[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)