decisionsmatter's comments

Selfless move. Have a lot of respect for the Dell philanthropy arm for doing this, will surely benefit a bunch of kids down the road even if they are more financially literate

No one is arguing that FB has not engaged in egregious and illegal behavior in the past. What pc86 and I are trying to explain is that in this instance, based on the details of the court docs, Facebook did not make a conscious decision to process this data. It just did. Because this data, combined with the billion+ data points that Facebook receives every single second, was sent to Facebook with the label that it was "consented and non-sensitive health data" when it most certainly was not consented and very sensitive health data. But this is the fault of Flo. Not Facebook.

You could argue that Facebook should be more explicit in asking developers to self-certify and label their data correctly, or not send it at all. You could argue that Facebook should bolster their signal detection when it receives data from a new apps for the first time. But to argue that a human at Facebook blindly built a system to ingest data illegally without any attempt to prevent it is a flawed argument, as there are many controls, many disclosures, and (I'm sure) many internal teams and systems designed exactly for the purpose of determining whether the data they receive is has the appropriate consents (which it did, that Flo sent to them). This case is very squarely #1 in your example and maybe a bit of #2.

It's difficult for me to parse what exactly your argument is. Facebook built a system to ingest third party data. Whether you feel that such technology should exist to ingest data and serve ads is, respectfully, completely irrelevant. Facebook requires any entity (e.g. the Flo app) to gather consent from their users to send user data into the ingestion pipeline per the terms of their SDK. The Flo app, in a phenomenally incompetent and negligent manner, not only sent unconsented data to Facebook, but sent -sensitive health data-. Facebook they did what Facebook does best, which is ingest this data _that Flo attested was not sensitive and collected with consent_ into their ads systems.

I think you're missing the point of my comment - the point is not that there is a meaningless metric about AI, the point is that it is -not a measurable metric- by any stretch of the imagination.

This "strategic plan" is devoid of any meaningful, measurable metric. The language throughout this document is carefully crafted to appear measurable at the surface, but meticulously written to be able to accomplish one thing after X number of years: stand infront of a podium and declare that the metric has been achieved.

Example: "Help organizations safely use AI to advance cybersecurity."

How do you measure this? What does this even mean? What does success look like if this is achieved?

I understand where you're coming from but "more forward thinking than a bank" should not be the aspiration for the organization primarily responsible for cybersecurity of the United States gov. This is not a good look for CISA.

Easy way of knowing if a number is associated with RoboKiller is to determine if they are using this LLC as their carrier: "NATIVE AMERICAN TELECOM - PINE RIDGE LLC"

https://lookify.io/number/6056150720

Just seems slightly disingenuous to me to have "100% uptime" on the same page that says there is a current major outage.