Zuckerberg Expresses Frustration Over Surveillance
facebook.com
facebook.com
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 shitloads of money and manages this massive platform his voice apparently matters when it comes to national policy over people who do it on a daily basis. Don't misread this as a hit on Zuckerberg, it's not at all, it's just illuminating who the government listens to. Nothing new of course, but it does hit home over and over.
If Obama and the gov actually listened to Zuck, the problem would be fixed. Heck at this point, it is not too farfetched to think that parts of the government don't listen to the President, even.
This seems naive. Zuck has enough money to buty privacy, and he made his fortune by enabling the type of surveilance that the NSA does. Frankly, his actions here are about as credible as the Ivy League's moves towards embracing "diversity". They are just ploys, and their biz model is at risk, so this is like "I'sorry"... only that we got caught.
He consequently simply may not be personally capable of having a freedom-oriented effect here. Said another say, he's a new-money kid, how much power can he really have?
Insert {Halliburton, Exxon, AT&T, Comcast, BP, etc} into those brackets and you'll get a much better idea of the nature of political influence and lobbying in the U.S.
This is why I think all the bluster around Citizens United and the influence of money in politics is overblown. Because at the end of the day, a post-card listing the number of employees Exxon has in a Congressman's district is just as effective as a check.
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.
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 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.
Don't overlook the personal wealth aspect though because he was able to start that PAC fwd.us.
I'll take the "almost none" position, comparable to the season finale of "Friends."
Not that I disagree with the overall premise that FB doesn't really add anything of much value (or at least anything that couldn't be quickly and easily replaced).
By comparison, that sum is greater than their net income for the same period.
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.
Do you listen to everyone equally? Can it even be done?
I think "listen" deals in influence where as yes, one vote per citizen deals with democracy.
The USA is not a democracy, it is a republic, a system where people vote for a small number of representatives who then decides policy in the name of the people.
Nowadays these two words have shifted in meaning in popular usage, what used to be democracy is now called direct democracy and what used to be a distinct republic is now indirect democracy or representative democracy a.k.a. democracy. This kind of slippery semantics is most probably a consequence of years of propaganda to persuade people they live in a democracy so they won't ask for one.
Then again, in the USA as many other places around the world, this small number of elected representatives holding the power of policy are subjected to the oligarchic / plutocratic power and influence of a few wealthy entities.
Or as better said in this quote:
«the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.»
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 are right that we don't live in a direct democracy (though states have features), but we are still a democracy and a republic.
Now that I am being pedantic someone will probably point out where I am in error, but I just felt like posting some information for whoever may find it useful. :)
I had a feeling I was going of faulty memory myself. I will certainly find out about that book.
It's just clear that if you have money, and a lot of it, you have a voice in shaping the world. If you don't have money regardless of what position you are in, you don't have a voice (extreme popular outliers excluded).
Did you quit school because your name wasn't in the textbooks?
Also: Arguing by ad hominem.
I have to call “bs” here. It took Facebook nine years – nine years! (2004–2013) – to turn HTTPS on by default (http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/11/19/facebook-https-t-...). Beforehand, anybody on your network could trivially hijack your Facebook session to gain access to your account (I made a video two years ago about how easy this attack was [and is] if you don’t know what I mean: http://youtu.be/g5mFbgxMHqQ?t=1m33s).
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
Facebook Removes Crucial Privacy Setting for Users’ Names
Facebook is improperly altering its privacy policy without proper user consent
Using names, images, and content of Facebook users for advertising without consent
Senator Al Franken has called on Facebook to reconsider expansion of its facial recognition activity
Facebook’s Beacon program disclosed personal information without user consent
Instagram announced several changes to the terms of service that will allow the company to use pictures in advertisements without notifying or compensating users
Instagram proposed that the parents of minors implicitly consent to the use of their childrens' images for advertising purposes
Facebook removed a privacy control that allowed users to hide themselves from strangers through Facebook’s search function
88% of Facebook Users Oppose Changes to Privacy Policy and Voting Rights
Facebook has proposed changes to its policies that would (1) end user voting, (2) remove spam blocking, and (3) share FB user data with affiliates without user consent
Consumer Groups Ask FTC to Investigate Facebook-Datalogix Data-Matching Arrangement
Facebook is under a 20 year consent decree from the FTC that requires express consent from users before disclosing personal information
[0] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pot%20Calling...
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.
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 probably already have.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like that the US government is doing this, but I don't trust FB at all.
Nothing to see here folks. Just the old tug of war between governments and corporations for power, while the actual citizens get trampled.
Facebook will never have a Gitmo. It'll never send someone to a torture camp in Egypt. It'll never invade a country. It'll never confiscate property. It'll never put someone on the no-fly list. It'll never harass you at the border.
Yes, we should be openly critical of powerful corporations. But the downsides of misguided governance are much worse than even the most powerful corporations can muster.
So, I don't believe it's fair to compare what Facebook does to warrantless government spying. And I'm glad Zuck is publicly taking on this issue.
If the government is misguided, it's because powerful corporations are leading it by the nose.
God, I sound paranoid conspiracy theorist.
"Two men of the same trade seldom meet but for the purpose of deceiving the public." - Adam Smith
(Maybe we should start calling them "collusion theories".)
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty or justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."
It may not do those things directly but who's to say it won't tip the government off about you? Tell them where you live and flag you for a disgruntled post or an idle threat. There's a lot Facebook could do to help the government crack down on dissidents.
When our engineers work tirelessly to improve security, we imagine we're protecting you against criminals, not our own government.
Any company that cares about 'security' and controls such a massive amount of personal data would know that governments do not always behave morally/legally.
This excuse should not work; we the public should expect better.
Yahoo did not use https. Facebook scans your IMs and tracks your website visits for ads. When do we reach the point when plausible ignorance of governmental overreach and the need to 'monetize' are no longer considered valid excuses for compaines to be lax with the data they hold about you?
As an aside: as far as I can tell these are just crododile tears - if Zuckerberg truly cared, Facebook would back off from generating ad revenue off IM and would enable OTR.
Either way, this needs to change. We're not on a slippery slope of losing privacy- we're going downhill like an avalanche.
(Come to think of it, since this is today's news, it's possible that Zuck is responding to it...)
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
None of the denials or other announcements made by any of the companies the NSA seemed pretty sure were collaborating addressed why they appeared on that list. Until there is a good explanation for why the NSA thinks they were collaborating, denials ring pretty hollow.
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.
I wish we had even more technical details.
The business model built on harvesting user data to sell advertising is just fundamentally at odds with the scope of the 4th amendment's protection of privacy.
[1] You may expect that the government won't look at it, but that's not what "private" means for the purposes of the 4th amendment. It doesn't just mean anything you don't want the government to see. To analogize, your house is private: you may invite selected guests in, but not your thousand closest friends at Facebook.
Things that can be inferred by combining all of these may well be things that I would expect to be private.
Yeah, exactly: "Honey, we aren't looking at anything you haven't already shown your last thousand boyfriends".
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.
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.
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.
Until then, all of your "calls for privacy" are not worth the digital paper they are being written on.
So, no, that link does not support the claim that Facebook cooperated with PRISM.
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.
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.
Personally, at this point, with all the Snowden revelations, it should be up to Facebook to prove to me that they aren't sharing information with the government.
Does it really matter who they're protecting us from?
</joke>
I wish Zuckerberg would have taken on Schneier's meme: Make bulk mass surveilance prohibitively expensive.
Everyone can understand what's involved in making that happen.
The more outlandish the plots on Scandal and House of Cards, and the funnier Jon Stewart gets to be, the more and more awful the truth revealed in the real news seems to be. We get the truth we're willing to accept... what else will come?
Since Schneier's crypto reputation is not in question, I think it's reasonable to believe that there is a possible statelmate end state.
If everyone goes all in on certificate transparency, HSTS, and Cert Pinning, engineers can at least make life miserable on the Surveliance Industrial complex for a little while.
By any metric of privacy, security or safety, I don't see how anyone could claim the internet works.
Also, no amount of encryption or 2-factor authentication could turn Facebook into a part of the internet "I want to build." Which is why I deleted my Facebook account and got off (nearly all) Google services. I vote with my feet, and what I spend my time building.
I'm not a facebook user, so, is it possible to use Facebook completely privately? Without anybody else than your friend seeing your information, not even third parties?
It was possible to hide yourself from the search, but that doesn't work anymore.
You can hide your friend list as well, but there're some tricks that one can use to find out who are your friends.
The argument would be, if it is okay for big business to record all activity and data mine it for profit then it is okay for governments to record all activity and data mine it to help govern the people.