News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by pjmorris on Friday December 14, 2018 @12:31PM (#18682637)
Hammurabi's code (~1700 BC) includes this about building:

Building Code

229. If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction sound, and the house which he has built collapses and causes the death of the owner of the house, the builder shall be put to death.

233. If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction sound, and a wall cracks, that builder shall strengthen that wall at his own expense.

Bugs in houses have been criminalized for a very long time. Online data may be less fundamental than safe housing, but housing our data safely becomes proportionally more important as more of modern life depends on it.

[0] http://www.wright.edu/~christopher.oldstone-moore/Hamm.htm

Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by zxcvvcxz on Friday December 14, 2018 @01:55PM (#18683487)
"Skin in the Game":

If a social media company leaks private photos of its users, the company's executives and senior staff shall have its photos leaked.

I would love something like that. Nobody protects anyone else's interests in this modern world unless there's Skin in the Game. Would highly recommend reading Nassim Taleb's book of the same name; he is popularizing this term, and its implications to society.

Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by vbuwivbiu on Friday December 14, 2018 @02:12PM (#18683635)
the same "eye for an eye" goes for "if you have nothing to hide" - well then, you first
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by reaperducer on Friday December 14, 2018 @02:40PM (#18683900)
the same "eye for an eye" goes for "if you have nothing to hide" - well then, you first

You misunderstand what "eye for an eye" means.

"Eye for an eye" means let the punishment fit the crime.

Before "eye for an eye" was established by religious texts, the common retaliation for poking someone's eye out was death.

"Eye for an eye" was a step towards a more civilized justice system.

Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by vbuwivbiu on Friday December 14, 2018 @04:14PM (#18684839)
I use it in the context of Taleb's book, mentioned in the parent, wherein he discusses this - symmetrical risk
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by fhbdukfrh on Friday December 14, 2018 @02:32PM (#18683829)
Yes, this approach assumes universal parity in the result of the act, which is far from true. For example the leaked health records of a healthy individual are not as damaging as those of someone with a lifelong condition, yet both cases are very, very bad.
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by dkrich on Friday December 14, 2018 @12:52PM (#18682832)
But they aren’t. Most home sales in the US follow caveat emptor. If you buy a house from a private seller and then later discover mold in the walls or a crack in the foundation I wish you luck in getting the seller to pay for the repair.
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by biztos on Friday December 14, 2018 @02:31PM (#18683808)
As far as builders are concerned, isn't that precisely why they are usually bonded[0] in the US?

[0]: https://www.angieslist.com/articles/hiring-contractor-whats-...

Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by fhbdukfrh on Friday December 14, 2018 @02:28PM (#18683777)
They do not carry the as-is, where-is clause you describe unless explicitly. If you can prove prior knowledge they are still liable. Proving the prior is the hard part, but private sales most certainly enforce a good faith clause
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by josho on Friday December 14, 2018 @02:10PM (#18683605)
New home sales include warranty which is the modern equivalent of the parent’s story. While buying used if you can prove that the seller knew of a mold problem and didn’t disclose it then you have a legal case.
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by perfmode on Friday December 14, 2018 @01:03PM (#18682944)
The parent was establishing precedent.
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by dkrich on Friday December 14, 2018 @02:10PM (#18683609)
And I'm establishing that the precedent cited doesn't exist, not in modern times anyway. If the argument is that home sellers are punished if they don't protect the buyer and so data sellers should be punished if they don't protect the data, that doesn't really hold up because home sellers aren't typically punished.
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by pjmorris on Friday December 14, 2018 @02:55PM (#18684050)
Note that I (OP) am referring to builders, not sellers. With respect to the systems that hold FB's data, I'd argue they are more like builders than sellers.
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by Spooky23 on Friday December 14, 2018 @11:40PM (#18687076)
Builder is the key. If you have a house built and the foundation is cracked or mold is growing, you’ll be able to successfully sue.
Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by sonnyblarney on Friday December 14, 2018 @03:02PM (#18684126)
When houses fall they fall they kill people.

And houses are not free.

Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by Barrin92 on Friday December 14, 2018 @03:17PM (#18684293)
Need I remind you of the genocide in Myanmar organised to a large degree on social media, or the threat to political dissidents all over the world when authorities or malicious actors can get their hands on leaked, private data of individuals?

Are you seriously suggesting that information in this day and age does not have the power to directly cause harm, including lethal harm, to people?

Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by sonnyblarney on Friday December 14, 2018 @03:33PM (#18684437)
I am suggesting that Facebook is free, fleeting software, and that people shouldn't put a huge host of stock in it. Even legally.

Also - that it can be used for organizing bad behaviours is an entirely different subject that has little to do with quality or security.

Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by fiblye on Friday December 14, 2018 @10:06PM (#18686793)
If Facebook were free and its company had a completely hands-off approach with your data, much like a company that makes paper notepads never looks at what you write, I'd agree.

But Facebook is a company that actively snoops and uses the data of its resources, the end-user. It's like a security guard who's paid to prevent shoplifting actively ignoring violent crimes because it's not related to stealing, or a baby food company ignoring that some metal got into their food because the food is still OK if you pick out the metal bits.

Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot... by sonnyblarney on Saturday December 15, 2018 @03:13AM (#18687596)
I think you make a good point, at the same time, it's nary impossible to decide right from wrong on the internet, there are many sides to every story.

If the government wants to hire people to decide what counts as what - they should do that.