Meet the Facebook Police
-
Carnivore and ECHELON are the ones they allowed us to know about.
I am not sure what you are saying but I am familiar with ECHELON. However the bahavior is quite different. For one, the conversations are not actually recorded. In addition it is fully automated. There are not actually people listening to your conversations to determine if you are a potential criminal. My understanding about ECHELON is it flags you for using certain words. If you are flagged then the government will start "watching" you. In comparison, facebook is logging your "bad" words and handing them over to the police. Such activity along could convict someone of minor criminal intent. Granted the cases that will be made public will always be of extreme nature (such as that given). But what about all the others?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
I would totally agree with this, IF the posts were not public. However, if your posts are public, I'm totally ok with Facebook/The Police/The gov't/E.T. scanning them (after all, this is why they were public in the first place, for other people to see it, right?) But if my posts are not public, then I'd have a problem with this kind of thing. And anyway, whoever posts on Facebook that he's going to drink and drive / kill his boss / throw himself off a window / etc, deserves to get caught by the police, IMO I don't agree with people listening on my phone, as I don't agree with companies (Google, I'm looking at you), listening on stuff they shouldn't be listening on. Disclaimer: I have no Facebook, so I don't really care about this particular case :-). The point in principle still stands though
Full-fledged Java/.NET lover, full-fledged PHP hater. Full-fledged Google/Microsoft lover, full-fledged Apple hater. Full-fledged Skype lover, full-fledged YM hater.
It is a chat monitoring system as well. Chats are not suppose to be public.... Sooooo.. Yeah. its basically like listening in on your phone convos.
Andrei Straut wrote:
Disclaimer: I have no Facebook, so I don't really care about this particular case :) . The point in principle still stands though
Even though you do not have Facebook things like this should worry you. It is a precedence that gets set and can run away like a giant snowball down a cliff. You mentioned google. What if google jumps on board and has sophisticated logic to hand over your searches because based on what you searched they determine you are about to commit a crime?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Imagine the furious flames of pure internet rage that would descend on google if they did this in gmail (or do they?). Somehow people seem to think it's OK if Facebook does it though. I'm curious how this will mix with European laws when we get around to fixing the "digital communication is technically not protected by Privacy Of Communication and Correspondence"-loophole.
gmail is supposed to be point-to-point, as is all email. One sender, one recipient. Farcebook is one-to-many: one sender, anyone can read it - and most people post there because they want to be heard by the largest audience possible. Privacy is irrelevant in this case as there is never an intention to keep farcebook posts private. In theory, anyone with a fat enough pipe could read and monitor every farcebook post. Farcebook doing it themselves is the sensible, and even in a way the responsible thing to do. Otherwise people could be very annoyed if a group planned an atrocity on farcebook and it wasn't spotted - the info was in the public domain after all.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
-
Imagine the furious flames of pure internet rage that would descend on google if they did this in gmail (or do they?). Somehow people seem to think it's OK if Facebook does it though. I'm curious how this will mix with European laws when we get around to fixing the "digital communication is technically not protected by Privacy Of Communication and Correspondence"-loophole.
harold aptroot wrote:
Somehow people seem to think it's OK if Facebook does it though.
I am not sure if more people think it is "OK"... But I am guessing more people are not shocked by it.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Only because big brother wants it that way. We could have anonymity. People have been frightend by the media which is controlled by those who seek more control.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
That is true. I would eliminate the media from people's personal lives until someone has been found guilty and not before. Start making the media pay obscene amounts of money for false claims and you will see an improvement. Eliminating surveillance is just dumb in my opinion.
-
gmail is supposed to be point-to-point, as is all email. One sender, one recipient. Farcebook is one-to-many: one sender, anyone can read it - and most people post there because they want to be heard by the largest audience possible. Privacy is irrelevant in this case as there is never an intention to keep farcebook posts private. In theory, anyone with a fat enough pipe could read and monitor every farcebook post. Farcebook doing it themselves is the sensible, and even in a way the responsible thing to do. Otherwise people could be very annoyed if a group planned an atrocity on farcebook and it wasn't spotted - the info was in the public domain after all.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
Facebook is also scanning their chat system which should be 1:1... Atleast that is what people expect. Posts sure I get it. Chat messages. Thats like logging my phone conversations.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
It is a chat monitoring system as well. Chats are not suppose to be public.... Sooooo.. Yeah. its basically like listening in on your phone convos.
Andrei Straut wrote:
Disclaimer: I have no Facebook, so I don't really care about this particular case :) . The point in principle still stands though
Even though you do not have Facebook things like this should worry you. It is a precedence that gets set and can run away like a giant snowball down a cliff. You mentioned google. What if google jumps on board and has sophisticated logic to hand over your searches because based on what you searched they determine you are about to commit a crime?
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Even though you do not have Facebook things like this should worry you. It is a precedence that gets set and can run away like a giant snowball down a cliff.
They do. That's why I replied. The disclaimer was more like tongue-in-cheek addressed to Facebook
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You mentioned google. What if google jumps on board and has sophisticated logic to hand over your searches because based on what you searched they determine you are about to commit a crime?
I'd probably stop using it. Hell, I'm thinking about it even now, and I love Google.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is a chat monitoring system as well. Chats are not suppose to be public....
Sooooo.. Yeah. its basically like listening in on your phone convos.Which I don't agree with, and I've said it. I do agree with what you've said. I just said I would only be ok with this if the data mined was public, and not private
Full-fledged Java/.NET lover, full-fledged PHP hater. Full-fledged Google/Microsoft lover, full-fledged Apple hater. Full-fledged Skype lover, full-fledged YM hater.
-
gmail is supposed to be point-to-point, as is all email. One sender, one recipient. Farcebook is one-to-many: one sender, anyone can read it - and most people post there because they want to be heard by the largest audience possible. Privacy is irrelevant in this case as there is never an intention to keep farcebook posts private. In theory, anyone with a fat enough pipe could read and monitor every farcebook post. Farcebook doing it themselves is the sensible, and even in a way the responsible thing to do. Otherwise people could be very annoyed if a group planned an atrocity on farcebook and it wasn't spotted - the info was in the public domain after all.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
That only applies if it's actually a public post. And even then, just because it's public doesn't mean it's public. See the outrage about CCTV+facial recognition being used to track where people go, and a similar thing with traffic cams and license plates. Also the difference between just looking at someone in passing, and following them around and camping outside their house.
-
Imagine the furious flames of pure internet rage that would descend on google if they did this in gmail (or do they?). Somehow people seem to think it's OK if Facebook does it though. I'm curious how this will mix with European laws when we get around to fixing the "digital communication is technically not protected by Privacy Of Communication and Correspondence"-loophole.
Gmail do scan your mails as they state in their FAQ's page "No, but automatic scanning and filtering technology is at the heart of Gmail. Gmail scans and processes all messages using fully automated systems in order to do useful and innovative stuff like filter spam, detect viruses and malware, show relevant ads, and develop and deliver new features across your Google experience. Priority Inbox, spell checking, forwarding, auto-responding, automatic saving and sorting, and converting URLs to clickable links are just a few of the many features that use this kind of automatic processing." FAQ about Gmail, Security & Privacy[^]
Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, served in a Provençale manner with shallots and aubergines, garnished with truffle pate, brandy and a fried egg on top and Spam - Monty Python Spam Sketch
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Even though you do not have Facebook things like this should worry you. It is a precedence that gets set and can run away like a giant snowball down a cliff.
They do. That's why I replied. The disclaimer was more like tongue-in-cheek addressed to Facebook
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You mentioned google. What if google jumps on board and has sophisticated logic to hand over your searches because based on what you searched they determine you are about to commit a crime?
I'd probably stop using it. Hell, I'm thinking about it even now, and I love Google.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It is a chat monitoring system as well. Chats are not suppose to be public....
Sooooo.. Yeah. its basically like listening in on your phone convos.Which I don't agree with, and I've said it. I do agree with what you've said. I just said I would only be ok with this if the data mined was public, and not private
Full-fledged Java/.NET lover, full-fledged PHP hater. Full-fledged Google/Microsoft lover, full-fledged Apple hater. Full-fledged Skype lover, full-fledged YM hater.
I see. Yes I agree. Public information is perfectly fine to be mined. At the same time I think anonymity should be available. Not sure how but it seems like if we give up that capability we are setting are selves up for some nasty fashist control. I think if you do want anonymity it should be clear and simple. And you would be anonomous to all. So the example case given would not matter... Well I guess if the 13 year old was OK with meeting someone clearly marked as anonomous and hiding their identity. I think that is something that society needs to adapt to though.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Gmail do scan your mails as they state in their FAQ's page "No, but automatic scanning and filtering technology is at the heart of Gmail. Gmail scans and processes all messages using fully automated systems in order to do useful and innovative stuff like filter spam, detect viruses and malware, show relevant ads, and develop and deliver new features across your Google experience. Priority Inbox, spell checking, forwarding, auto-responding, automatic saving and sorting, and converting URLs to clickable links are just a few of the many features that use this kind of automatic processing." FAQ about Gmail, Security & Privacy[^]
Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, served in a Provençale manner with shallots and aubergines, garnished with truffle pate, brandy and a fried egg on top and Spam - Monty Python Spam Sketch
I knew they did it for ads (the Stasi-level of that is not that high compared to the Facebook Robocop), but the second thing you highlighted looks like a nice loophole they could use to do anything they wanted with the scans and just say "new feature"..
-
-
Thats what they want you to think. "Any society that is willing ot give up a little liberty for a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -Benjamin Franklin
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
I agree. It always leads to t-y+r-a-n+n-y and o-p+p-r+e-s+s-i+o-n. The dark side of the issue is when those who want to protect f-r+e+e-d+o+m, are apprehended by this mechanism, and then labeled as ???? and reported by the media as another foiled attempt to further reinforce the mechanism to the viewing audience. Perhaps on the light side, someone in nyc will get caught buying a 64oz Coke.
-
The core problem I see here is that we gradually hand over a fundamental freedom - that of expression - to the limited responsibility of private companies.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
The core problem I see here is that we gradually hand over a fundamental freedom - that of expression - to the limited responsibility of private companies.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchyCorporations have always been spying on people, whether thru mail-in rebates, polls, or the census. The technology has just improved so much that we're upset that we don't see it when it happens, and it's happening all the time. Personally, I don't care just as long as innocents don't end up in jail (for an extended period of time - mistakes will always happen). If they wish to read people's email about this and that, who cares, as long as they don't publicize it. Yes, I don't like FB sharing my sites' likes with any of my freinds, so I disabled social ads and partner sites. If I was paranoid, I'd opt out completely. However, if they wish to take my info to target specific advertising to me in a private way that no one else can see, then I'm fine with that, as long as it's some algorithm, and not a person, that determines that I like whips and chains. :-) However, if something stands out as a potential threat (i.e., purchased a few machine guns instead of whips and chains), then arresting someone without actual proof of intent to harm is a problem. Snooping and wiretrapping is how the government determines intent to harm. Detaining people for extended periods of time without any legal consultation and quick due process would also be illegal (i.e., Gitmo). That is what we need to make sure doesn't happen. Stopping them completely from snooping is not going to work because bad things are always going to happen and people will cry foul when the government didn't stop it. In the end, there's no perfect solution. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
