The Cost Of Mark Zuckerberg's Broken Censorship Promise Is Everyone Thinks They're Winning When Nobody Is

from the empty-promises dept

As you probably have heard by now, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, Mark Zuckerberg came out with a seemingly wonderful statement on the value of free and open speech, clearly in the context of his social media empire. The language was wonderfully clear on the matter, in fact.

Yet as I reflect on yesterday's attack and my own experience with extremism, this is what we all need to reject -- a group of extremists trying to silence the voices and opinions of everyone else around the world. I won't let that happen on Facebook. I'm committed to building a service where you can speak freely without fear of violence.

Almost before the boss of Facebook's fingers had lifted away from the keyboard, the social media giant spun around on its digital heel and mooned all those that had been cheering on Zuckerberg's words.

Only two weeks after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg released a strongly worded #JeSuisCharlie statement on the importance of free speech, Facebook has agreed to censor images of the prophet Muhammad in Turkey — including the very type of image that precipitated the Charlie Hebdo attack. It’s an illustration, perhaps, of how extremely complicated and nuanced issues of online speech really are. It’s also conclusive proof of what many tech critics said of Zuckerberg’s free-speech declaration at the time: Sweeping promises are all well and good, but Facebook’s record doesn’t entirely back it up.

But the real issue isn't really that an international company that happens to be led by an American has divorced itself from a moral stand. That kind of thing happens all the time and can be chalked up to the simple fact that, in capitalism, money is king and values are the jester entertaining the masses. And, just to be clear, I'm not arguing that there is even anything wrong with the above. The problem is the promise and what it is designed to do.

That promise was meant to accomplish two things. The first is the obvious public relations benefit Facebook received from going all Western values in public. The audience that would read Zuckerberg's proclamation was always going to be largely in favor of the values expressed. That same audience likely largely won't ever make themselves aware of Facebook's kneeling before the censorious Turkish government. And that's not a bug, it's a feature.

What the divisions in values allow statements like Zuckerberg's and the subsequent actions Facebook took in Turkey to do is make everyone feel like they've won something, while the status quo is maintained. Westerners cheer on as the gauntlet is thrown down for free speech in the arenas which will appreciate such a stand, while a Turkish government and the religious zealots that appear to live solely to show their subjects that Western values are as fleeting as a wisp of smoke claim victory as well. Everyone is in exactly the same place as they were before, except perhaps slightly more emboldened, but feels like they're progressing their agenda.

And that's about as dangerous as it gets in the arena of an exchange of ideas and ideals. The cure for the plague of censorious government and/or organizations, be they religious or otherwise, is for the clash of culture to happen. That will never happen so long as companies like Facebook bend to the will of the enemies of speech while also successfully placating the pro-speech populous with PR statements. That promise is what lets us pat ourselves on the back, thinking we have an ally, when that ally is really a con-man playing both sides against the middle for the most cynical of reasons: money. Please don't let them get away with it, even if only in your own mind.

Filed Under: censorship, charlie hebdo, free speech, mark zuckerberg, turkey

Mark Zuckerberg Says The US Has Become A Threat To, Rather Than A Champion For, The Internet

from the indeed dept

Better late than never: it appears that Mark Zuckberberg is finally really pissed off about the NSA surveillance efforts. This comes in the wake of the recent reports that the NSA sought to build a malware empire by setting up a bogus Facebook server to intercept traffic and fool users. While there have been indications that Facebook hasn't been happy about all of this, Zuckerberg has taken to his Facebook page to really dig in, noting that he'd even called President Obama to express his thoughts on the matter.

I've called President Obama to express my frustration over the damage the government is creating for all of our future.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, he notes that the US government has become a threat to the internet:

This is why I've been so confused and frustrated by the repeated reports of the behavior of the US government. When our engineers work tirelessly to improve security, we imagine we're protecting you against criminals, not our own government.

The US government should be the champion for the internet, not a threat. They need to be much more transparent about what they're doing, or otherwise people will believe the worst.

Earlier this week we wrote about Google's Eric Schmidt directly claiming that the company was attacked by the NSA, and now Zuckerberg is publicly stating that the government has become a threat to the internet. From the very beginning of the Snowden revelations, we've been saying that the tech industry needed to speak out more vehemently about the kind of damage the NSA is doing to a huge part of our economy and the ability to innovate. It's taken some time but it's good to see these companies finally saying this stuff.

Of course, words alone may not do very much. Zuckerberg admits that reform may be a long time coming, but instead is focusing on how the tech industry can build better (read: more encrypted, more secure) systems to fight back against this "threat." Google recently announced that all of its searches are encrypted, but that's just a start. The tech industry has to move to a world where encryption is the norm, and not the exception any more. It may suck in the way that it sucked when homes and cars finally "required" locks, but at this point it's a necessity.

Filed Under: barack obama, cybersecurity, internet security, mark zuckerberg, nsa, surveillance
Companies: facebook

Washington Post Quietly Backtrcks On Claim That Tech Companies Knowingly Gave NSA Data, As Denials Get Stronger

from the hmmm dept

The Next Web is noting that the Washington Post has quietly backtracked on its original claim that tech companies "participated knowingly" in the PRISM spying program. And, at the same time, some of the denials appear to be getting stronger. Google's CEO, Larry Page, posted a blog post with the interesting title, What the ...?:

First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.

Second, we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process. Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period. Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.

Mark Zuckberberg has now posted a similar denial to Facebook:

Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers. We have never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk, like the one Verizon reportedly received. And if we did, we would fight it aggressively. We hadn't even heard of PRISM before yesterday.

When governments ask Facebook for data, we review each request carefully to make sure they always follow the correct processes and all applicable laws, and then only provide the information if is required by law. We will continue fighting aggressively to keep your information safe and secure.

Some have pointed out that these claims can still be read carefully to mean that other forms of data access potentially did happen, though some of the direct claims are pretty strong. It's also noteworthy that Page and Zuckerberg seem to mimic each other's word usage. Furthermore, it does seem odd that the President more or less confirmed the existence of the program, which all these tech companies are denying. Does that mean that something else is going on? Is the NSA doing this without letting the companies know? It's certainly unclear at this point, but it's going to come out eventually.

Filed Under: knowingly, larry page, mark zuckerberg, prism, surveillance, tech companies
Companies: facebook, google

Now That Paul Ceglia's Been Arrested For Fraud, Court Says It Can Probably Drop His Lawsuit Against Facebook

from the yeah,-probably-a-good-idea dept

This is hardly a surprise (other than the fact it took this long...), but since Paul Ceglia was arrested for fraud back in November after it became pretty clear that he had almost certainly forged the contract he used to claim that Mark Zuckerberg promised him 50% of Facebook, a magistrate judge has now said that Ceglia's original lawsuit against Facebook should probably be dismissed. Talk about a judicial understatement. In the end, this just becomes a bizarre footnote in the history of people trying to get themselves a piece of Facebook they never deserved. Nearly all of those claims were jokes, but this one looks like it was just a pure fabrication. It makes you wonder how Ceglia thought he could ever get away with it, or if he just thought that Facebook would pay him off somehow to go away. Whatever he was thinking, he was wrong.

Filed Under: fraud, lawsuit, mark zuckerberg, paul ceglia
Companies: facebook

Innovators Break Stuff, Including The Rules: How Gates, Jobs & Zuckerberg Could Have Been Targeted Like Aaron Swartz

from the do-we-want-to-stamp-out-that-kind-of-innovation? dept

In a conversation with some folks in the tech industry recently, someone pointed out that nearly every super famous entrepreneur likely could have, at some point, been legitimately accused of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which is the law that prosecutors used against Aaron Swartz, and is in desperate need of an overhaul. Over at the EFF, Trevor Timm has a great post exploring how Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg all might have faced charges under the CFAA. You should read the whole thing, but here are a few snippets:

On Zuckerberg:

In 2006, while a sophomore at Harvard, Zuckerberg created a website called “Facemash” which compared photographs of Harvard’s entire population, asking users to compare two photos and vote on who looked better. Zuckerberg allegedly got access to these photos by “hacking” into each of Harvard’s nine House websites and then collecting them all on one site. It’s not clear what this “hacking” was, but since the charges against him included “breaching security,” it may have fun afoul of the law.

On Jobs:

Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu notes in the New Yorker that Apple co-founders Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, did acts that were “more economically damaging than, Swartz’s.” The two college roommates made what were called “blue boxes,” cheap devices that mimicked a certain frequency that allowed them to trick AT&T’s telephone system into making free long-distance calls. They also sold blue boxes before moving onto bigger and better ideas.

On Gates:

In his autobiography, Allen told the story of when the two future billionaires “got hold of” an administrator password at the company they worked at before starting Microsoft. The company had timeshared computers and Allen and Gates were getting charged for using them for their personal work.

The two men used the password to access the company's accounts and set about trying to find a free runtime account so that they could carry on programming without having to pay for the time. They also copied the account database for later perusal. However, management got wise to the plan.

"We hoped we'd get let off with a slap on the wrist, considering we hadn't done anything yet. But then the stern man said it could be 'criminal' to manipulate a commercial account. Bill and I were almost quivering."

Of course, defenders of the existing law will argue that these episodes are entirely unrelated to the later greatness that all three of these folks were eventually involved in. But that's not actually supported by the facts. Facesmash almost certainly directly led Zuckerberg to Facebook. And, in the case of Steve Jobs, he specifically told an interviewer:

“Experiences like that taught us the power of ideas…And if we hadn’t have made blue boxes, there would’ve been no Apple.”

Innovators innovate because they hack away at stuff. They push boundaries and they try new things to explore uncharted worlds. Do we really want to be punishing people like that with threats of 35 years in jail? (And, yes, the government absolutely did threaten him with 35 years.)

Filed Under: aaron swartz, bill gates, cfaa, hacking, innovation, mark zuckerberg, steve jobs
Companies: apple, facebook, microsoft

Mark Zuckerberg's Sister Should Just Admit She Doesn't Understand Facebook's Privacy Rules Either

from the bad-responses dept

There's been some buzz today over the news that former Facebooker, Randi Zuckerberg, who's also the older sister to Mark Zuckerberg, is among the many people who don't understand Facebook's privacy policies, as she got upset at someone for tweeting a photo that she thought she had shared in a more limited way than she really had. There is, of course, the basic irony / schadenfreude of watching a Zuckerberg get confused about the privacy policies, but what I find even more ridiculous is the way that Zuckerberg responded to the whole thing. After getting the person who tweeted the photo to take it down (though lots of other sites have since published it) she basically pretended that the snafu had nothing to do with misunderstanding the way privacy controls work on Facebook: If you can't read that, it says:

Digital etiquette: always ask permission before posting a friend's photo publicly. It's not about privacy settings, it's about human decency.

No matter what you think of Facebook's privacy settings and the controversy they create, it seems that this response is particularly silly, and seems completely bogus. Danny Sullivan's response to her statement makes the point clear: If you can't read that, it says:

Sure Randy Zuckerberg asked all in her family if she could share that pic before posting. That's just human decency

I think that's the bigger point in this story. Yes, Facebook's privacy settings are complex and confusing and people get tripped up by them all the time. And, if Randi Zuckerberg were being honest, and not trying to brush this situation under the rug, she'd just admit that. Making a silly claim like it's about "human decency" to ask permission from every single person whose photo you share just seems silly. Hell, if it were true, then wouldn't Facebook change its setting so instead of an easy one-click "share" button on pretty much every photo, it would instead alert those associated with the photo and ask for permission first?

Filed Under: decency, mark zuckerberg, privacy, randi zuckerberg
Companies: facebook

Notable: Harvard Didn't Try To Claim Ownership Of Facebook

from the hopefully-that's-policy,-not-luck dept

With the big Facebook IPO dominating the tech news, the folks over at the Boston Globe have highlighted a point that hasn't received much, if any, attention. Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook (with the vestigial "the" as a prefix) while he was a student at Harvard. Many universities these days claim ownership of any kind of company that students create while there. But, in this case, Harvard did absolutely nothing. The article contrasts that to Google (Stanford took a chunk) and Netscape (University of Illinois got into a nasty legal fight leading to a cash settlement).

A lot of this goes back to the ridiculous infatuation universities have had over the past few decades with trying to justify their failing tech transfer offices. Tons of universities set up "tech transfer" offices in the 80s (at the urging of the federal government, and driven by the disastrous Bayh-Dole Act). These universities had visions of massive profits flowing back when companies used the ideas of their brilliant researchers and commercialized them. The problem, of course, is that this is not how innovation actually works. Turning pure research into a product is not a simple process, and it doesn't happen very often. Great companies are usually driven by fulfilling consumer needs, not spotting some random bit of research. But the tech transfer offices overvalued their research, insisting that the idea was the key part, and thus they should be paid handsomely for it. For the vast majority of universities that has proven to be a huge failure. Tech transfer offices cost significant money to set up and staff, however, so universities have recognized that what was supposed to be a profit center has been a significant black hole for money. In response, there's been an increased focus on trying to claim ownership of any successful startup created by students, really as a weak attempt to justify the massive disaster of their tech transfer setup.

But Harvard -- whether it was wisely or due to ignorance -- chose not to go that path. And, as the article notes, this actually has reflected quite well on the school:

Fortunately, Harvard’s minor role in Facebook’s history has attracted a different reaction: a star-studded Hollywood blockbuster, a reinvigorated reputation as a dream school for entrepreneurial teens, and warm feelings among millionaire alumni who may become large donors. By contrast, few know that modern web browsing was born at the University of Illinois, and Netscape’s embittered founders vowed never to give another dime to their alma mater-turned-adversary.

The article covers a few other crazy cases, including one where a former student ended up in jail in a dispute with the University of South Florida. Similarly, the University of Missouri apparently tried to claim ownership of a popular iPhone app, because the student had entered it into a university business plan competition.

In an age where we see so much overclaiming and this ridiculous growth of "ownership society" where everyone tries to claim ownership over "ideas" they had little to do with, Harvard really does deserve kudos for not going down that path.

Filed Under: harvard, ipo, mark zuckerberg, stanford, university of illinois
Companies: facebook, google, netscape

If You're Accused Of Trying To Scam Facebook Out Of 50%+ Of Its Equity, Probably Don't Have An Email Account Named GetZuck

from the and-don't-then-hide-it-from-the-lawyers dept

The case of Paul Ceglia, the guy who claimed that Mark Zuckerberg signed a contract giving him at least half (and maybe up to 84%) of Facebook, keeps getting more ridiculous. As more and more details came out there was considerable evidence supporting Facebook's claim that the whole thing was attempted fraud. Ceglia, whose case got a big boost when legal giant DLA Piper decided to take it on... lost much of that credibility when they quickly dropped him. Since then, he's had difficulty keeping lawyers.

And, now, he's being accused of defying court orders and refusing to hand over the details of an email account he had with the username "GetZuck," which raises just a few credibility questions.

Ceglia's ongoing obstruction--in the face of repeated motions to compel--has prejudiced Defendants by denying them access to time-sensitive electronic material that this Court ordered Ceglia to disclose more than six months ago. Ceglia's attorney Dean Boland appears to have recognized as much. After learning that his client had failed to identify webmail accounts in yet another violation of this Court's Orders, he sent an email to Defendants' attorneys offering to provide signed consent forms for two of the four undisclosed accounts: landlubber39@yahoo.com and paulc@hush.com. He did not, however, mention or offer Ceglia's consent to the inspection of the alleganypellets@gmail.com or getzuck@gmail.com accounts.

The judge in the case has already ordered Ceglia to pay $76,000 in Facebook's legal fees, as well as sanctioned him to the tune of $5,000 for delays in making his emails available. I'm guessing even those who originally thought Ceglia had strong evidence to support his case have probably long since changed their minds...

Filed Under: equity, mark zuckerberg, ownership, paul ceglia, scam
Companies: facebook

Is Facebook Selling Out The Internet?

from the what's-up-zuck? dept

In newspapers across the country today, a who's who of massively successful entrepreneurs are asking Congress not to pass SOPA or PROTECT IP. On the list of people signing:

• Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Netscape, Opsware, and Andreessen Horowitz
• Mitchell Baker, co-founder of Mozilla Firefox
• Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google
• Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter and Square
• Caterina Fake, co-founder of Flickr and Hunch
• David Filo, co-founder of Yahoo
• Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn
• Arianna Huffington, co-founder of the Huffington Post
• Chad Hurley, co-founder of YouTube
• Brewster Kahle, founder of the Internet Archive
• Elon Musk, co-founder of Paypal, Tesla and SpaceX
• Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist
• Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay
• Biz Stone, co-founder of Obvious and Twitter
• Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Wikimedia
• Evan Williams, co-founder of Blogger and Twitter
• Jerry Yang, co-founder of Yahoo

Basically, if you spend time on the internet, you probably spend an awful lot of time on sites that these people created. And all of them are worried enough about SOPA and PROTECT IP that they've put out this letter, and placed it in newspapers across the country. It's clearly a serious concern.

That said, there is one name that's oddly missing: Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook did already come out against the bill, but Mark's name is not on here. Given the list of other names on here, there's no doubt he was asked, but for whatever reasons has chosen not to speak out. In asking around, it appears that he made the decision not to stick his neck out on this one, even as the company agrees that SOPA is bad.

I think this is a huge mistake, and that Mark has underestimated both how much this law will impact Facebook (and how much Facebook relies on the current safe harbors of the DMCA), as well as the sentiment of Facebook users against this bill. My Facebook account is flooded with anti-SOPA talk today -- and not from "the usual" people. I tend to use Facebook more for personal stuff than work stuff, so I'm pretty amazed at all sorts of people I'd never even expect to know about SOPA speaking out on Facebook about it.

It seems that, at the very least, Zuckerberg should be in front of this and leading the way. I realize that the Facebook executive team has become very image conscious about taking political stands, but this one is an easy call. This bill would hurt Facebook and hurt its users. All these other companies are speaking up and speaking out. Every one of the people you'd put together on a list of top internet entrepreneurs is on this list... except Zuckerberg. So, what's up, Zuck? Don't you care about the internet?

Filed Under: copyright, craig newmark, evan williams, marc andreessen, mark zuckerberg, pipa, protect ip, sergey brin, sopa
Companies: facebook

Paul Ceglia To Facebook: I Didn't Forge A Contract, You Did!

from the nice-try dept

We just wrote about how, during the discovery process in the lawsuit in which Paul Ceglia claims he only recently discovered a contract giving him more than 50% of Facebook, Facebook found an original contract with identical handwriting on it, that has nothing to do with Facebook, suggesting that Ceglia forged the contract at the center of the dispute. Ceglia has now responded with the not-particularly-believable claim that he didn't forge the contract, but that Facebook forged that "original" document and placed it on his computer. Even better, he suspects that perhaps Mark Zuckerberg himself was the one who placed it there:

Ceglia’s main argument appears to be that the original “authentic contract” Facebook says it found is really just a Photoshopped image the company planted on his computer. He says he and his lawyers reportedly knew about it for some time and willingly handed it over to Facebook. He declares that his team will prove the image in question “has no authenticating properties whatsoever.”

Ceglia speculates it could have been Zuckerberg himself, or the US law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe that may have done the alleged dirty work. He also says Facebook co-founder Eduardo Savrin accused Orrick of “conspiring with Zuckerberg to deprive him of his shares during his case.”

The rest of the article is pretty funny. As we've mentioned in the past, Ceglia has had trouble keeping lawyers, as most of his lawyers have ditched him after becoming more aware of the details of the case. That's generally a huge warning sign that the lawyers don't believe the client. In this article, Ceglia claims that he's looking for a more "collaborative" law firm, and is trying to open source his defense via a wiki (good luck with that). Nothing in the claims that Ceglia makes in this article make him sound any more credible. He's about to lose this lawsuit.

Filed Under: contracts, forgery, mark zuckerberg, ownership, paul ceglia
Companies: facebook