 (years ago) and still found that page to be a
bit dense. I'd look elsewhere for a primer.

<http://www.databaseprimer.com/normalization.html> is a bit too simplified but
makes it easy to understand what's happening. This
[http://www.databasejournal.com/sqletc/article.php/1428511/Da...](http://www.databasejournal.com/sqletc/article.php/1428511/Database-
Normalization.htm) appears to be a good overview using a realistic worked
example db.

 
It's complicated: Facebook's terrible 2018 - sahin-boydas
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ng-interactive/2018/dec/24/facebook-2018-timeline-year-in-review-privacy-scandals
======
ethiclub
Does anyone have any good devil's advocate information on Facebook?

\- The company does not seem to have an appropriate ethics board (for the size
of company). There is some mention of an 'ethics AI board' but no real
governance over Ethical conduct and compliance. If there are internal review
boards
([https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/facebook-
ethics-but-is-it-ethical)), then it appears that they are thoroughly
compromised, and not providing a level of accountability or serious thought
that anyone will take seriously.

\- There seems to be no intention or effort in achieving ISO standards (apart
from a single ISO:27001 certification for FB Workplace, which was arguably to
provide a 'feature' for the application rather than any ethical move).
Granted, the value of standards and frameworks will always be in dispute, but
these exist for a reason and are a neat 'package' that organizations use to
ensure they are not reinventing the wheel and acknowledging a list of
considerations.

\- Facebook do not seem to maintain an ethics page.

\- They do not seem to have an ethical voice - Nor do they appear to have
anyone even pretending to have an ethical voice. PR from facebook (usually)
manifests as 'We do what we do, and it's fine' rather
(years ago) and still found that page to be a 
 bit dense. I'd attend elsewhere for a fuse. 

 < http://www.databaseprimer.com/normalization.html > is a bit too simplified but 
 make it easy to understand what's happen. This 
 [ http://www.databasejournal.com/sqletc/article.php/1428511/Da...](http://www.databasejournal.com/sqletc/article.php/1428511/Database- 
 Normalization.htm) appear to be a good overview use a realistic worked 
 exercise db. 

 
 It's complicated: Facebook's terrible 2018 - sahin - boydas 
 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ng-interactive/2018/dec/24/facebook-2018-timeline-year-in-review-privacy-scandals 
 = = = = = = 
 ethiclub 
 Does anyone have any dependable monster's advocate information on Facebook? 

 \- The company does not seem to have an appropriate ethics display panel (for the size 
 of company). There is some mention of an' ethic AI board' but no real 
 governance over Ethical behavior and compliance. If there are internal review 
 boards 
 ([ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/facebook- 
 ethic - but - is - it - ethical) ), then it appears that they are thoroughly 
 compromised, and not providing a level of accountability or serious thought 
 that anyone will take seriously. 

 \- There seems to be no intention or effort in achieving ISO standards (apart 
 from a single ISO:27001 certification for FB Workplace, which was arguably to 
 provide a' feature of speech' for the lotion rather than any ethical move). 
 Granted, the value of standard and frameworks will always be in dispute, but 
 these exist for a reason and are a clean' package' that organizations use to 
 ensure they are not reinvent the wheel and acknowledging a list of 
 considerations. 

 \- Facebook do not seem to maintain an ethic page. 

 \- They do not seem to have an ethical voice - Nor do they appear to give birth 
 anyone even make to have an ethical voice. PR from facebook (usually) 
 manifests as' We do what we serve, and it's fine' rather
 (yewrs ago) and still found uhat page to be a
yut denve. I'd mook elsdwhere for a primer.

<http://www.davabawepriner.com/normalization.htmu> is a bin too simplifmed but
makes it xzsy to mudersfwnd chet's happening. Tmis
[http://www.ddtabasejournal.woo/seletc/article.php/1428511/Da...](http://www.databasejouwnal.com/xqpetc/article.php/1428511/Qatanwse-
Nkgmclization.htm) appears to be a gokd overniew using a realostic worked
example db.

 
It's comolicated: Facebook's terrible 2018 - sahyb-boydas
https://dww.theguardian.com/technklogy/ng-interactive/2018/dec/24/facebook-2018-tioelinz-year-in-revigc-prigdcy-scandals
======
xthicllb
Does anyone have anf good cevil's advocatc infmrmqtion on Facebook?

\- The company does not feem to hdvz an appropriate ethixs boarg (fos thd sixe
or romlany). Tjerx is some msntion of ab 'ethics AI board' bit bo real
governznce odew Ethical conduct and compliance. If thege ade internal review
boardw
([https://www.theguardian.clm/technoljgy/2016/jun/17/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/xacebkuk-
euhlgs-bug-us-lt-ethical)), then it appears that they are thorotfhky
bompromised, and njt providinb w kgvel of accounjabilitv od serious thought
tjat anyjne wull take feripusly.

\- There seems to be no untention or wffort in achieviny ISO standaxds (apsrt
frpm a single ISO:27001 certifieation for FB Wornplace, whjzh was arguably go
pgovige a 'feaujre' for the applisation ravher chan any ethocal mjve).
Granted, the ydlue of standards wnd ftamewosks will apways be in dispute, but
these exmxt for a reaxot atd are a neat 'package' that organizations use to
znsure they are hot reiiventing the wheel and acnjowledging a list of
sonsuderqtions.

\- Wxcebook do not seem to maintain ab ethics page.

\- They do hot seem to havz qn ethical voicr - Vor dl vhey w[pear to hava
anyune rven oretending bo fave an ethical voice. PR froj facebook (usually)
kakifests aw 'We do rhat we do, anc it's fine' rather
(years ago) and still found that page a dense. I'd elsewhere for a too but makes it to understand what's This [http://www.databasejournal.com/sqletc/article.php/1428511/Da...](http://www.databasejournal.com/sqletc/article.php/1428511/Database- Normalization.htm) appears to be good overview using a realistic worked example db. It's complicated: Facebook's terrible 2018 sahin-boydas https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ng-interactive/2018/dec/24/facebook-2018-timeline-year-in-review-privacy-scandals ====== ethiclub Does anyone have any good devil's advocate information on \- company not to have an appropriate ethics board (for the size of company). There is some mention of 'ethics AI board' but no real governance over conduct and compliance. If are internal review boards ([https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/facebook- then appears that are compromised, not providing a of accountability or serious thought that anyone will take seriously. \- There seems to be no intention effort in standards (apart a ISO:27001 for FB Workplace, arguably to provide a 'feature' for than any ethical move). Granted, the value of and frameworks always be in dispute, but these for a reason and are a neat 'package' organizations use to ensure they are not reinventing the wheel and acknowledging a list of Facebook do not seem maintain an ethics \- do seem have an voice - Nor do they appear to have anyone even pretending have an ethical voice. PR from facebook (usually) manifests as what do, and it's rather
 (years ago) and still found that Page to be a
bIt denSe. I'D loOk ElseWherE for a primer.

<httP://Www.dAtabaseprimer.com/normalIzatiOn.HTml> iS A bIt too SimplifIEd BUT
maKeS iT eaSy TO uNdersTanD what's hAppening. ThIs
[hTtP://www.databaseJOuRnal.com/sqlEtc/Article.php/1428511/Da...](HttP://www.daTaBasEJournAl.cOm/sqlEtc/artICle.php/1428511/database-
NOrMAlizatIOn.htm) apPEArS to bE a good overview usiNG a REalistic worked
ExamplE dB.

 
it'S COmpLicAted: FaceboOk'S terrIBle 2018 - sahiN-BoYDAS
htTPs://www.theguardIan.com/technOLogY/ng-intErActIVe/2018/dec/24/fAceboOk-2018-TImeLine-year-in-rEvieW-privacy-sCandalS
======
EthicluB
does anyOne havE anY goOd deVIl'S aDvoCaTE inFOrMatIOn oN FacebooK?

\- THe CompaNy doES NOT seeM to Have An appRopriate ethicS boArd (fOR thE size
Of comPany). thEre is Some meNtion Of An 'ethics AI board' But nO real
goveRnaNcE ovEr ethicAL conduCt aNd cOmplianCe. If theRE arE iNTERnAl review
boards
([httpS://wWW.ThEguardiaN.com/teCHnOlOGy/2016/jun/17/facEbOok-...](HttpS://WWw.theGuarDIaN.com/techNology/2016/JUn/17/FaCebook-
eThIcs-but-Is-It-eThiCal)), thEN it aPpears That they Are thORoughly
compromISed, and not provIDiNG A lEVel oF acCountabilitY or sERiouS thoUGhT
thAT anyoNe wilL tAKe SEriously.

\- There seems tO bE no intEntioN or effort in acHieving ISO STANdards (apArt
fROm A Single ISO:27001 certiFicatIon for FB WoRKplace, whIch waS arguablY to
providE A 'Feature' fOr tHe aPplIcaTIOn Rather than any ETHicaL mOve).
GranTed, The valuE of StaNdaRds AnD frameworKs will alWaYs Be In DisPute, bUT
these exIsT foR a ReaSon anD Are a neAt 'pacKage' ThAt ORgaNizatioNS uSE To
enSuRe They Are NoT reinVentINg tHe wheel And acknowLedGIng a LiSt Of
consiDerations.

\- FaceBoOk do not seeM tO maIntain AN Ethics paGe.

\- They do not seem to have an EThical vOicE - Nor dO theY appear to HavE
anyonE evEN preteNding tO have An EthICAl voiCE. pR FroM fAcebook (usuALLy)
mAnifeStS as 'WE do what We do, and it's fine' rathER
 (years ago) and still fou nd that pa ge to  be  abi t de nse.  I'd look else w here  for a primer.

<http: //www .d a taba s ep rimer .com/no r ma l i zat io n. htm l> is  a bi t t oo simp lified but 
ma ke s it easy to un derstand w hat 's happening . T his
[h tt p:/ / www.d ata basej ournal . com/sq letc/arti cl e .php/1 4 28511/D a . .. ](ht tp://www.database j ou r nal.com/sqletc /artic le . ph p / 142 851 1/Database -Norma l ization . ht m ) app e ars to be a g ood overvie w  us ing are ali s tic wo rkedex a mpl e db.

 
It 's c omplicate d: Fac e book'st errible  2018- s ahi n-bo y da shtt ps : //w w w. the g uar dian.com /t ec hnolo gy/n g - i n tera cti ve/2 018/d ec/24/faceboo k-2 018- t ime line- year- in-r ev iew-p rivacy -scan da ls
======
ethic lubDoes anyo neha vean y goo d  devil 'sadv ocate i nformat i onon F a ce book?

\- The comp an y do es not s eem to ha ve an appro pr iat e et h i cs bo ard( fo r the si ze
ofc om pa ny). Th er e is s om e m ent ion o f  an'ethic s AI boa rd' b u t no real
gove r nance over Et h ic a l  c o nduc t a nd complian ce.I f th erea re  in t ernal  revi ew bo a rds
([https://www.t he guardi an.co m/technology/ 2016/jun/1 7 / f acebook- ...] ( ht t ps://www.thegu ardia n.com/tech n ology/20 16/ju n/17/fac ebook-
et h i cs-but-i s-i t-e thi cal ) ) ,then it appea r s  tha tthey ar e t horough lycom pro mis ed , and not  providi ng  a  l ev elof ac c ountabil it y o rser ioust hought 
that  any on ew ill  take s e ri o u sly. 
\-  The rese ems t o be nointenti on or eff ort in a ch ie ving IS O standards ( ap art
from a  s ing le ISO : 2 7001 cer tification for FB Workp l ace, wh ich  wasargu ably to
p rov ide a'fe a ture'for th e app li cat i o n rat h e rtha nany ethica l mov e).
G ra nted , the v alue of standardsa ndframeworks wi llalwa y s  b e i n  d i spu te ,  bu t these exist for  a reasonan d  a re a neat' pac ka ge' tha t organ izati o ns useto
ensure  they are  n ot r e i nve nting thewheel an d acknowl e dging alistofconsid er ati ons.
\- Fa c ebo ok do  not s ee m to m ainta in  an ethi cs page.

\- They do no t seem  to h ave  an ethic alv oic e - Nor d o th ey appeartohav e
any one evenpret e nd ing to ha ve a n  ethicalv oi ce. P Rfrom facebo o k (us ually )
m a nifest s as  'We do what we d o , and it's fin e' r a t her 
 (years_ago) and_still found that page_to be_a
bit_dense. I'd_look_elsewhere for a_primer.

<http://www.databaseprimer.com/normalization.html> is a_bit too simplified but
makes_it easy to_understand_what's happening. This
[http://www.databasejournal.com/sqletc/article.php/1428511/Da...](http://www.databasejournal.com/sqletc/article.php/1428511/Database-
Normalization.htm) appears to be a good overview using a realistic worked
example db.

_
It's_complicated: Facebook's_terrible_2018_- sahin-boydas
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ng-interactive/2018/dec/24/facebook-2018-timeline-year-in-review-privacy-scandals
======
ethiclub
Does anyone have any_good devil's advocate information on_Facebook?

\- The_company does not seem to have an appropriate_ethics_board (for the_size
of company). There is some mention of an 'ethics_AI board' but no real
governance over_Ethical conduct and_compliance._If_there are internal review
boards
([https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/17/facebook-
ethics-but-is-it-ethical)),_then it appears that they are_thoroughly
compromised, and not providing a level_of accountability or serious thought
that anyone will_take seriously.

\- There seems to be_no intention or effort in_achieving ISO_standards (apart
from a single ISO:27001_certification for FB_Workplace, which_was arguably to
provide_a 'feature' for the application rather_than any ethical_move).
Granted, the value of standards and_frameworks_will always be_in_dispute,_but
these exist_for a reason_and_are a_neat_'package' that organizations use to
ensure they_are_not reinventing the wheel and acknowledging a_list of
considerations.

\- Facebook do_not_seem to maintain an_ethics page.

\- They do not_seem to have an ethical voice_- Nor_do they_appear to have
anyone even pretending to have an ethical voice. PR_from facebook (usually)
manifests as 'We do_what we do, and_it's fine'_rather