161–164 of 164 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with all of these services is you have to trust them as well. The most secure message is the one not sent.
True, but if you want to communicate you need to trust something at some point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was a recruiter from the Facebook MPK office (headquarters)
What position was he recruiting for, and roughly when (let's say, which quarter and year)? How likely was he a new recruiter? I'm not sure I can express my skepticism about this enough - our security, safety, and site integrity teams are some of the most privacy-conscious people I know, and even a hint of something like this happening here would lead to very pointed questions asked at the weekly Q&A every week until…
Really, are you surprised that there are federal agents on the premises, or just upset at the thought that FB users' privacy could be compromised in such a situation? To the degree that FB forum and groups ToS conforms with federal law and moreover seeks to go above and beyond the letter of the law then FB in this regard could be thought of as an extension of the federal government in such matters with regards to its own users. In this light it is no more relevant whether federal agents look at private or group communications, as opposed to bona fide FB employees. It doesn't matter. This is a private company; the first amendment doesn't apply. In any case, FB as a company isn't exactly widely respected for its position on its users' data, nor is it known to play nice with its users' privacy.
Let's not forget that of the companies whom the federal government sought to extract users' accounts' data from with regards to the Wikileaks issue 18 months ago, only Twitter publicized the compelled exposure of its users' data. Facebook happily gave the feds all the users' info they sought without telling us about it.
Although IIRC you have said that you've worked with the FB spam and fake account / phishing detection team, FB is a large enough organization at this point that the team responsible for complying with federal mandates and managing FB's relation with federal law enforcement is separate. Tao Stein and team have no bearing on this particular matter, nor should they care that real users happen to talk about and discuss real issues that federal agents think should be taken down. This is a separate matter entirely from what you've worked on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's a problem regarding false positives though. A portion of those may be guilty of other things. There was this interesting article on this idea of terahertz lasers in airports. I think these machines are great because they are programmable and specific. You can program them to look just for explosives and this reduces the search issues significantly. But what of the fact that they would mean the TSA might be Co…
That sounds more like a good way to show you are doing a bang up job of incarceration. Berating the legislature to eliminate as many unenforceable laws as possible seems like a better way to make law enforcement look more effective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm very sure a lot of things have to happen before a weird private message thread ends up in an accusation that ruins someone's life. A false negative could ruin the child's life just as easily, so I suspect most parents might think that's more important. It's not necessary to choose either "privacy uber alles" or "think of the children". As with most things in life, there's likely a good balance somewhere between t…
>A false negative could ruin the child's life just as easily For example? A child being preyed on by a pedophile? What would stop that from happening in real life? Maybe we should set up cameras every five feet since obviously if we could stop it (no matter how immoral we have to act to do so) we have an obligation to, right?
People have obviously found that online fora are perfect to groom children, because you can approach a child far easier than doing so in a playground. You can also repeatedly try with different children without your likeness being plastered on a wall somewhere. Since it's an obvious target, and checking it can be automated, why not police it in a balanced way? Again, you only see one side of this.
Similarly, in real life if you had a cheap, automated way of highlighting interactions that have been proved to have a higher chance of leading to children being molested while still balancing that with the human rights of the adult, most would find a balance between "do nothing" and "be hysterical". We don't have such an automated mechanism, and I'm sure your cameras-every-five-metres idea is on the hysterical side of balance, so even using it is obviously a straw man argument. That doesn't discount more rational approaches for those who have more than one principle in mind.