Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 103 posts

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#81

Post by rayiner »

SilasX wrote: post #77
rayiner wrote: post #13

Tech companies are in a very awkward situation with regards to surveillance. It's hard to argue that individuals have an "expectation of privacy" in their Facebook content, when their thousand closest friends at Facebook are mining that information to sell them advertising. Indeed, you have the opposite of an expectation of privacy: you expect that your information will not be private.[1] The business model built on…

This is what I like to call the "slut" defense. "Ah, come on, don't give me that line, you were showing your stuff all around, flaunting it, putting it out there, and now you're claiming you didn't want me to use it? lol"

Your analogy involves an escalation, using someone's showing off as an excuse to violate their bodily integrity. That would be like if the government asserted you had no privacy interest in the contents of your hard drive, just because you posted some pictures of facebook. But what we're talking about is data collection where the government doesn't have anything you didn't already share with your thousand closest friends at Google. It's more like distributing a picture of yourself smoking weed among your school, then getting mad when your parents got a hold of a copy.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#82

Post by SilasX »

rayiner wrote: post #81
SilasX wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I like to call the "slut" defense. "Ah, come on, don't give me that line, you were showing your stuff all around, flaunting it, putting it out there, and now you're claiming you didn't want me to use it? lol"

Your analogy involves an escalation, using someone's showing off as an excuse to violate their bodily integrity. That would be like if the government asserted you had no privacy interest in the contents of your hard drive, just because you posted some pictures of facebook. But what we're talking about is data collection where the government doesn't have anything you didn't already share with your thousand closest fri…

>But what we're talking about is data collection where the government doesn't have anything you didn't already share with your thousand closest friends at Google

Yeah, exactly: "Honey, we aren't looking at anything you haven't already shown your last thousand boyfriends".

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#83

Post by tokenizer »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #7

I've called President Obama to express my frustration over the damage the government is creating for all of our future. This is why I am leaving government. I am about the same age as Zuck and have been working in government at many levels for about 12 years now and I work with people who have been working policy for over 40 years. The president couldn't care less what most of us think think...but because Zuck has sh…

Let's just face it, extremely large and complex systems are unwieldy and unpredictable. You have incredible technical and regulatory debt, and eventually you need to start from scratch whether you like it or not. You don't have to scrap the whole project, but you do need to rethink every part.

This system will collapse. It's too big, too mean, and too proud.

> I work with people who have been working policy for over 40 years.

And in the words of Thomas Jefferson:

> "Unless the mass [of people] retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression ..."

> "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

> "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

> "A people always preserves the right to revise, reform and change its constitution. A generation is not entitled to subject future generations to its own laws."

And to recap the current Federal Government: 1) The masses do not sufficiently control it. The representation per population has decreased and most politicians do not reflect the mosaic of the people but are a class of people on their own. 2) Americans are generally ignorant. Of others and themselves. Whether this is by design or by accident is up for debate. 3) The FED wants to pass extremely personal laws. Whether its for health or for safety, they all take up some of your personal responsibility, and hand it over. The War on Terror and Drugs are examples of the State declaring the right to protect you even against yourself. 4) How many reforms or repeals of laws do we see? How many new laws do we see? We should be reviewing and reforming old laws more than making new ones. Again we see another example of the Federal Government going against it's constitutional framer's vision for a free society.

I don't know about you, but I think the US is already a tyrannical oligopoly. Only instead of the bludgeon, it's weapon of oppression is apathy and propaganda.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#84

Post by dllthomas »

rayiner wrote: post #13

Tech companies are in a very awkward situation with regards to surveillance. It's hard to argue that individuals have an "expectation of privacy" in their Facebook content, when their thousand closest friends at Facebook are mining that information to sell them advertising. Indeed, you have the opposite of an expectation of privacy: you expect that your information will not be private.[1] The business model built on…

What I share with my 1000 friends at Facebook may be different from what I share with my 1000 friends at Google, which might be different than what I share with my 1000 friends at Amazon, my friends at Verizon, and my friends at PG&E.

Things that can be inferred by combining all of these may well be things that I would expect to be private.

http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/TMIA.png

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#85

Post by rayiner »

SilasX wrote: post #82
rayiner wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy involves an escalation, using someone's showing off as an excuse to violate their bodily integrity. That would be like if the government asserted you had no privacy interest in the contents of your hard drive, just because you posted some pictures of facebook. But what we're talking about is data collection where the government doesn't have anything you didn't already share with your thousand closest fri…

>But what we're talking about is data collection where the government doesn't have anything you didn't already share with your thousand closest friends at Google Yeah, exactly: "Honey, we aren't looking at anything you haven't already shown your last thousand boyfriends".

You're mixing together two different hypotheticals.

In your first one, you have someone provacatively dressed. In this hypothetical, the government isn't a rapist escalating their level of access, but someone on the street who can see the same thing everyone else does. I.e. the government isn't using your Facebook posts as justification for hacking into your computer. If it has access to something, so do hundreds of people at ATT, Google, or FB. There's no escalation beyond what you're broadcasting into the world.

In your second one, you have a serial monogomist. But showing anything special to a boyfriend or girlfriend is a 1:1 interaction, even if you do it thousands of times. But the government isn't claiming access to your emails on the theory you regularly email hundreds of people. Web mail or a Facebook post isn't 1:1, but rather something in which you invite hundreds of unknown people into any single interaction.

You can't mix and match bits of each analogy to avoid the distinctions that keep each one from fitting the situation you're trying to compare it to.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#86

Post by sehr »

piggyback wrote: post #46

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks

I'm not saying he deserves the benefit of the doubt, but if we were all judged by our actions at age 19 everyone's credibility would be hurt.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#87

Post by samstave »

rayiner wrote: post #76
samstave wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless i am beng obtuse; i think youre missing the point: Its not that any of these large companies should not have some influence; the problem is that having shit-tons of money is the seemingly only requisite to have ANY influence in government currently. The term "oligarchy" has real and important meaning.

You are missing the point, because the grandparent post didn't mention money, he mentioned jobs and tax revenue. That's the real leverage big companies have over Washington, not the campaign donations which is what everyone harps about. Take, for example, the last debate between Obama and Romney, where they took turns trying to show who was more pro-coal. You think it was because of campaign donations? Or all the coa…

>You think it was because of campaign donations? Or all the coal mining/fracking jobs in key states like Pennsylvania?

But that is called pandering. Do I think that they were concerned with any of the coal jobs? No, I think they were concerned with public perception at the time they were visible to said public.

Politicians have Schrodinger-Syndrome: They only appear to be working/accountable when you're staring at them through the lens of a national camera. All other times, they are fervently working on interests which are not yours.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#88

Post by chrisdone »

piggyback wrote: post #46

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks

When I was his age and trying to show off, I probably would've said the same kind of thing, if I were in the right mood. I don't know or care whether Zuckerberg has any integrity (I don't use his service), but do people grow up and change.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#89

Post by glitchdout »

sehr wrote: post #86
piggyback wrote: post #46

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks

I'm not saying he deserves the benefit of the doubt, but if we were all judged by our actions at age 19 everyone's credibility would be hurt.

Which is why NSA's surveillance and storage of our communications is problematic. Some 19 year old kid today may be president in the future. Should he have something stupid he said today hanging over his head when he's president?

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#90

Post by sehr »

glitchdout wrote: post #89
sehr wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying he deserves the benefit of the doubt, but if we were all judged by our actions at age 19 everyone's credibility would be hurt.

Which is why NSA's surveillance and storage of our communications is problematic. Some 19 year old kid today may be president in the future. Should he have something stupid he said today hanging over his head when he's president?

I'm not really arguing against that point
Post reply on HN