Why fault? If Facebook is internally transparent and allows all/most of the employees access to all internal documents -- that's good transparency and good company culture in my eyes.
It does put a lot of responsibility on employees: Don't leak internal data, but do express your opinion if something doesn't look right (and yes, perhaps even leak the offending documents if something illegal or clearly unethical is happening in the company)
Facebook's hysterical reaction to the leak suggests the company didn't actually expect anyone to leak information about illegal and clearly unethical business practices.
I mean, assuming that Facebook wants to create an environment where employees leak information about unethical business practices is extremely inconsistent with how unethical Facebook has been routinely behaving in the past.
> Possibly even information relating to customers, or technical detail that can be exploited?
Yeah for sure.
Sometimes you need customer information to do your job (e.g. to repro a bug that only one person has seen). Facebook does a good job of making this available easily and quickly people who need it, while auditing and firing anybody who abuses the privilege to access data that is not strictly needed.
Regarding technical issues, you want as many people as possible to know about it so that it gets fixed quickly, other people know how to avoid the same mistake, and you build a culture of not keeping your own mistakes to yourself.
I didn't say technical issues, I said detail e.g architecture. Not all architectural issues are bugs that can be fixed if known.
In any case, building a "culture of not keeping your own mistakes to yourself" won't help when a bug is discovered by someone who intends to exploit it. 0-days borne from internal disclosures are not a "culture" problem.
It’s difficult not to see the potential for divine retribution in this. Facebook, alongside Google, spearhead the “privacy is dead consumers, all your data are mine” assertion.
But someone dares to share FB’s data? Release the wolves.
Until/unless the actual docs emerge, we can only surmise that there’s a few ‘interesting’ gems in there - hence FB’s attentiveness to preventing dissemination.
I hope they are published irrespective of content. If we as individuals have no say in Facebook’s surveillance of us, there’s a modicum of comfort in knowing we can surveil it.
Do you see any possible difference between providing a free service in exchange for data useful for targeting ads, and illegally leaking internal company documents with the intent to hurt the company?
Is reclaimthenet.org a real news website? None of the writers looks real and I can't find any information on the website on who edits it and fund it. Some articles reek of bias
37 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 88.9 ms ] thread> Good enough for me!
Sounds a bit like:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PETk8eBbfN0&t=2m0s
It does put a lot of responsibility on employees: Don't leak internal data, but do express your opinion if something doesn't look right (and yes, perhaps even leak the offending documents if something illegal or clearly unethical is happening in the company)
I mean, assuming that Facebook wants to create an environment where employees leak information about unethical business practices is extremely inconsistent with how unethical Facebook has been routinely behaving in the past.
wrt sensitive information? Possibly even information relating to customers, or technical detail that can be exploited?
Yeah for sure.
Sometimes you need customer information to do your job (e.g. to repro a bug that only one person has seen). Facebook does a good job of making this available easily and quickly people who need it, while auditing and firing anybody who abuses the privilege to access data that is not strictly needed.
Regarding technical issues, you want as many people as possible to know about it so that it gets fixed quickly, other people know how to avoid the same mistake, and you build a culture of not keeping your own mistakes to yourself.
In any case, building a "culture of not keeping your own mistakes to yourself" won't help when a bug is discovered by someone who intends to exploit it. 0-days borne from internal disclosures are not a "culture" problem.
Mobsters plain and simple.
But someone dares to share FB’s data? Release the wolves.
Until/unless the actual docs emerge, we can only surmise that there’s a few ‘interesting’ gems in there - hence FB’s attentiveness to preventing dissemination.
I hope they are published irrespective of content. If we as individuals have no say in Facebook’s surveillance of us, there’s a modicum of comfort in knowing we can surveil it.
Reap as you sow Mr Zuckerberg.
—- EDIT: fixed grammar.
Do you intend to argue that this is all Facebook have done with user data?
"The publications is [sic] among several media outlets..."
It's kind of nice, actually - "are" helps remind us that Facebook are a company composed of many people. Using "is" makes it seem more abstract.
Facebook are a group of people. So you say 'Facebook are' in many countries.
In the US groups of people like companies are considered a single person in their own right. So you say 'Facebook is' in the US.
Is't not 'messing up'. It's a cultural difference.
> Facebook is trying really hard to plug...
Alex Jones. Rants about "anti christian censorhsip"
Just the usual homophobes.
Prove me wrong downvoters.