[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by Samurai

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/lea...-help-n1076986

I have often seen this defense used for supporting facebook's nefarious activities. There is a difference between targeted advertisement and targeted misinformation campaign.
...
Both are illegal businesses in that country. Do you think the building owner can stay out of trouble claiming he only rents office space?

Misinformation is the classification when the wrong side wins the election, the social media platform is not responsible for the user's well being. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, if you ignore that, be prepared for the consequences. The same people crying hoarse about misinformation were raving about the use of data mining to target voters in an election that went the way they wanted.

The building owner can't be held responsible unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he rented the property to profit from the illegal activities and collect rent because of that.

You mentioned twitter is not going to take political advertisements, to prevent misinformation it seems. They are quite content to remove trending hashtags that question the official narrative, specifically about Epstein. The platform is not a publisher, they don't have to take any responsibility,but, if they do, then they should face scrutiny.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

The same people crying hoarse about misinformation were raving about the use of data mining to target voters in an election that went the way they wanted.

Because they know the difference between targeted misinformation and target advertising?

Let me repeat this because I can clearly see you are not seeing the difference. Targeting advertising using data mining to target voters is legal. For example, highlighting the achievements of a politician and then also highlighting the failures of the opposing politician. Negative campaigning using facts is also legal. But peddling misinformation to masses by any means is illegal. For example, doctored videos, doctored photos, false stories to incite religious/regional bias, etc.

Do you see the difference?

Originally Posted by avira_tk

The building owner can't be held responsible unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he rented the property to profit from the illegal activities and collect rent because of that.

Well, now you are just guessing. Just the knowledge of the illegal activities is enough. Since the owner is collecting rent, he is already profiting from the activity. Even if the owner is ignorant, he won't escape entirely.

I remember what happened to Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of Baazee.com back in 2004. It was the first auction site of India, later bought by eBay. A highschool student put up a porn video for sale on the site. The CEO who had no clue about the item on sale, was arrested by Delhi police under IT Act 2000. The student was not arrested since he was a juvenile. Law doesn't think like techies do. Zuckerberg thinks he is clean, law thinks he is abetting the crime.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

The platform is not a publisher, they don't have to take any responsibility

Since both of us techies, I think we have better understanding of what a platform is. Operating systems like Windows/Linux are platforms, AWS & Azure are platforms. Why? Because they don't control or profit from the content on it. But social media sites both control and profit from the content, just like any newspaper or magazine. Newspapers and magazines always carry multiple opinion pieces, with a disclaimer that the opinions expressed is not that of the publisher. But they can't say they are not profiting from that content or ignorant of it. So they are responsible for ensuring the contents are not illegal. Why should social media get a pass?

https://in.pcmag.com/windows-10/1248...-not-platforms

[srini1785]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Just the knowledge of the illegal activities is enough. Since the owner is collecting rent, he is already profiting from the activity. Even if the owner is ignorant, he won't escape entirely.
Zuckerberg thinks he is clean, law thinks he is abetting the crime.

Isn't there a law tenet that says " Innocent until proven guilty"?. In the above case , even if the owner is involved until the concerned authorities prove beyond doubt in a court of law , he is still innocent. Why the same goes for the tenant too and the same goes for Zuckerberg.

PS : Not a big fan of Social media especially facebook. Wify says posting happy family pics on facebook or whatsapp bring the " Evil eye".

Out of experience and i hate to admit it, she's right...sometimes.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Because they don't control or profit from the content on it. But social media sites both control and profit from the content, just like any newspaper or magazine. Newspapers and magazines always carry multiple opinion pieces, with a disclaimer that the opinions expressed is not that of the publisher. But they can't say they are not profiting from that content or ignorant of it. So they are responsible for ensuring the contents are not illegal. Why should social media get a pass?

There is crucial difference which you are missing here, I think. The social media company doesn't produce the content. This is a critical differentiation because the producer owns the copyright of the content.

If it were not so, then Youtube/FB can legitimately claim copyrights as producers on the entire content that is published on their platform. You can't have it both ways. And that's why they are called platforms from a legal sense also, not only from a techie's point of view.

Originally Posted by Samurai

But peddling misinformation to masses by any means is illegal. For example, doctored videos, doctored photos, false stories to incite religious/regional bias, etc.
....
I remember what happened to Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of Baazee.com back in 2004........Law doesn't think like techies do. Zuckerberg thinks he is clean, law thinks he is abetting the crime.

If law already thinks FB is abetting a crime, you got to think why there are no actual court cases against him or against YouTube/Twitter. Not every post/tweet/video is legit. Why aren't the concerned senators/congresspersons in the US hauling him in front of a court for every doctored video, false stories published in their platforms, instead of ranting in the senate?

All that the platforms need to do are make reasonable distinctions on their platforms to highlight credible content vs unverified content, for example, blue ticks, "forwarded" tagging in whatsapp. As the FB employee suggested, make it more apparent in the FB that the content is not verified by FB; Highlight those unverified posts in a red box.

If the platform doesn't provide of taking down of illegal content once notified to them, then they are abetting a crime, not just if the content is available on their platform.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by srini1785

Isn't there a law tenet that says " Innocent until proven guilty"?.

Yes.

They were found guilty by FTC, and were slapped with $5 billion fine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/24/face...announces.html

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

There is crucial difference which you are missing here, I think. The social media company doesn't produce the content.

Are you saying distributing misinformation is not a crime as long you didn't create it? FB feed is controlled by Facebook, they decide who sees what.

Fence is a person who buys stolen goods from burglars and resells it. Can he use the same argument? Apparently not, because fencing is illegal almost everywhere.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

If law already thinks FB is abetting a crime, you got to think why there are no actual court cases against him or against YouTube/Twitter.

Glad you asked. Yes, they are doing it. Whole lot of them are doing it.

Private citizens: https://www.thestreet.com/story/1453...analytica.html

Government investigations: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/22/47-a...iolations.html

We techies may argue about the legal aspects, but actual legal experts are taking action.

[DigitalOne]

Are you saying distributing misinformation is not a crime as long you didn't create it? FB feed is controlled by Facebook, they decide who sees what.

Fence is a person who buys stolen goods from burglars and resells it. Can he use the same argument? Apparently not, because fencing is illegal almost everywhere.

Yes, it is not a crime. Otherwise Youtube or FB or Whatsapp would have been shut down for the first criminal content that gets uploaded on these platforms. Consider this for a more serious crime like, for example, child pornography. If the tech companies are criminally liable for these uploads, then they would have got shut down a long time back. But on the contrary all they ask for is ability to read the Whatsapp messages.

And just think, if there is a illegal pornography video on Youtube, do you think FBI would be knocking on Google's doors or on the perpetrators door (with tracking help from Google)?

Glad you asked. Yes, they are doing it. Whole lot of them are doing it.

Private citizens: https://www.thestreet.com/story/1453...analytica.html

Bunch of related and unrelated cases to the Cambridge Analytica breach, which I agree was a privacy violation and a breach of trust. Nothing to do with whether FB is liable for misinformation content in their platform.

Government investigations: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/22/47-a...iolations.html

Anti-trust violations are a different issue. I agree that FB has too much clout and should be broken into 3 different companies.

My point is just that there is no criminal liability on the Social Media companies for any illegal content on their platforms. Unless they know/notified about it, and they don't take it down. Or they don't help law-enforcement in tracking the illegal content.

-----
Slighly OT, what is your opinion on FB/Whatsapp e2e encryption and refusal to have a backdoor to read Whatsapp messages?

[V.Narayan]

FaceBook is like a political person or party. It will wield influence only as long as its voters ie the subscribers believe in it and need it. Today at least among the educated middle and upper classes I see a decline. The ones on FB are those today in the 20 to 30 age group who were teenagers a decade ago and I see the oldie-goldies as I call them. My grand nephews and nieces aged 8 to 12 think FB is for those older outdated people meaning the 26 year old! In the meantime in India the next two layers of the socio-economic hierarchy are on FB. Both my maids are on FB and my younger driver is on FB. I think FB has a effective life of over weaning influence of about 6 to 8 years left. After that it could be left as a rump product.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

FaceBook is like a political person or party. It will wield influence only as long as its voters ie the subscribers believe in it and need it. Today at least among the educated middle and upper classes I see a decline. The ones on FB are those today in the 20 to 30 age group who were teenagers a decade ago and I see the oldie-goldies as I call them....

In my observation, it is just the 60+ age group who are still actively using Facebook. All other age groups of the educated middle-class have effectively dumped it. I deactivated my account 4 years back.

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

and refusal to have a backdoor to read Whatsapp messages?

Conspiracy theory alert.

NSO have been exploiting vulnerabilities in both OSs and apps and are known to FB/ Whatsapp for quite sometime now. Apple showed some activity patching whatever they could find. Not so FB/ Whatsapp.

Could it be that when governments want backdoors, FB publicly resists, but tells the authorities 'no dragnets. That hurts trust and therefore over time our earnings. But we will point you to a snipers tool par excellence. However you'll have to get it from a third party. Our fingerprints cannot be on it.' And points it to NSO/ Pegasus.

Regards
Sutripta

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Yes, it is not a crime. Otherwise Youtube or FB or Whatsapp would have been shut down for the first criminal content that gets uploaded on these platforms.

Not merely upload. I am talking about individually targeted misinformation, which FB enables its paying customers to do. I am not aware of Youtube or Whatsapp doing this. In youtube I pick the channels I want to watch. As a premium member I never see ads in youtube. In Whatsapp, I am yet to see any advertising.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Bunch of related and unrelated cases to the Cambridge Analytica breach, which I agree was a privacy violation and a breach of trust. Nothing to do with whether FB is liable for misinformation content in their platform.

Ok, now I am confused. I thought both are one and the same. Where is the breach? FB willingly gave access, and members gave consent. It is their business model. What is stopping another Cambridge Analytica doing the same thing? That was the crux of the question from AOC in the congressional testimony. When she asked whether she can put up a false AD on FB, Zuckerberg says probably.

https://www.wired.com/story/mark-zuc...ds-to-shut-up/

Mark Zuckerberg called it data breach to confuse the matter, and treat it like an unfortunate incident. But company lawyers didn't agree.

The claim that this is a data breach is completely false. Aleksandr Kogan requested and gained access to information from users who chose to sign up to his app, and everyone involved gave their consent. People knowingly provided their information, no systems were infiltrated, and no passwords or sensitive pieces of information were stolen or hacked.

Source

Who knows the legal definition of breach better? The Facebook legal team or the CEO?

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Slighly OT, what is your opinion on FB/Whatsapp e2e encryption and refusal to have a backdoor to read Whatsapp messages?

I have an unusual view on this because of my professional background. Prior to 90s, individuals didn't really have the luxury of encryption. Take telephone system, every government in the world could tap calls according to the laws of the country. There was no technical challenges to it. The very first electronic exchanges (like 1ESS) came with options to tap calls. Other communications like email, fax, telegraph, postal mail or courier system had no encryption either. Even if you did encrypt by hand, the governments always had better cryptographers than individuals. The companies that could afford large computers had access to cryptography, but they were subject to US government restriction too. It was illegal to export encryption software that could use keys bigger than 40bits. If you were downloading a Internet browser in mid 90s from India, you could only download a 40 bit encryption browser.

In 1991, PGP software finally enabled individuals to use 128bit encryption. That means the US government couldn't break it. The author of PGP got into lot of legal trouble with US government.

In other words, individuals got the ability to communicate privately only 18 years ago. But most people started benefiting from it in the last 5 years. We never had it before. Phones are still not encrypted. Most emails are not encrypted. But we are all worried whether the good morning message on whatsapp from aunty is end-to-end encrypted.

[am1m]

Slightly spooky, slightly puzzling experience, would be grateful if any of the mobile techies could comment on how it happened:

Was in the gym last week and 3 of us were practicing some yoga asanas. In particular, one of our friends was showing the two of us how to correctly do the bakasana. My phone was in the locker. Was offline and I always turn off location. The other two had their phones with them inside the gym. One of the phones was online and had location enabled.

The next morning, one of the first things I see on my Instagram feed is a pic with a bakasana! I don't follow any yoga accounts.

Now I checked with them and neither of them had googled bakasana or had taken any pics on their phone. One of them follows me on Insta and we had communicated directly over Insta the previous week.

What's creepy is how that particular pose showed up and on my Insta. If it had shown up on the other two phones, it makes some sort of straightforward connection, assuming the phone is 'listening' to what's going on around.

But now the only assumption I can make is that my friend's phone picked up on the word 'bakasana', the Insta/FB algorithms managed to decipher the word 'bakasana' from the number of times we mentioned it, and pushed out related content to his contacts, in particular those who had been in direct contact with him recently.

Or just a pure co-incidence?

Any other thoughts?

(Could we stick to the tech aspects of how this could be possible please, not the conspiracy theories/political angles for now, thank you.)

[Sutripta]

Originally Posted by Sutripta

Conspiracy theory alert.

NSO have been exploiting vulnerabilities in both OSs and apps and are known to FB/ Whatsapp for quite sometime now. Apple showed some activity patching whatever they could find. Not so FB/ Whatsapp.

Could it be that when governments want backdoors, FB publicly resists, but tells the authorities 'no dragnets. That hurts trust and therefore over time our earnings. But we will point you to a snipers tool par excellence. However you'll have to get it from a third party. Our fingerprints cannot be on it.' And points it to NSO/ Pegasus.

Telegram founder agrees!
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a9211151.html

Regards
Sutripta

[shashanka]

This maybe slightly OT, but since thread is about mass data gathering by social media, the following link gives a look at the larger picture. It is Edward Snowden's (the grand-daddy of whistle blowers) latest public interview. The date of the interview is interesting (17th Sep. '19) for those following global current affairs.
It gives a new meaning to the term "invasion of privacy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9yK1QndJSM

[ruzbehxyz]

There's no escape: Facebook can locate users even after they opt out of tracking.

Facebook can determine where users are even if they opt out of having their whereabouts tracked, the company revealed in a letter sent to US senators. In the missive, which was widely shared on social media on Tuesday, Facebook explained ways it can still figure out where people are after they have selected not to share precise location data with the company.

Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.econo...w/72863391.cms

[Samurai]

And here is the end-to-end privacy of Whatsapp.

https://www.propublica.org/article/h...whatsapp-users

WhatsApp has more than 1,000 contract workers filling floors of office buildings in Austin, Texas, Dublin and Singapore, where they examine millions of pieces of users’ content. Seated at computers in pods organized by work assignments, these hourly workers use special Facebook software to sift through streams of private messages, images and videos that have been reported by WhatsApp users as improper and then screened by the company’s artificial intelligence systems. These contractors pass judgment on whatever flashes on their screen — claims of everything from fraud or spam to child porn and potential terrorist plotting — typically in less than a minute.