Facebook had no control over the exploit once it was handed over to the FBI. It could have been simultaneously used on the child predator and 100 activists at the same time.
Which is why Apple didn't help the FBI break iOS.
They did choose to not provide true E2E encryption for iCloud, however :(
https://threatpost.com/android-zero-days-worth-more-iphone-e....
> This guy deserves what was coming to him,
I agree.
And on the scale of users FB has, he is most assuredly not the only one like him on Facebook.
I wonder how many there are that the company has no idea about, that perhaps are in countries that are not so well connected that they will get a dedicated FB employee to look into, who frankly FB does not and will not give a shit about.
I am therefore having some trouble believing they did this entirely in good faith. How many others are there that they will do absolutely nothing about?
- It makes their platform more secure. - Good PR - Assisting LEO prevents future problems with new laws etc. - It is good faith
In general decisions like this, always have multiple dimensions. Always it is calculated decision.
Facebook has teams of people whose entire job is covering Facebook's ass. Before Facebook even does something bad, they already figured out an excuse for it before they even started doing it. If they didn't have an alibi, they wouldn't even do the crime. That's the kind of operation they run. They preemptively create the narrative, then they act. Why do people treat Facebook as if it were a conscientious person?
The only reason the world isn't hating on them as much is because people need the platform to stay in touch during covid.
They carry far less info about people than google, google literally are funnelling data to all sorts of shady companies, and yet people trust google more.
Google literally tracks you across all of the internet, meatspace and beyond. Facebook can't do anywhere near as much (yet, ar glasses might change that)
Zuckerburg's utter inability to deal with trump effectively is symptomatic of the PR incompetence at the top. They have no idea that the outside world might think ill of actions. They are continually surprised when shit blows up in thier faces.
In short, no, FB are utterly terrible at controlling the narrative.
This is great PR for themm to say that both privacy and encryption are bad and should be outlawed.
Wouldn't be surprising at all if that's how they spin it.
Source? I know FB is pretty bad with the privacy of users of it's own services, but I'd be curious to see how they've campaigned against privacy.
For example, there's a reason most justifications we've seen regarding mass surveillance or automatic recognition systems are boiled down to two things:
stopping harmful material
terrorism
Of course, they take a topic that you wouldn't even dream or arguing against and using that against you.
If they wanted to erode our freedoms to stop harmful material I'm sure most would likely accept that outcome as I feel they have done (AI/facial tech)
For a for-profit company spending millions needs a justifications stronger than a penchant for vigilante justice.
A lot of big companies have a proven history of quietly cooperating with cops, three letter agencies and military.
That type of cooperation often leads to multi-million, even billion $ contracts and special favors from political power.
What is facebook trying to achieve?
Good PR for stopping predators.
Flexing their power in front the FBI and other tech firms.
Trying to demonstrate how obliterating privacy can sometimes have upsides.
Plus, it's clear that Brian Kil was a particularly bad actor and worthy of taking down.
As does a company like Facebook spending large sums of money to narrow down on specific people, it could be someone you hate today and an activist the next.