power to see information you believe to be private, and sometimes they may look at that data.

    For about as long as we've had email there have been t-shirts:

    I read your email.

    If it's on the internet someone else you don't want seeing it probably already has a copy of it.

    1. Re:Hardly surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's on the internet someone else you don't want seeing it probably already has a copy of it.

      Unless you wipe it with a cloth, or something.

  11. What about passing notes in classs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Would you prosecute Beth for reading the note Andy asked her to pass to Cindy?

  12. The president's account. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely someone else has thought of this or asked it.

    Our president likes to Tweet, ya?

    Does he or did he ever have a Facebook account?

    Lunch is cheap if I'm a bad actor getting paid for a tip.