[HN Gopher] Meta 'most reluctant' to work with government: Home ...
___________________________________________________________________
Meta 'most reluctant' to work with government: Home Affairs
Author : jedwhite
Score : 89 points
Date : 2022-01-19 14:54 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.innovationaus.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.innovationaus.com)
| [deleted]
| jdlyga wrote:
| Speaking of Meta, has anyone noticed how many articles talking
| about the metaverse act like it already exists?
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you speak the lie long enough, it becomes fact for those
| that hear it.
| [deleted]
| pasabagi wrote:
| Does anybody else see a continuation of the Murdoch-Zuckerberg
| feud here? Australia is probably the most Murdoch-aligned country
| in the world, so it's no surprise they have a problem with Meta.
| You can also go back to the whole hullabaloo a few years ago
| after Trump got elected and see that the three nations who hauled
| facebook over the coals (UK, US, AU) all have a agenda-setting
| Murdoch media presence.
| alfongj wrote:
| Narrative violation
| photochemsyn wrote:
| It sounds like the issue here is that Facebook won't share all
| the data it collects on its product (i.e. Facebook users) with
| the Australian government? My understanding is that since the
| Cambridge Analytical issue, Facebook now manages all its data
| access in-house, so if you want to buy targeted advertising
| access from Facebook, you don't get to buy the product
| lists/categorizations directly, you have to submit your ad
| content to the Facebook advertising department, who then serves
| them directly to the product?
|
| I rather doubt Facebook is actually planning on implementing end-
| to-end encryption of the kind that would allow Facebook's product
| to hide their own data profiles from the Facebook advertising
| department, as that would defeat the whole purpose of the site.
| Targeted advertising based on Facebook's internal library of
| product data is the bread-and-butter of that outfit, isn't it?
|
| However, the product wants at least the illusion of privacy and
| Facebook wants more product, so it appears to be saying to the
| Australian government that it won't allow them to snoop on the
| product's data profiles.
|
| However, the whole thing could just be public posturing for PR
| purposes, and in reality they may have maintained backdoor access
| to product data for the NSA/GHCQ/FiveEyes etc. as per Snowden
| revelations about the PRISM program, which anyone can look up.
| pbalau wrote:
| > My understanding is that since the Cambridge Analytical
| issue, Facebook now manages all its data access in-house
|
| That was the case since, at least, I joined FB via an ad-tech
| acquisition, mid 2010s. We had a feature that allowed customers
| to host their own assets. That was the first thing that we had
| to remove after integrating with the FB stack.
|
| /edit: the CA scandal was ~ mid 2010s, my statement doesn't
| help. We joined before the scandal, by quite some time.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > My understanding is that since the Cambridge Analytical
| issue, Facebook now manages all its data access in-house, so if
| you want to buy targeted advertising access from Facebook, you
| don't get to buy the product lists/categorizations directly,
| you have to submit your ad content to the Facebook advertising
| department, who then serves them directly to the product?
|
| I think the Cambridge Analytica issue is orthogonal to this -
| what you describe is standard supply-side advertising practice
| for much longer than since then.
| cruelty2 wrote:
| fnord77 wrote:
| because Zuckerberg wants to be the government. Or wants to be
| Caesar. [1]
|
| [1] https://theconversation.com/mark-zuckerbergs-admiration-
| for-...
| m1sta_ wrote:
| These discussions too often devolve into a simple privacy vs
| surveillance discussion. It's frustrating because it's so much
| more nuanced than that. Authenticity is super important. Controls
| and auditability of surveillance power usage are too.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| I don't trust articles like this at all. It looks like some PR
| stuff Facebook intentionally plants in order to change public
| perception.
| cletus wrote:
| I really hate this "why won't anyone think of the children?"
| argument. It's right up there with "because terrorism".
|
| I mean the government isn't technically wrong but the same can be
| said for locking your doors and not having an always-on camera in
| your house the police can pull up anytime they want so it's
| always a question of where you draw the line.
|
| Whenever a government complains about a company this way I
| actually take it as a positive signal about that company. That's
| where we are right now.
| [deleted]
| tempodox wrote:
| Indeed, seeing Facebook, of all companies, in a "not _quite_ as
| bad as the other guys" role is most surprising.
| techdragon wrote:
| The government should never be allowed to be "not technically
| wrong", it must be held to account and made to prove why the
| course of action it is taking will result in something the
| public desires coming to pass. It can't just be "oh we need
| this because... reasons"
| cletus wrote:
| I'm not sure you understood my point: I'm arguing against
| this not for it. "Because children" and "because terrorism"
| don't trump everything else. If they did we'd have always-on
| cameras in our homes so the government needs to argue why the
| loss of privacy is justified and their stated reasons are
| insufficient.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I think they're saying you didn't go far enough. ;)
| techdragon wrote:
| I was indeed.
| atty wrote:
| Considering Australias stance on encryption and just about
| everything else tech related, I don't see this as reflecting
| negatively on Meta.
| [deleted]
| stephen_g wrote:
| Please - not "Australia's stance", the "Australian Government's
| stance".
|
| Hopefully in less than six months the party in Government will
| be different, and things will be at least slightly better.
| tjpnz wrote:
| Not an Australian but I've observed Aussie politicians of all
| shades making the same stupid arguments on encryption for
| more than a decade, perhaps closer to two. I don't think this
| can be solved by voting Labor in lest they be given some
| lessons on elementary mathematics and data security.
| bogantech wrote:
| Labor has not opposed any of the f'ed up stuff so far so even
| if Albo wins it'll be more of the same.
| rainonmoon wrote:
| Our only hope at this point is a hung parliament that can
| wedge the parties on progressive issues. I won't mention
| any particular parties to avoid inflaming the conversation,
| but I'd strongly advise all Australians look at the
| parties' track records and policies on surveillance, and
| particularly whether they're willing to consult with orgs
| like Digital Rights Watch in forming legislation.
| AlexCoventry wrote:
| This is likely really the US government's stance, reflected
| in the governance of one of the US's most dependent client
| states. A change in political leadership of Australia is
| unlikely to change its government's overall attitude to
| online government surveillance.
| mlindner wrote:
| Oh please. Australian government has been the worst
| offender for encryption for many years and it's got nothing
| to do with the U.S.
| Rexxar wrote:
| If they want again non-nuclear submarines in six months, I
| know people who would be happy to build some for them.
| thehappypm wrote:
| This is a good point. Government is always in a battle between
| good and evil: protecting citizens from evil corps (food
| safety), and actually being evil (i.e. backdoors on
| encryption).
| dylan604 wrote:
| > Government is always in a battle between good and evil:
|
| Is it? It seems to me gov't is about enriching those that
| have found themselves in positions of gov't office and their
| cronnies. Long ago has gov't no longer been concerned with
| the well being of its citizens.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| I think you'll find a lot of very dedicated, well meaning
| people in government service. Especially at the local
| level. You have to actually talk to them and get to know
| them, of course, before you can judge their intentions.
|
| If you instead base your opinion off the attention whores
| you see/hear in media, then yeah you're going to be
| distrustful. That's because those people optimize for being
| in the news. They are a small fraction of the political
| world.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I could have been more specific by saying elected
| officials. These are the people whoring themselves out,
| and I'd assume those working closely with them. The rest
| of the staff are probably there on the hopes they might
| parlay the experience into their own candidacy one day,
| but I do know there are people that are "answering the
| call" of public service. Sadly, they don't have enough of
| a voice to sway.
|
| There's also the non-political gov't employees that do
| the actual work. There's plenty of stereotypes about them
| too, but for the most part, I'd agree they're just people
| with a job living their life.
| leppr wrote:
| I base my opinion on the policies that come out of
| governments, not communications.
| 01acheru wrote:
| At the beginning of the article I was like "That does not
| surprises me at all" but then you start reading:
|
| > The increasing normalisation of these technologies on digital
| platforms, including social media, is bringing dark web
| functionality to the mainstream
|
| > The Department's engagement with Meta and other companies with
| 'privacy first' policies reveal a degree of seeming indifference
| to public safety imperatives, including in relation to children
|
| Come on people, that old "and the children?" trope? Australian
| government is really embarrassing some times
| codyb wrote:
| I was under impression "protecting the children" was one area
| Facebook had actually tried to do a decent job.
|
| Although a lot of their moderation logic is evaded with simple
| measures such as adding simple watermarks to images/videos.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Well other than all the teenage girls that are depressed or
| killing themselves because of Instagram. They need to try
| harder.
| yuliyp wrote:
| Looking at the data that headline came from makes it much
| less clear (feel free to ignore the "Facebook Annotation"
| and focus on just the leaked/later released slide deck that
| was used to fuel those headlines: https://about.fb.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/09/Instagram-Te... (the headline came
| from slide 14).
| aierou wrote:
| This claim frustrates me in the same way as the claim that
| 'video games cause violence.'
| brnt wrote:
| Facebook's business model is to enable predators of every
| kind; commercial, political, sexual (remember how it all
| began?).
|
| I'm not letting my children, my family, myself anywhere near
| that cynical cesspit of destruction.
| [deleted]
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| This is the same country whose prime minister tried to ban
| encryption because "the laws of mathematics are very
| commendable" but should nevertheless be subservient to the laws
| of Australia
| FredPret wrote:
| What a way to solve for X! Do it by decree. What a moron.
|
| This is what you get in a political system dominated by
| lawyers.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| I mean, he's right though. People who constantly bring up
| this "you can't ban math " meme make about as much sense as
| someone trying to argue you can't impose a speed limit
| because of the laws of physics.
|
| Australia is sovereign and it controls the communication in
| its territory is the point.
| FredPret wrote:
| Well, if they want to ban the communication of certain
| numbers and collapse their online economy that's their
| problem.
|
| But what these idiots frequently ask for is a backdoor
| key to encryption that only the government can use. It's
| frustrating to see weapons-grade technical ignorance in
| our leaders when we have an increasingly technical
| society.
| ironmagma wrote:
| Caring about children is actually a really good motivation for
| people improving the world. I don't care how many people have
| abused the notion before, children suffering due to inaction or
| indifference is a bad thing and people know this intuitively.
| Zak wrote:
| "Think of the children; improve the nutrition of school
| lunches, and fund them so they're free to students" should
| probably be inside the Overton window.
|
| "Think of the children; make sure the government can easily
| read everyone's text messages" probably shouldn't.
| mbg721 wrote:
| Remember: ketchup is a vegetable.
| ironmagma wrote:
| The problem with this line of thought isn't the motivation
| though, it's the lack of attention to the pros weighed
| against the cons, and how heavy the cons are in relation to
| the pros.
|
| I can't find a con to protecting the children. But what's
| doubtful is whether you actually are protecting the
| children with this policy.
| Zak wrote:
| I don't believe this is realistic, but what if the policy
| could reduce online child grooming to near-zero? Would it
| be worth outlawing secure communication?
|
| I think that it would not.
| ironmagma wrote:
| Well, those children are people, and outlawing secure
| communication is bad for people. So I would argue the
| calculus is still incomplete the way it's presented.
| candiodari wrote:
| > I can't find a con to protecting the children. But
| what's doubtful is whether you actually are protecting
| the children with this policy.
|
| This is the result of government taking over the
| protection of specific children:
|
| https://www.kansascity.com/news/special-
| reports/article23820...
|
| If the government has any intention to protect children,
| and intention at all, this is where they'd start. These
| kids really need it, and the government has all the
| control they could possibly want or need to do it. They
| not only utterly fail, they regularly cut funding to what
| little efforts exist to help these children.
|
| So no, government does the opposite. Therefore their
| intention cannot be to protect children.
|
| So what OTHER effects does this have? Well it greatly
| increases the government's ability to directly interfere
| in the lives of citizens. Which they, not seeing any
| irony, use to send more kids to their foster care ->
| juvie -> prison carrousel. In fact that this enables them
| to do _more_ of that, is _one of the main reasons to do
| this_. Seriously.
|
| When there are studies that show that, as a kid (on
| average, discarding extremes), you're better off abused
| at home than "taken care of" by the state. On average,
| you're better off without government help. For example:
|
| https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583
|
| (I do not deny that there are situations where state help
| is necessary. However, anyone that knows anything about
| the foster system knows that they don't help in such
| situations. These situations are too difficult/too much
| violence to deal with/no expected positive result/... and
| _explicitly_ target kids with small or nonexistent
| problems because they 're paid per child, based on the
| care provided. So 24/7 care for a problem-free toddler is
| where the financial incentives are for them. This even
| applies to medical problems: child has cancer? You're
| entirely safe from youth services. Why? Because caring
| for that child is too expensive ... the _EXACT_ opposite
| you 'd want to see them do, but, of course, financially
| it makes total sense. Ironically this means effectively
| random (poor) kids go to foster care, then juvie, then
| back home, because it's a financial disaster for foster
| care, institutional or otherwise, to take them back, so
| suddenly there's "no more need" for care. It's a
| financial disaster for the parents too, of course)
|
| In fact there are studies that show that social workers
| REFUSING help to children (in reality to parents and
| schools) works very therapeutically, and actually fixes
| problems, by (amongst other things) creating a great need
| for the problem to get solved, rather than taking away
| the child, which of course takes away the problem
| _without_ solving it, doing incredible permanent damage
| to kids in the process.
|
| So, in THEORY they do this to protect children.
|
| In PRACTICE they do this to damage children, and to do
| more damage to more children.
| ironmagma wrote:
| Like I said, I will concede this is abused as an excuse
| to do bad things, but that's unrelated to the fact that
| actually doing something primarily because you thought of
| the children is good.
|
| If some murderer says they killed their victim out of
| love, the conclusion isn't that love is a bad motivation
| for doing things. Or to say that in theory love is good,
| but in practice it's bad.
| stephen_g wrote:
| The context of the phrase "think of the children" is that
| it's used to justify policies (especially around surveillance
| and reduction of freedoms) that make society worse for
| everyone (whether they're put forward by incompetence or
| malice).
|
| You don't think that people aren't on board with things that
| do _actually_ benefit children!?
| simplestats wrote:
| Which side of the argument includes people who are on board
| with allowing backdoors into (otherwise) secure
| communication as long as it requires a warrant or some
| similar oversight? Because that's kind of how law
| enforcement has always operated (at least ideally) when it
| comes to violating freedoms.
| rfd4sgmk8u wrote:
| The bootlicking side. There is only two options: a)
| encrypted communication that cannot be read by anyone
| except the software client and the peers communicating
| enforced by cryptography, and b) cleartext, cops and
| death squads.
|
| Stop making consolations. Math doesn't care about
| warrants. There is no higher oversight than 256-bit
| symmetric ciphers.
| ironmagma wrote:
| I do think some people see this trope so often that they
| actually start to think consideration for children is a
| pointless or useless thing, yes. Heck, I think some have
| even decided it's malicious.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| _Come on people, that old "and the children?" trope? Australian
| government is really embarrassing some times_
|
| Oh I tend to flag those arguments as BS but you can never count
| them out. The problem is aside from the perfunctory, the
| strained and straight-up-false claims, there are a few places
| and context where children do need protection and some people
| quite determined to victimized them - and naturally people
| strongly emotionally invest where the protection is needed. And
| that creates a degree leverage that can be even when an
| audience is sophisticated - look at the many people defending
| Apple's neural hash absurdity here (risks re-litigating it but
| sure). Oh, and the way "think of children" is every censor and
| snoop's cry tend to detract from useful ways of protecting
| children (most of which don't have to with lots more electronic
| surveillance).
| Hamuko wrote:
| https://www.macrumors.com/2022/01/17/uk-government-anti-encr...
|
| What is it with the Commonwealth?
| dane-pgp wrote:
| Could it be that the intelligence services of the Five Eyes
| have all agreed it would be great to undermine encryption,
| but Canada and New Zealand have left wing / liberal / non-
| authoritarian governments, and the Democrats in the US don't
| want to weaken the security of (or campaign contributions
| from) US technology companies? That just leaves the UK and
| Australia to push for these awful policies, and pave the way
| for the other members to adopt them later.
| techdragon wrote:
| I basically think of the department of home affairs as the
| morons that didn't realise 1984 was a warning and have mistaken
| it for a helpful instruction manual.
|
| It's to be expected they want to eliminate any vestige of
| public rights in the name of safety, the safety of the state
| they believe they are protecting, not the safety of its
| citizens. Just look at the way they laud operation ironsides,
| the FBI turned ANOM into a giant entrapment scheme and was able
| to arrest no-one due to it being blatantly unconstitutional in
| the USA, while here in Australia, we have zero protections and
| the Federal Police round up every single person they can find,
| trumpeting the wild success of their largest operation ever...
| handed to them on a silver plater by the US FBI, and such bad
| police work that it was unable to arrest anyone in the USA...
|
| Just disgusting... All of it.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > morons
|
| > 1984 was a warning and have mistaken it for a helpful
| instruction manual
|
| It may be a warning to the general population, but it's
| absolutely an instruction manual for those in power seeking
| to keep and further refine that power. They are very much not
| morons but quite the opposite.
| nostrademons wrote:
| 1984 _was_ an instruction manual. Orwell based it off of his
| experiences writing propaganda for the BBC during WW2. At the
| time his wife was a censor for the Ministry of Information.
| He was writing about 1940 's Britain, not a hypothetical 1984
| Britain.
| Jach wrote:
| Central to its story is also its inner "The Book", which is
| very much an instruction manual in the what and the how.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> the FBI turned ANOM into a giant entrapment scheme_
|
| They turned it into a giant _trap_ , but _entrapment_ has a
| specific legal meaning and I 'm not sure it applies to the
| ANOM case.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Given that this is the same country where a whole bunch of
| harmless video games can't be played by adults because the
| government will refrain from giving them a rating, having the
| Australian government call out Meta really does have that
| "Worst person you know just made a great point" vibe to it.
| (https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-
| kno...)
| seneca wrote:
| > Come on people, that old "and the children?" trope?
| Australian government is really embarrassing some times
|
| There's criticism of the "think of the children" trope because
| it's used to defend bad ideas using an emotional argument. The
| bad part is the smoke screen for bad ideas, not the defending
| children part.
|
| Putting a particular emphasis on the privacy of minors seems
| like a good idea.
| caskstrength wrote:
| Finally some news that show Meta in a good light!
| bjustin wrote:
| I agree. I dislike Meta the company and yet the Australian
| government has managed to make them look good.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Facebook. Let's not let them get away with the whitewash.
| openknot wrote:
| I thought it was interesting how newspapers were handling the
| name change. The Washington Post and The New York Times are
| both continuing to use Facebook whenever possible, with most
| articles using "Facebook" in the headline and contents of
| relevant articles this month. They only use "Meta" when they
| have to (e.g. when a government is specifically dealing with
| Meta as the parent organization of FB, Instagram, and WhatsApp,
| versus Facebook alone).
| sgt wrote:
| Was thinking exactly the same. Same thing with oil companies
| changing name to portray a different image. Statoil->Equinor
| comes to mind.
| MertsA wrote:
| Since they're claiming the tried and true "Won't somebody think
| of the children!" past work on the matter seems relevant.
|
| https://nypost.com/2020/06/10/how-facebook-helped-feds-catch...
| [deleted]
| colinmhayes wrote:
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-tox...
| halestock wrote:
| Indeed! https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59063768
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-19 23:00 UTC)