Slashdot Mirror
Former Facebook Employees Say The Company's Prioritization Of Privacy is About Optics (buzzfeednews.com)
Last May, Facebook promised to launch a "Clear History" feature that it said would give users more control over their data. 9 months later it's nowhere to be found and now a report claims that it's a key example of the company's "reactionary" way of dealing with privacy concerns. From a report: Thus far, Facebook's public discussions of Clear History appear to have been more about communications strategy than charting a new course. In a Facebook post looking back on 2018, Zuckerberg pointed to the tool as one that would "give people more transparency" while Sandberg highlighted it to show Facebook's willingness to change during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last month.
Still, nine months after its initial announcement, Clear History is nowhere to be found. "We want to make sure this works the way it should for everyone on Facebook, which is taking longer than expected," the company said in a statement to BuzzFeed News. It's unclear if new high-profile hires, like Nate Cardozo (formerly of EFF) and Robyn Greene (formerly of New America's Open Technology Institute), will work with Facebook's new privacy unit or if they will be involved with Clear History. It has reached out to groups like Access Now, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), as well as academics. Sources confirmed that CDT and EFF were advising Facebook on its Clear History tool, but could not disclose specifics of their meetings due to nondisclosure agreements. Access Now's Masse confirmed Facebook had reached out on a number of issues, including Clear History, in the last few months, but called the conversations "punctual and limited." "Despite repeated statements and apologies from the company, we are not seeing a shift in Facebook data practices or an attitude that would suggest that they take data protection seriously," she said.
Still, nine months after its initial announcement, Clear History is nowhere to be found. "We want to make sure this works the way it should for everyone on Facebook, which is taking longer than expected," the company said in a statement to BuzzFeed News. It's unclear if new high-profile hires, like Nate Cardozo (formerly of EFF) and Robyn Greene (formerly of New America's Open Technology Institute), will work with Facebook's new privacy unit or if they will be involved with Clear History. It has reached out to groups like Access Now, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), as well as academics. Sources confirmed that CDT and EFF were advising Facebook on its Clear History tool, but could not disclose specifics of their meetings due to nondisclosure agreements. Access Now's Masse confirmed Facebook had reached out on a number of issues, including Clear History, in the last few months, but called the conversations "punctual and limited." "Despite repeated statements and apologies from the company, we are not seeing a shift in Facebook data practices or an attitude that would suggest that they take data protection seriously," she said.
I mean of course its about optics. Most of the privacy concerns around the practices people are upset with facebook over have been discussed now for at least 15 years by literally everyone doing anything remotely connected to (ugh about to use horrid buzzword) web 2.0.
Everyone in facebook leadership was aware of privacy issues, they made the decisions they made anyway and are only now backing off even a little for reasons of public perception. If they "sincerely cared" there would never have been an issue. They care no only to the point where it concerns their marketability. Until something like Zuck getting doxed or something and it causing his marriage to melt down no they won't really care about privacy issues; at least not beyond the optics.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Reactionary describes a person or attitude opposed to liberalising tendencies.
They don't have a right? It's their platform son. They make money doing this. You give them the right when you use their shit. When you go to a third party website that's using their code to track you, you've given that website permission to collect data on you and send it to Facebook. Stupidity is not understanding that the services you consume, including this one, costs a shit of money to run and manage. The people doing the work need/want paid for it. I don't want to be on an internet where everything is behind a paywall. Most people don't either - they bitch about them. But that's where we'll go to at some point. $50/year for 90 minutes/day for Youtube, $100/year for unlimited Google searches that return back 2 pages of results, $10/month for Facebook, $10/month for Snapchat, $10/month for whatever else.
Optics is the new "appearances", facade? veneer, style, look...
People wanna sound cool.
As for Facebook? Eh... it's the free market at work. As for the users, a bit of self control is in order. Just assume they record everything, because most likely they are, no matter what some stupid "privacy" policy says, and you will never know, unless somebody gets sloppy. What's the point of arguing?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
They have no right and we have the power to force legislation, just a choice and the will to implement that choice by applying political pressure and not the nonsense of we won't vote for you but the in your face, we will campaign against you. You want action, you make sure politicians fear your campaign efforts, not one vote they are losing but potentially hundreds or even thousands of votes.
Facebook will try to buy off politicians but all they are doing in reality is trying to pay the cost of gaining your vote via advertising and well, not only have they spent money advertising to you fruitlessly but you have gone on to campaign against them for free, taking away as many votes as you can. Even better, trying to get as many people as possible to campaign with you to take even more votes away, votes they have wasted millions advertising to pointlessly.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
People with axe to grind, grind their axe.
Well for one, as others mentioned even if *you* try to have no relationship with these companies, they still capture data about you, so it's not only the willing.
Also, it takes an even more 'shit of money' to do broadcast television and somehow it's been being provided free to viewers without surreptitious monitoring of its consumption. So it's not a given that free or reasonable pricing can only come with excessively intrusive mining.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
They might be the platform, but make no mistake, YOU are the product they're monetizing. As such, people should have a say in how they're used.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.