Why does Buzzfeed assign any credibility to the analysis by a person who claims the raspi "records EVERY KEYSTROKE sent of the network, even SSL connection"? It's really obvious that this guy is completely clueless, he can't even spell "botnet". https://www.reddit.com/r/Scams/comments/2vd1g8/scam_rentyour...
Props to buzzfeed for finding some really funny reddit posts though, like this one where the guy goes on a paranoid fit and cancels his bank cards(???) after finding his roommates raspi https://www.reddit.com/r/whatisthisthing/comments/9ixdh9/fou...
I find it bizarre that you think that being a liberal has anything to do with this.
For Reddit there is a Chrome plug-in that lets you highlight users who frequently post on specifically troll-heavy subreddits such as The_Donald so you can spot this kind of shit easily.
On the flip side, I'm not sure how important choking it off completely really is to facebook, why get rid of ad revenue if you can pretend to chase the bad guys and keep everyone happy?
It's pretty important. In short, there is no incentive for FB to really keep "bad" ads, "fake" accounts, "spammy" pages and so on, as it creates crappy experience for user. If Facebook would be full of fake accounts, the there would be less people using it, and ads would be less effective (that means less money for FB). If there would be shitty ads, people would use more ad-blockers...
Disclaimer: I worked in Facebook's anti-spam team for couple of years.
That said there are some obvious and simple ways to kill this at the root that fb seems to have been ignoring for years. Maybe they are just obvious from the outside looking in when you know how the black hats operate these endeavors.
Or, they are just obvious from the outside when you haven't actually tried to solve that problem, but that solution actually don't work. I've seen a lot of "why don't you just do X" in my career questions, where X is something that looks good on first attempt, but in fact is really easy to circumvent by any blackhat (or it was even tried and it didn't work).
I am not saying that your solution don't work, but without you saying which it is, it's impossible to judge.
The marginal cost of a FB ad is about 0. If the price charged differs too much from that, resourceful companies will move in to fix that situation!
Anyway, people can (and do) post stupid stuff that litters other people feed. If companies move in and arbitrage, giving money to people and reducing the cost of FB ads for companies, I see that as brilliant!
Besides the difference of intent, it is in practice no different than this weird family member we all have who's spreading questionable content. At least they'll get something out of it!
I wouldn't mind deleting everything, loading up facebook onto a VPN-facing VM and selling it for cash and watching it burn. Maybe my old account would become so cluttered with garbage, that they'll be forced to finally let me open up a blank new account with nothing on it that I'll park and forget the password to one day. Only then will the illusion of privacy finally be complete.
Citation: I deleted my account, asked friends if my side of old conversations was still there. It is.
I'm not at all sure how data protection laws, such as GDPR, do or should interact with online messaging systems. For instance, if you ask Google to remove all data they have on you on gmail, do they have to reach into the mailboxes of any other gmail users who have received mail from you and delete those messages?
Or do the recipients count as the ones who are storing that data, so if you want your data out of my mailbox you would have to ask me, not Google?
Maybe it depends on jurisdiction.
In other media, all adverts are visible to all. FB should publish a searchable DB of every advert live, with parameters used and general info about purchaser.
They would then effectively crowdsource the policing of the ad network. The Russian dezinformatsiya & influence campaign that they missed in 2015-16 would have been quickly flagged, to all of our benefit. Also scams -- all it would take is one motivated person with decent search skills to track it down.
As it is today, a total black box, thousands of ads can run that nobody notices, and do real harm, and it's directed at the FB user base.
(I work for FB)
Obviously for most people on HN installing random software and turning over the keys to a social media account is a bad idea. But I know people who have mostly quit Facebook and have an old laptop lying around they never really use with nothing particularly sensitive on it.
Now morally it sounds like this is a bad idea, since the ads are promoting sketchy drugs and gambling. But as far as computer security risk? I'm not sure.
- lots of information that could be used for identity theft unless you clear it all
- an attack vector for scamming your friends unless you defriend them all
- leaking information about your friends unless you defriend them all
- access to any apps where you’ve used FB as your identity service unless you make sure you have no connected apps
- reputation risk
- just generally having your identity connected to potentially criminal activity
- installing an extension would give attackers access to all your internet traffic (bank accounts etc)
- remote access to your machine using TeamViewer is just nuts
It almost certainly is not. There's no reason these guys would be significantly more likely to screw you over than literally any software vendor.
Lots of weird scaremongering in the article:
>“They can easily install a backdoor or steal your personal files including but not limited to personal photos, electronic tax records, banking information, etc,” he said.
... Yeah? It's perfectly normal for people to pay money for software capable of doing all these things. On the other hand, these account rental people are actually compensating you.
I wonder how this guy would feel about Steam for example, millions of people paying for videogames that can easily install a backdoor or steal your personal files.
No reason? Compared to literally any software vendor? The fact that their entire business model revolves around shady if not illegal practices designed to circumvent others' terms of service isn't a reason?
How would they benefit anyway? Installs aren't worth shit. They'd be better off going to a forum and buying thousands of installs for their malware if they wanted to spy on people, the kinds of people renting out their facebook accounts certainly won't be particularly interesting targets.
If someone wanted to "install a backdoor or steal your personal files including but not limited to personal photos, electronic tax records, banking information, etc," this would be the worst imaginable way of achieving that.
In short, because of Bayes' theorem.
- X% of people with "questionable" morals are willing to scam you when given the opportunity
- <X% of people with "standard" morals are willing to scam you when given the opportunity
Given that these guys have "questionable" morals, the likelihood that they are taking advantage of their software to inflict harm is higher than those with "standard" morals.