News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works. Parent comment

Re:XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works by bagels on Sunday October 16, 2022 @01:09PM (#33225266)
If they worked at Facebook/Meta they violated their nda and put themself in legal peril.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works by nindalf on Sunday October 16, 2022 @01:38PM (#33225492)
I think I’ll be fine.

My reasoning is two fold - I haven’t shared anything that could be exploited by anyone. And second, Meta and others in the industry try to share information about how their integrity efforts work so we can learn from each other.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works by nomel on Sunday October 16, 2022 @02:12PM (#33225811)
“Legal peril” and “I think” are not compatible, for a rational person. “I know” is where you want to be, before putting yourself in front of one of the largest collections of lawyers on the planet.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works by dapids on Sunday October 16, 2022 @02:31PM (#33225971)
This is not some general blanket approach you can take to talking about internal implementations. You are either right, or wrong. There is no middle ground or "I think". If you've signed an NDA around these internal implementations I would wager that NDA came with a clause to not discuss it without consulting Meta, even after your departure.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works by nindalf on Sunday October 16, 2022 @03:01PM (#33226227)
I feel like your concern is genuine. But maybe overblown. I haven’t shared any trade secrets so I’m confident I’ll be fine.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works by throwaway98797 on Sunday October 16, 2022 @04:01PM (#33226731)
technical people want technical confirmation

that does not exist, they can’t understand that

you are fine, thank you for the post

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works by shadowgovt on Sunday October 16, 2022 @04:04PM (#33226754)
And it's obviously BS that companies can abridge a citizen's freedom of speech after the employment agreement ends. If this individual wants to be the case on the lawsuit that's a long time coming, more power to them.

This Supreme Court is not big-tech-friendly; good time to shift up the precedent.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works by lopkeny12ko on Sunday October 16, 2022 @01:17PM (#33225331)
Have you never seen https://engineering.fb.com/? Engineers there blog about their tech tools all the time. "Legal peril" sounds like a bit of a stretch.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works by wrigby on Sunday October 16, 2022 @01:29PM (#33225420)
These posts are all thoroughly reviewed by comms and legal teams. In onboarding, it’s thoroughly communicated that you need to go through the proper channels to publicly publish anything with technical details.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works by bagels on Sunday October 16, 2022 @01:21PM (#33225351)
Those blog posts likely go through legal, privacy and marketing review.

If you think that Facebook wouldn't enforce an NDA, especially on something sensitive like this, I think you are incorrect.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works by charcircuit on Sunday October 16, 2022 @02:28PM (#33225944)
Keep in mind there has to be damages to be in legal peril. Otherwise there can only be social consequences.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works by bagels on Sunday October 16, 2022 @02:44PM (#33226076)
Many NDAs include liquidated damages.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:XCheck at Meta: Why it exists and how it works by charcircuit on Sunday October 16, 2022 @02:57PM (#33226188)
Anecdotally none of the NDAs I've signed included one.
[ Parent | on HN ]