Don't trust Facebook's Libra cryptocurrency, boffins warn: Zuck & Co know that hash is king Facebook's proposed digital currency Libra, and its accompanying digital wallet Calibra, should be scrutinized not only by financial regulators – as lawmakers in the US and Europe have already started to do – but by national entities concerned with law, public safety and defense. The reason for that, argue Valerie Khan, VP of …
I have a suspicion you might be lonely amongst Reg reading facebook users. I have used it - initially as an experiment 10-15 years ago and more recently writing some analytic tools on posts and their links (so not quite a user). But I suspect many readers use an infinite length spoon ti sup with that particular devil.
As much as I would love to be off-platform, I have three spheres of my life in which the ONLY way for me to interact with a substantial portion of the people I wish to interact with is through FB. I may go away for weeks, but in the end, I'm stuck.
Boffins like me study reality, Blockchain is a real thing in real use with real life consequences. Thus it is a valid area for academic study. If they have a centre for it it suggests they got some sponsorship from someone for it. Though it might just be they got a critical mass of interested parties and is tying them together under a banner.
During my PhD I was in the Centre for Neurosciene by virtue of being in the Neurophysiology section of the Physiology debt. It spanned us, Psychology, Biochemistry, Neurology in the Hospital and others I’ve forgotten. There were Centre seminars and talks etc and we had to add it to our addresses. No sponsors, it was kind of a virtual thing, back in the early ‘90s (based on the mainframe user spaces, email addresses etc).
The master plan seems to be to eliminate that option.
It's already working quite well - there's significant coercion already from friends and family to have a Facebook account so that they can share pictures of their identikit children and keep you abreast of their dinner choices. If they need you to as part of a collective validation of identity to support a car loan they'll literally be twisting your arm off. There's already a sufficient (un)critical mass of the oblivious out there for Facebook to succeed. Without regulation, if you refuse to engage you will eventually be marginalised and your corporeal presence will not be evidence of your existence.
Really? Any reasons why?
It was supposedly about a single company that had subsumed all the big tech companies and hence could have traits of any of them, but the focus was very much on sharing life events with your "friends" rather than Google offering disparate services (email/search/mobile). Unless you include Google+ at which point I suspect you've conceded the argument.
We just need Zuck to run for president and then it's settled....
Not sure why anyone is surprised.
Right now, if your bank is in a friendly jurisdiction, appropriate people can probably see what you have been spending money on. I suspect it is a relatively burdensome (rightly so).
IT / Technology exists to make things easier and cheaper - so with facebook libra appropriate people (by their definition) can probably see what you have been spending money on even if you are a dog on the other side of the world, just through an appropriate login.
if this gains a good share of transactions, Govts will love this because (as long as it is accurate) it would provide an almost real-time view on the state of the economy.
Thinking further, if that money is then passed on to another Libra user Facebook can start to develop a detailed map of worldwide money flows at a granular transactional level
For example you (joe) buy a widget from a small trader (jane) who sources those from a bulk importer (jose) who imports them from someone in china (jinjing)
If this was all in Libra and there are many such transactions, you can start to develop a map, much like the security services and telephones - except you have a bit more than metadata.
Now, with libra it may be possible to sell a list of joes to the jinjings
I am not sure whether to be horrified or buy Facebook shares.
"Cash in hand wouldn't be affected."
Unfortunately it will. It can't be tracked, so it must be forbidden.
That's the level of modern version of Stasi most Western governments want: Copy personal level of surveillance from China: Movement, everything done in internet, money transfers, phone calls, contacts and everything.
That scheme does not allow untraceable money at any point.
I'm sorry, potentially I'm simply being a little dense here, but...
FTA: "They point to Facebook's 2010 acquisition of a Friendster patent, which covers giving creditors access to social media profiles to assess loans, as a sign of where the company is headed."
How, exactly, is that a valid patent?
That is usually the case with the US PTO, but not with the US courts. I think that is what the op was getting at. PTO assignment of a patent may doesn't make it valid. In fact, until it is validated in court, the value placed on it is determined by corporate attorney opinion of how defensible it is. PTO leaves prior art determination up to the courts as a general rule, but I suppose they weed out the duplicates that are definitely already covered by existing patents. Nobody has likely applied for a patent on using a glass bottle to transport goods, so the PTO may well grant that one. No company would buy rights to it, though, unless their corporate law firm were stupid or lazy enough to deem it defensible.
In the US, if not everywhere, patents are about money. That is why this case is so strange. If you check the fine print of his employment agreement, I'm sure you will find that Apple owns the patents whether his name is on them or not. It really makes no sense why Apple would care.
" In fact, until it is validated in court, the value placed on it is determined by corporate attorney opinion of how defensible it is. "
Which is another totally pervert idea: It's up to PTO to verify that patents are valid, not courts.
But it makes patent trolling very profitable as taking a patent troll to court costs easily millions and small companies can't afford to do so and then patent troll can extort money from those, basically unlimited amounts.
Whole patent system in US is screwed: It exists solely for big companies and patent trolls to steal money for 100% trivial "patents" no-one affords to challenge in court, blocking both innovation and competition.
Literal reverse what patent system is claimed to be.
"AFAIK the patent office only considers "patented" prior art as prior art."
Nope. There are lots of products in the market that big companies try to patent and end up getting overturned when somebody sends the USPTO a copy of a brochure from a decade past showing the item. The examiners can't know everything and only have a certain amount of time to do any research.
It also has to be remembered that many patents are narrow as a sheet of paper is thick. The company tries to make it look like they've locked up the product but only one with certain shape button. I don't think that security screws can be patented any more.
This post has been deleted by its author
"There are lots of products in the market that big companies try to patent and end up getting overturned when somebody sends the USPTO a copy of a brochure from a decade past showing the item"
While true, still misses the point: The point is that PTO *is not allowed* to search anything on their own.
"Prior art" comes into play only if a) someone knows a patent application for X is done but not yet approved *and* b) can present prior art for X.
Good luck on a) as patent applications aren't public and PTO doesn't tell even if you ask, they'd lose money. Even if b) is trivial.
Given the level of bribery in PTO it means big names will have their patents approved in days, not years. No time to provide prior art even if you know patent application has been done.
"AFAIK the patent office only considers "patented" prior art as prior art."
Not only that: They are specifially forbidden to search for prior art from anywhere else than old patents.
Also: PTO only gets money if patent applicatioin is accepted: If they reject your patent application, for any reason, they won't get a cent.
PTO is totally fucked organization and that's why US patents are meaningless in EU: You can literally patent anything not already patented in US, including business methods, equations and ideas.
"than let that zuckwit have anything to do with my financial transactions. Not. Gonna. Happen"
That's what I said about PayPal, except recently I've started running into situations where the only payment method provided for certain things I have wanted to buy - is PayPal.
Mark my words, 'sign in to Facebook to pay' is coming, and eventually will be the only payment method accepted by various organisations.
"Mark my words, 'sign in to Facebook to pay' is coming, and eventually will be the only payment method accepted by various organisations."
Maybe so, but all that would mean is that I'm not going to be paying anything to those organizations. No problem.
My guess about this is that FB will have enough critical mass acceptance that it won't matter if a few don't use a service like this. There is also the possibility that a number of Govs or three letter agencies would bankroll this effort just see what the value of the data created they can get out of this payment scheme.
"Mark my words, 'sign in to Facebook to pay' is coming, and eventually will be the only payment method accepted by various organisations."
A local big box store used to play silly games with only accepting one brand of credit card. This would change when the contract expired and another brand was willing to whore themselves with lower service charges. I remember one time just after a shift when somebody with a couple of large trollies just walked away from the till when they were told their brand of card was no longer accepted for payment. I'm sure that wasn't an isolated incident. I had a tool box stolen once and went to Sears for a new box and a load of replacements. Same thing happened. They didn't take my V/M. They took the one I didn't have but would be happy to open a store credit card for me at 28%. I was using a CC since I'd need a few months to cover the cost of all of the new tools. The card I had was at a very low interest rate so I wasn't going to apply for the store card. This was before internet shopping so that wasn't an option.
And this: and to appease regulators and lawmakers, Facebook can be expected make its platform a robust surveillance system.
This is a wet dream for all those who do surveillance. I'm sure there will be an "access fee" charged by FB also to "offset costs". And it might get them so freedom from various legislative bodies because they're doing "important work for the government".
"a mechanism for using incentives, punishments, temptation, and fear to control the behaviours of populations, cheaply and at scale: a mix of Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984,"
Well done academics, nobody's ever noticed that this is what Facebook actually is before. Still it's nice of them to add in a new feature that means that if we don't post sufficient officially approved information about ourselves on the surveillance platform, we'll be denied financial credit, or flag ourselves up for extra surveillance.
"if we don't post sufficient officially approved information about ourselves on the surveillance platform, we'll be denied financial credit,"
I've not used any form of credit in the last 20 years or so other than paying bills by direct debit so probably have a shit "credit score" anyway. From what I hear, the way to get a "good" credit score is to be in debt and demonstrate that you can pay it off. It all sounds barking mad. Why would I want to service a debt and make profit for some lender just so that I can borrow more?
When I left university and got a job I was advised to borrow some money for something and then pay it back quickly, so as to get a credit score. A little later credit cards came out and the guy I was sharing a house with at the time - a trainee accountant - also applied for one.
He was most annoyed that he got a credit limit of £50 and I got one of £200. But I believe that was why.
Is it just an unsociable bastard such as myself who has never had a Facebook account ?
Or is it a case of the more IT-savvy you are ( such as being a Registard at all ) the LESS likely you will go to Facebook in the first place ?
At least this cryptocurrency is one more reason NOT to get involved with Zuckenburg et al.
Never been an FB. (Brits will note the resonance)
I believe those of us who took up with the Internet long ago will have seen the original Facebook and thought "Ho-Hum. So what else is new?" and then noted the "new" aspects were the totally creepy ones. Then wondered how Zuck & Co. could assume that everybody is a low-watt bulb.*
*Seems they were largely correct.
"Handing this right over to a handful of selected private partners with a revenue-driven target could lead to biased decision-making and illegitimate gatekeepers for the sharing of information, a mechanism for using incentives, punishments, temptation, and fear to control the behaviours of populations, cheaply and at scale: a mix of Huxley’s Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984,"
Yeah, if you want to do that you either need a banking licence or be a political party.
The regulators don't care about monopolistic behavior or an organisation having this sort of power. They only care when they can't direct it.
This post has been deleted by its author
"I foresee a devils bargain where FB open up everything to the government in exchange for avoiding regulation"
You really mean that they don't already do that? They *are* avoiding regulation right now.
Someone might wonder why that happens as many of the FB functions are illegal in US and thoroughly illegal in EU.
Yet no-one sits in jail for those. Not even prosecuted in actual court.
Cryptocurrencies are creepy - not about to use one intentionally, but just wait, there will come a time when your "legit" transaction will flow through a channel that is controlled by a cryptocurrency and then "reconverted" to look totally standard at the other end. If current credit cards can find a fiscal advantage of even .00001% in using a blockchain integrated data path, they will do it and you will find that stated on page 362 of your credit agreement in language no lay person will understand, and in font sized so that no one without a magnifying glass will be able to read in the first place.
Some smart guy comes up with crypto coin as a new way to build the ID data base. And, then......
Immediately, almost like magic it appears and FB forges ahead oblivious to and regardless of US or international law. I can only think this kind of boldness is built on a platform of assurances and guarantees from the highest US military and law enforcement authorities. Further that FB and several of the other big names are thoroughly infiltrated by government entity moles and facilitators. There is no other logical explanation.
Personally, as soon as I get done writing this I am going to add several new layers of tin foil to my hat, and maybe starting using some rubber bands as fasteners to keep it on...tighter. I may start wearing it to bed.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
