
Facebook are frantically trying to find out who leaked thousands of documents - colinprince
https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-documents-leak-courts/
======
spinningslate
It’s difficult not to see the potential for divine retribution in this.
Facebook, alongside Google, spearhead the “privacy is dead consumers, all your
data are mine” assertion.

But someone dares to share _FB’s data_? Release the wolves.

Until/unless the actual docs emerge, we can only surmise that there’s a few
‘interesting’ gems in there - hence FB’s attentiveness to preventing
dissemination.

I hope they are published irrespective of content. If we as individuals have
no say in Facebook’s surveillance of us, there’s a modicum of comfort in
knowing we can surveil it.

Reap as you sow Mr Zuckerberg.

—- EDIT: fixed grammar.

~~~
hkai
Do you see any possible difference between providing a free service in
exchange for data useful for targeting ads, and illegally leaking internal
company documents with the intent to hurt the company?

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
> a free service in exchange for data useful for targeting ads

Do you intend to argue that this is all Facebook have done with user data?

------
Mark222
Is reclaimthenet.org a real news website? None of the writers looks real and I
can't find any information on the website on who edits it and fund it. Some
articles reek of bias

~~~
jacquesm
Said Mark222.

~~~
rusk
40 Karma points. Could be anybody!

~~~
chongli
I can think of one Mark it might be!

~~~
rusk
LOL

------
na85
Anyone got a link to a mirror of the leaked docs?

~~~
enthd
[https://github.com/BuxtonTheRed/btrmisc](https://github.com/BuxtonTheRed/btrmisc)

------
greenleafjacob
Article is from April 2019.

~~~
ironic_ali
Are facebook still "digital gangsters"?

~~~
kerblang
You can buy the t-shirt and be one too
[https://www.spreadshirt.com/digital+gangster+unisex+tri-
blen...](https://www.spreadshirt.com/digital+gangster+unisex+tri-
blend+t-shirt-D12245171)

------
xkcd-sucks
If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from sharing data :)

------
Chris2048
Is the pool of people with access that big? Then it's their own damn fault.

~~~
nimrody
Why fault? If Facebook is internally transparent and allows all/most of the
employees access to all internal documents -- that's good transparency and
good company culture in my eyes.

It does put a lot of responsibility on employees: Don't leak internal data,
but do express your opinion if something doesn't look right (and yes, perhaps
even leak the offending documents if something illegal or clearly unethical is
happening in the company)

~~~
Chris2048
> that's good transparency and good company culture in my eyes

wrt sensitive information? Possibly even information relating to customers, or
technical detail that can be exploited?

~~~
badfrog
> Possibly even information relating to customers, or technical detail that
> can be exploited?

Yeah for sure.

Sometimes you need customer information to do your job (e.g. to repro a bug
that only one person has seen). Facebook does a good job of making this
available easily and quickly people who need it, while auditing and firing
anybody who abuses the privilege to access data that is not strictly needed.

Regarding technical issues, you want as many people as possible to know about
it so that it gets fixed quickly, other people know how to avoid the same
mistake, and you build a culture of not keeping your own mistakes to yourself.

~~~
Chris2048
I didn't say technical issues, I said detail e.g architecture. Not all
architectural issues are bugs that can be fixed if known.

In any case, building a "culture of not keeping your own mistakes to yourself"
won't help when a bug is discovered by someone who intends to exploit it.
0-days borne from internal disclosures are not a "culture" problem.

------
dfc
It is kind of strange that the author messed up is/are in the title but not in
the first sentence.

~~~
chrisseaton
> the author messed up is/are

Facebook are a group of people. So you say 'Facebook are' in many countries.

In the US groups of people like companies are considered a single person in
their own right. So you say 'Facebook is' in the US.

Is't not 'messing up'. It's a cultural difference.

~~~
dfc
So then it seems like using "is" in the first sentence would be strange? I do
not understand why the usage would not be consistent.

> Facebook _is_ trying really hard to plug...

