There has been a tremendous amount of grassroots lobbying, fundraising, and private investigation in New York over the past two years with respect to Facebook. It’s a serious area I feel Silicon Valley has abdicated its moral obligation to stand up to its own. Hoping we can develop the evidence that comes out of this case into criminal charges for individual engineers and senior officers.
> Hu-manity.co has ... designed new intelligent contracts on blockchains which humans can use to negotiate new terms of consent and authorization with corporations so that inherent human data can be respected as legal property.
It's great that people are serious about this, but extreme care should be taken with the latest tech hype! Blockchains are (by design) are 'out there', which means that once consent it given, that consent is 'out there' for all time. Blockchain also rather public, so it would seem rather easy to 'harvest' who has consented to what...
More importantly, if a project describes itself as using or being involved with blockchain, most of the time it is a scam - be it about scamming people for money or attention. I would be careful before getting tainted through association.
An audit log on blockchain with a decentralized data exchange would be a viable use case for this kind of application to build trust on the network but also provide GDPR compliance.
I'm all for it but this really needs proactive changes from legislation. EU has made a start with GDPR other jurisdictions need to follow suit and take it further.
Breach of a consent decree is not necessarily criminal, as far as I can tell. And even if it was, it definitely wouldn't represent a crime on the part of any FB engineers.
Violation of a consent decree can result in criminal contempt-of-court charges. See 18 U.S.C. section 401 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401). See also United States v. Schine, 125 F. Supp. 734 (W.D.N.Y. 1954).
Sure, it can result in a criminal charge, but it is not in and of itself a crime. So, investigating them for breach of consent decree is not a 'criminal investigation'.
Bluntly speaking, you are totally, completely wrong. You can't imprison someone in the U.S. unless that person is reasonably suspected of a crime or has committed one. The code in question allows for such imprisonment - that's why it's called "criminal contempt."
> You can't imprison someone in the U.S. unless that person is reasonably suspected of a crime or has committed one
I didn't say otherwise.
> The code in question allows for such imprisonment - that's why it's called "criminal contempt."
I don't disagree. What I said is that breach of a consent decree is not necessarily a case of criminal contempt. And whether or not it does rise to the level of criminality will be determined by the judge, not the investigators. Therefore, referring to it as a 'criminal investigation' does not make sense if the investigation is strictly investigating breach of a consent decree.
Agreed, but it seems like pointless hair-splitting to me. One could reasonably still call it a criminal investigation even if it leads only to a civil contempt finding. Many situations are investigated as possible crimes even if no activity rising to the level of a crime is found.
Ya, I take your point, but I don't think it really is hair splitting unless one of the following is true:
A) The base rate of consent-decree breaches resulting in a criminal contempt charge is high, which I very much doubt that it is.
B) There is some information about this particular case that makes a criminal contempt charge likely. This could be true, but the article makes no attempt to demonstrate it.
Failing one of these things being true, I don't think it's fair to refer to it, at this stage, as a 'criminal investigation'.
Under the Federal Wiretap Act[1] intentionally using a device to intercept an electronic communication is a crime. Since the NYT article indicates the investigation is focused on device manufacturers and the article notes the devices may have facilitated the sharing of user data without consent this is the most likely potential charge.
Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
5th of May last year in many places and in every other place in the world where you manage to convince a judge that it is. It's easier when there are explicit laws on the books.
It started after Facebook started getting blamed for landing Trump in the White House, and the pile-on has increased steadily since then.
I’m no fan of FB’s extensive use of dark patterns, but the concerted attack on FB is meant as pressure so that Zuck agrees to let FB be used as a great firewall.
Thank you, Zuck, for resisting the pressure if indeed you have. It will only increase as 2020 approaches.
Zygna and the Obama campaign weren’t nearly as vilified for harvesting user data on a massive scale. My suspicion is it’s more of an old vs new media fight.
It's probably in large part old vs new media, but Facebook's scumbaggery also has been going on the longest and it certainly showed the least restraint on outright lying to everyone.
When you hold yourself to the same legal and social standards as actual accredited engineers, of the type who build things like airplanes, you’ll be in a better position. Right now the software works wants the benefits of the unregulated Wild West, without the consequences. Such a scenario simply cannot last, and in the absence of self regulation and setting of standards, the legal system will step in. It’s slow, it’s clumsy, and it’s inevitable.
Quality software exists and is written by talented engineers. Its written in specific languages and is tested on specific hardware configurations and verifiable. These things cost a bit more. I’m sure if the mass market were willing to bear an enormous cost this would already be solved. Unfortunately I doubt you or your cohorts are willing to pony up $2,999,999 USD a seat (Minimum order 500).
In your fantasy, why does a “seat” cost orders of magnitude more than a first class round trip to Australia in an actual seat? On that note, in the same way that I prefer a more expensive seat on a plane that was designed in accordance with professional and legal standards, yes I’d do the same for software.
Maybe there would even be less cruft and bloatware when externalities were accounted for.
The seat is a reference to a software license. Airlines are economies of scale, this is a small run of software that would meet your expectations to run and be verified to do so. Are you aware how much it costs to develop an airplane? It's more than the cost of a single ticket.
The vast majority of engineers at Boeing and similar companies are not personally liable for failures; the company is. They are working under an industrial exemption.
229 If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.
230. If it kills the son of the owner, the son of that builder shall be put to death.
