
Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto - mbgaxyz
http://mashable.com/2017/02/16/mark-zuckerberg-manifesto-ai/#pYk9jiyOKkqb
======
dwetterau
If Gmail reads private emails to target ads [1], why would people think that
Facebook isn't doing the same thing? Also many companies (including Facebook)
have agreed to share hashes and cooperate to "remove extremist content from
their websites" [2]. It would be naive to think that they are excluding
private messages from their searches.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/15/gmail-
sca...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/15/gmail-scans-all-
emails-new-google-terms-clarify) [2] [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-
internet-extremism-databas...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-internet-
extremism-database-idUSKBN13U2W8)

~~~
jllaneras
WhatsApp is from Facebook and it implements the Signal protocol which offers
end-to-end encryption. That's why Facebook with WhatsApp cannot do the same as
Google does with Gmail. If they do, then their E2E encryption is fucked up.

~~~
bigbugbag
Whatsapp is from whatsapp inc, founded by two former yahoo emplyees, then
facebook bought for 19 billions dollar. Very different from "being from
facebook".

You can probably trust whatsapp end to end encryption as much as you can trust
facebook to protect your privacy [1][2].

[1]: [https://www.ghacks.net/2017/01/13/whatsapp-security-make-
thi...](https://www.ghacks.net/2017/01/13/whatsapp-security-make-this-change-
right-now/) [2]: [http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/israeli-firm-allegedly-selling-
spy-...](http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/israeli-firm-allegedly-selling-spy-tech-
capable-hacking-whatsapp-encrypted-chats-1584170)

~~~
jllaneras
I'm aware Facebook bought WhatsApp. I don't think that changes matters much
though. WhatsApp is one of the "private channels" that Facebook Inc owns, and
in Zuckerberg's manifesto [1] you can read:

"We are strong advocates of encryption and have built it into the largest
messaging platforms in the world -- WhatsApp and Messenger."

My point is that "end-to-end encryption in private channels" and "using AI to
analyze data in private channels" is incompatible.

[1] [https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/building-
glob...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/building-global-
community/10103508221158471/?pnref=story)

~~~
lightedman
Who's to say that they aren't purposefully using encryption that they've made
breakable so they can read the messages while making it difficult for anyone
else to do so (other than the intended recipient?)

Historically speaking, Zuckerberg isn't trustworthy. The "Stupid fucks"
comment from long ago should've been the first indicator of his shady
character.

------
snarf
Facebook sat idly by during an election cycle as their platform was used to
propagate fake news because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship,
and now they suddenly have the moral imperative to police your private
messages? I am so glad I quit Facebook a long time ago. They are the big tech
company I like the least.

~~~
mcbits
The policing of private messages is not new or sudden. Facebook has censored
"offensive" (yet legal) private messages for years. One can assume they also
already detect and report criminal activity to some degree. But it's
understandable that they wouldn't want to shine the spotlight on this
practice.

~~~
lostlogin
For a while there it was headline news every time a breastfeeding mother got
censored.

~~~
mcbits
AFAIK those are images posted publicly or semi-publicly and getting flagged by
prudes, or at least that's how it gets portrayed. But my friend sent a series
of Middle East carnage images to me in "private" messages, and they were
removed a few days later with a message about being inappropriate for the
site. Neither of us flagged them.

~~~
p49k
Those same photos might have just been posted elsewhere on Facebook publicly
and flagged there. Not that I am supporting Facebook or censorship or
anything, but on the technical aspect, maybe there's an explanation that
doesn't involve reading the private messages.

~~~
titraprutr
There is an easy to prove that they do read private messages. Send a private
message with a link that points to your private website. Wait a few minutes
and you should see in your server's logs that Facebook's bot is trying to
crawl that url.

~~~
p49k
True, but they also show a preview of the page in the message, which would
require fetching it. Pretty much every messaging service does that now. Also,
there are legitimate reasons to scan URLs (malware, for example). Again, not
trying to defend Facebook or absolve them of violating privacy, just saying
that for these specific criticisms, there are technical explanations.

~~~
RodericDay
If you're scanning the URL for malware, why wouldn't you pick up some data
mining info for the involved users while at it?

~~~
disgruntledphd2
Because that takes (a lot) more effort, and you're on a schedule?

~~~
RodericDay
Yeah but you make money if you do, even if you spend the resources. This is
not really a convincing answer.

------
SideburnsOfDoom
What is Mark Zuckerberg up to right now? He's doing a lot of of outreach, and
even meet and greet tours. It's a bit like he's on the campaign trail,
planning on running for political office, but maybe not exactly that.

e.g.:

[https://www.ft.com/content/b0a6481e-d20a-11e6-9341-7393bb2e1...](https://www.ft.com/content/b0a6481e-d20a-11e6-9341-7393bb2e1b51)

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/04/mark-
zucker...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/04/mark-zuckerberg-
preparing-enter-politics-facebook-ceos-pledge/)

~~~
dx034
He's probably preparing for public office. While Facebook is very successful,
there's little vision in it now, compared to earlier. Most of the connected
world is already on Facebook (if it's not blocked in their country). And while
VR is nice, it's unlikely that it could attract a billion users anytime soon
(esp because of cost).

I don't think that he'd want to manage a company that just fights off rivals.
Becoming a politician and (trying to) make a change sounds more like him. He
has the money, people mostly like him and he'd only have to find a CEO for
Facebook to get rid of conflicts of interest, as he isn't involved in many
other businesses.

~~~
newscracker
> While Facebook is very successful, there's little vision in it now, compared
> to earlier. Most of the connected world is already on Facebook (if it's not
> blocked in their country). And while VR is nice, it's unlikely that it could
> attract a billion users anytime soon (esp because of cost).

Facebook could always give away VR headsets for free (disguised similar to the
Free Basics program). Facebook has already run out of space to put ads on the
Facebook platform, and so it has started trials on Messenger (in a couple of
countries). One way to put ads everywhere is to install large screens (like in
Sci-Fi movies or like those in Times Square). Another way is to give a small
screen to people that's always in front of them and put ads there based on
what the person is looking at, the location, time of day and other factors -
that's what VR, or rather AR, will be about whenever Facebook gets serious
about it (in relation to Wall Street and earnings). Google Glass probably had
the same long term intent in mind when it was developed.

------
SadWebDeveloper
I hate facebook not because of this bullshit but because using facebook is so
utterly "normal" on the society that some websites are facebook-exclusives
(facebook login only), people only seems to like the idea of using the fucking
facebook chat for everything and now even customs ask you to unlock your phone
so they can analyze your friends... hoping one day, some terrorist attacks
facebook servers so we can get rid of everything online and start to forget
about it.

~~~
tjbiddle
What customs have you gone through where they do that? I travel
internationally regularly and have yet to come across this.

~~~
SadWebDeveloper
[https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/02/nasa-
scientist...](https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/02/nasa-scientist-
detained-us-border/)

------
EJTH
Im sick and tired of facebook. Yesterday I shared a picture from Syria
depicting a homosexual being executed by being thrown off a building - In a
political discussion, of course this gets censored within hours. Meanwhile
there is groups where this picture also appears, albeit in a another context
that actually encourages this type of punishment, and it gets to stay on
facebook.

~~~
efdee
It seems kind of obvious what happens - the picture you posted was reported by
your peers in the discussion. The group that encourages this type of
punishment probably will not have members that report the picture, so it
doesn't get deleted (as fast).

You don't need to blame Facebook for this.

~~~
Raphmedia
But would it really be hard to have checks for that kind of groups
automatically?

How can Facebook read all of my private chat message, find out what the
conversation was about and serve me accurate ads, but can't find out that this
group called "death to all jew" is hate speech?

Oh wait, the first case brings in money and the second simply makes the world
a better place.

------
sverige
This article is so poorly written that I couldn't tell which version was the
original and which the revised (or whether there were one or two revisions)
until I'd read it three or four times. After I'd figured that out (I think), I
had to go back again to understand what point the author was trying to make.

Then again, it's just Mashable. I don't know why I worked at it so hard.

~~~
newscracker
I was also confused similarly, more so with the headline that sounded as if
this was a malicious move meant to hide the intent to monitor private messages
(not that I would put it past Facebook not to do such horrific things).

------
SeanDav
It is quite simple, if you are not paying for the product, you are the product
and even if you are paying in some cases. This is well known. Also well known,
is expect no privacy online.

Always assume everything you do online is being monitored and do your best to
encourage everyone you know to use encryption, or to prefer encrypted
services, wherever they can.

------
dibstern
How could anyone not know that your private messages represent valuable data
to Facebook that they're going to use for ad revenue and service improvement?

Your messages are not private on any service that doesn't guarantee privacy.
Most services do not.

Heck, your use of an app is often recorded and saved.

Using these services and presuming to be in private is foolish. People other
than Facebook don't respect the privacy when they copy and paste your messages
to a friend of theirs. Written messages have never been a way to conduct
private business that you don't want leaked or passed on to a third party.

~~~
jllaneras
You don't need to trust Facebook to see inconsistencies in their message.

WhatsApp is one of Facebook's "private channels" that it's said to implement
the Signal protocol, which is supposed to offer end-to-end encryption. If we
assume all what Facebook claims is true, the only way to analyze WhatsApp
messages for AI purposes is to leak data to Facebook servers before starting
the E2E encrypted connection. But that would be just an exploitable back door
that defeats the purpose of Signal, right?

~~~
newscracker
My pessimistic guess is that end-to-end encryption will be removed from
WhatsApp, Allo, etc., in a matter of time with flowery language like, "...to
provide the best possible experience that our users expect and deserve, and to
empower our users with choice, we're switching the default (to quick plaintext
communications)...the communication will still be secure through encryption on
the network from client to server to client."

Then it'll become like Messenger, where end-to-end encryption is an explicit
choice (similar to Secret Chats in Telegram). Not that people using WhatsApp
would really care. The stickiness factor is quite high.

------
rubyfan
The headline is slightly misleading. It would be more salacious had the
manifesto been published long ago and had the line been recently added.

In actuality it was there in a draft recently and now they realized they don't
want to message that outright and have decided not to publicize it.

~~~
dahart
I thought the same thing once I read the quote before & after. So I looked at
the headline again and decided the wording was accurate but I'd gotten the
wrong idea about it's meaning. The headline could say "AI monitoring of
private messages", that might have cleared up one minor angle on it for me.
But whatevs I suppose, headlines are misleading all the time, that's why you
always have to read the article, right?

I also wondered whether it's possible this edit doesn't mean what people are
assuming it means. I have no doubt whatsoever about Facebook monitoring
private channels via AI or humans. But, technically, it's speculating to say
Zuck's edit is motivated by the desire to hide the activity while doing it
anyway. It _could_ mean they are choosing against doing it in some form or
completely. It _could_ mean there are legal problems with the monitoring or
the announcement of monitoring. It _could_ mean there are business concerns
with publicizing, that the loss of money could outweigh the loss of trust. Who
knows? But it's possible (though slim) this edit is a good thing for privacy.
It's also possible (and likely) that this is bad for privacy, but Zuck can't
be as transparent as he truly wants to be.

------
1024core
There's no way this can work well IRL. I was talking to a friend who follows
the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. Apparently, the terrorists
knew (correctly, I presume) that phone calls were being monitored. So they
switched to using allusions in their conversations. Grenades became
"potatoes". An AK-47 became a "broom". Explosives became "flour". And so on.
So a request for more arms sounded like a shopping list for a grocery store:
send some potatoes, and we also need a couple of brooms.

~~~
6stringmerc
Doesn't take long to figure out codes like that - the DEA has been doing it
for years. If anything it's even easier to catch those using the codes who
think they're being very very clever.

------
omidraha
I think, there is no `private` section on the social network, everything is
public, just accessing to that section is limited for someone or one scope and
not for other one. But scope of this accessing is growing through the time,
without we know about that. For example, from small circle of our friends or
family to the whole of the world.

------
EGreg
If it's AI that flags stuff instead of people reading your private messages,
then that's good.

I was thinking the same thing. How do you help prevent actions nearly mo one
wants to happen (human trafficking, violent attacks) while at the same time
allowing dissidents to talk etc.

You need an AI to be the one to flag it.

------
AlexejK
I'm not entirely surprised that Facebook does this. After all, Facebook is
also the company that not only does the same as Google when it comes to
targeting you with ads, but also sells data about you to other companies. More
reasons not to trust or use Facebook for me at least :)

------
vladtaltos
apart from the pro/con arguments here, I want to ask whether you can call
anything a 'manifesto' if you keep changing it ?

~~~
danieltillett
Call it what it is - Manifesto du jour.

