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

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#91

Post by deciplex »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #44
droopybuns wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only we lived in a democracy rather than a constitutional republic.

Hey now, if you are going to be pedantic make sure you get your facts straight. If I'm remembering right, prior to James Madison's writings, there wasn't a real distinction between democracy and republic, besides the fact that democracy was Greek and republic was Latin. Madison in the Federalist Papers made the distinction between democracy and republic that are your talking about, but it is pretty arbitrary. Now you…

I've always understood democracy to refer to suffrage, limited or universal, while republic basically amounts to "not a principality" (which is not very descriptive).

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#92

Post by glitchdout »

sehr wrote: post #90
glitchdout wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not arguing either. Just adding to your point.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#93

Post by Zigurd »

arebop wrote: post #70
Zigurd wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

The slides (as usual for slides) are pretty ambiguous, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#In... says that the companies and Facebook in particular deny cooperation with PRISM, and the only quote from media sources that sounds skeptical about that is from WaPo wonkblog [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/12/h... ] which says that one of the slides talks about combining…

"which says that one of the slides talks about combining data provided by companies (with warrants, NSLs, and other legal orders) with data collected by adversarial means"

Cool story. If it was true, surely one of the nine companies listed on the PRISM slides would have adopted it as an explanation for why they are listed.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#94

Post by SilasX »

rayiner wrote: post #85
SilasX wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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.

This is false. In both cases I sent it to known, specific, authorized people. You're employing exactly the same "slut!" logic I criticized before: "well, you were okay with all those people seeing it, I guess you don't mind everyone seeing it, if you didn't want the rest of us to have a taste you shouldn't have been so promiscuous".

Hold on. No matter how many people I privately shared it with, and no matter how liberal you think my standards are, I still shared it in private. The typical person does not expect that the general public can read what they're posting to their friends or email recipients.

And before you say, "but some designated employees get to look at it sometimes for debugging" -- again, same logic. "Come on, you live in an apartment, you know maintenance comes in now and then, I guess anyone can come and take a look around. Gee, if you're so liberal that you leave your stuff right were the handyman can see, what, what's the problem? What, you expect that just because your contract says that entrance is limited to designated people and situations that the whole world can't take a peak into your bedroom?"

I get that you're not convinced; that you think, "hey, those people send their data to anyone, it seems, so what's the problem?" And you don't seem to be bothered by how close the argument is to "she was a slut anyway"; I just hope that you'll at least recognize there's a good source of well-tested rhetoric you can draw from, albeit from unsavory characters.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#95

Post by rayiner »

SilasX wrote: post #94
rayiner wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. This is false. In both cases I sent it to known , specific, authorized people. You're employing exactly the same "slut!" logic I criticized before: "well, you were okay with all those people seeing it, I guess you don't mind everyone seeing it, if you didn't want the rest of us to…

Your landlord doesn't rifle through your apartment to see what kind of laundry detergent you buy so that he can sell that info to advertisers. There are also very well defined limits on how your landlord can access your apartment, and you have a property interest as a renter. Read Facebook's TOS and tell me there are any such limits to what Facebook can do with your data, and explain to me how you have a property interest in the data Facebook collects about you.

In a struggle to make your analogy work, you're posing s hypothetical online service very different than the ones that exist. If Facebook and Google didn't mine your data and provided strong contractual protections limiting the situations in which their engineers could access it, like landlords do, then you'd have a much stronger argument that these things are protected by the 4th amendment.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#96

Post by yuhong »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #21

I'm sorry, coming from Zuck, this statement means very little to me. I guess I'm old school, but Zuck has shown disdain for the privacy of users in the past, FB actively tracks the movement of users across the net (likely without many realizing), and I'm under the impression that this culture that emphasizes sharing every fucking thing is more dangerous to people than the US government trying to get at data that they…

This is why I asked about what happened to Mark Zuckerberg since the early days of Facebook regarding privacy in a Reddit AMA.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#97

Post by gremlinsinc »

To those naysaying Mark for selling out our privacy--sure he does that, for profit--but I'd rather a company sell my shopping and searching habits to another company than the government take something I say on Facebook out of context and put me on the no-fly list, or worse an enemy combatant---the more power the NSA has the further towards Nazi Germany and Gespacho / Secret police territory we go...so good for you mark--you could do a LOT more to ensure our privacy, and maybe you will -- hopefully this isn't just 'posturing' but as he's a 30 something techy geek who probably hangs out on hackernews as much as the rest of us, he may actually be sincere about it.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#98

Post by Zigurd »

julespitt wrote: post #54
Zigurd wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why list specific companies and dates? Either the companies on the PRISM list are willingly collaborating, or NSA bribed one or more employees, or NSA attacked their infrastructure. If it wasn't willing cooperation, then the PRISM companies have a security breach to solve. None of them have said whether they have such a breach or not.

Right, I was just pointing out the possibility of your latter two options. There was also the possibility that PRISM was just a database of formal, court-ordered information. I wish we had even more technical details.

That's no excuse. Someone in senior management has been bribed? You have a serious security breach unreported, undiagnosed? That's a whopping shareholder lawsuit coming at you if you don't hunt it down and terminate it.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#99

Post by arebop »

Zigurd wrote: post #93
arebop wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slides (as usual for slides) are pretty ambiguous, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#In... says that the companies and Facebook in particular deny cooperation with PRISM, and the only quote from media sources that sounds skeptical about that is from WaPo wonkblog [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/12/h... ] which says that one of the slides talks about combining…

"which says that one of the slides talks about combining data provided by companies (with warrants, NSLs, and other legal orders) with data collected by adversarial means" Cool story. If it was true, surely one of the nine companies listed on the PRISM slides would have adopted it as an explanation for why they are listed.

There are five quotes explaining it that way right in the wikipedia article. The only company quoted that doesn't admit to complying with court orders is Dropbox; they flatly deny involvement in anything such as PRISM.

I'm not saying there is proof of lack of wrongdoing, but it would be great if people would stop claiming without evidence that these companies made deals with NSA. Evidence-based decision making is better than paranoia.

Re: Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance

#100

Post by zaqokm »

panarky wrote: post #61
byoogle wrote: post #25

> That’s why at Facebook we spend a lot of our energy making our services and the whole internet safer and more secure. We encrypt communications, we use secure protocols for traffic, we encourage people to use multiple factors for authentication and we go out of our way to help fix issues we find in other people’s services. I have to call “bs” here. It took Facebook nine years – nine years! (2004–2013) – to turn HTT…

Pot, kettle, black[0] From Facebook's current privacy policy[1]: We allow anyone with your contact information to find you through the Facebook search bar at the top of most pages, as well as other tools we provide, such as contact importers - even if you have not shared your contact information with them on Facebook Random news items from last few years[2] Facebook Removes Crucial Privacy Setting for Users’ Names Fa…

> Pot, kettle, black[0]

While I am not trying to be an apologist for Facebook, I would like to point out that the majority of issues with Facebook are because people are members. It is easy to opt out of Facebook.

I would like to see you opt out of NSA monitoring. A lot of the actions which the NSA took and take are not made public, you data is collected from means which could be described as subterfuge, if not bordering on illegal.

The NSA isn't upset with Snowden for exposing their tactics, their upset because they got exposed altogether. They will continue to go down the path of monitoring citizens, and collecting data with or without your permission.

And you will never see them [NSA] offer a Terms and Conditions policy or a Privacy Policy.

Post reply on HN