3 ms·

Well, that's one take on it. "This resolution derives its emotional force from a broad sentiment among British people that they are more monitored and controll

Well, that's one take on it. "This resolution derives its emotional force from a broad sentiment among British people that they are more monitored and controlled than were their parents and grandparents, more harried and bullied. These feelings are amply justified. Not since the age of the village stocks and the ducking stool have people been as surveilled by their neighbors—or as exposed to public humiliation." Right. So largely, people believe they are more controlled than before. This makes them unhappy, among other things. I guess somehow the author expects this sentiment to be ignored for the purposes of "security" if we merely divert blame from GCHQ to Facebook (a private entity). This attempt to derail the thrust of the problem is debunked by the well-known fact that Facebook collaborates extensively and exhaustively with intelligence organizations. Facebook isn't identical to GCHQ, but it's certainly a major input into their activities. The idea that community-based shunning is the primary oppressor of people doesn't quite mesh with the ability for people to sequester themselves among like-minded people more easily than ever thanks to the internet. "By contrast, the security measures adopted by the British government to protect its people from terrorism are reasonable, minimally intrusive, and appropriate to the scale of the threat. They are not sacrifices of liberty. They are bulwarks for liberty—bulwarks against the would-be totalitarians of our time." No. The security measures are part of a larger trend of oppressive behavior. Remember when the UK banned certain kinds of pornography? That wasn't related to "security"-- it was intrusive, not necessary, and a sacrifice of liberty. On that note, it doesn't support any security purposes to spy on what kind of porn people consume, but of course they do it anyway (check the Snowden files) because such information is a powerful tool for blackmail. Knowledge of this kind of program completely invalidates any claims of mass invasive spying being necessary for security.

linkregister 11y ago
> the well-known fact that Facebook collaborates extensively and exhaustively with intelligence organizations It's not well-known to me, can you give me any evidence besides (coerced) participation in PRISM? Fulfilling U.S. federal and local warrants is a hazard of business in the United States.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  PRISM is the primary piece of evidence in support of direct collaboration, and frankly I'd hesitate to call their involvement coerced. Aside from PRISM, intel agencies have been mining Facebook for ages now, providing critical data.
  - linkregister 11y ago
    Why do you hesitate to call their involvement coerced? Everything Facebook has done post-revelation has been pretty combative toward the program. Facebook has spent substantial time lobbying against SOPA/CISPA and related legislation. Facebook company officers even presented in front of Congress to protest the U.S. government's surveillance programs (since it negatively impacts business). All I read from your comment is unsubstantiated speculation. What's the basis of your assertion? Smearing an SV company on Hacker News shouldn't go unchallenged.
    - cryoshon 11y ago
      http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/11/yahoo-ceo-mayer-jail-nsa-surveillance http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/11/yahoo-ceo-... ""He said after the news broke in the Guardian and the Washington Post about Prism, the government surveillance programme that targets major internet companies: "The government response was, 'Oh don't worry, we're not spying on any Americans.' Oh, wonderful: that's really helpful to companies trying to serve people around the world, and that's really going to inspire confidence in American internet companies." "I thought that was really bad," he said. Zuckerberg said Facebook and others were pushing successfully for more transparency. "We are not at the end of this. I wish that the government would be more proactive about communicating. We are not psyched that we had to sue in order to get this and we take it very seriously," he said."" Mostly seems concerned about losing money from abroad, being transparent, and getting better communications with the government. http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/25952/56/ http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/25952/56/ Enough evidence of substantial intentional collaboration to form a lawsuit in the EU. Then there's the most recent flap about Facebook supporting CISA, which would encode their relationship with the NSA into law.

linkregister 11y ago

> the well-known fact that Facebook collaborates extensively and exhaustively with intelligence organizations It's not well-known to me, can you give me any evidence besides (coerced) participation in PRISM? Fulfilling U.S. federal and local warrants is a hazard of business in the United States.

cryoshon 11y ago
PRISM is the primary piece of evidence in support of direct collaboration, and frankly I'd hesitate to call their involvement coerced. Aside from PRISM, intel agencies have been mining Facebook for ages now, providing critical data.
- linkregister 11y ago
  Why do you hesitate to call their involvement coerced? Everything Facebook has done post-revelation has been pretty combative toward the program. Facebook has spent substantial time lobbying against SOPA/CISPA and related legislation. Facebook company officers even presented in front of Congress to protest the U.S. government's surveillance programs (since it negatively impacts business). All I read from your comment is unsubstantiated speculation. What's the basis of your assertion? Smearing an SV company on Hacker News shouldn't go unchallenged.
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/11/yahoo-ceo-mayer-jail-nsa-surveillance http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/11/yahoo-ceo-... ""He said after the news broke in the Guardian and the Washington Post about Prism, the government surveillance programme that targets major internet companies: "The government response was, 'Oh don't worry, we're not spying on any Americans.' Oh, wonderful: that's really helpful to companies trying to serve people around the world, and that's really going to inspire confidence in American internet companies." "I thought that was really bad," he said. Zuckerberg said Facebook and others were pushing successfully for more transparency. "We are not at the end of this. I wish that the government would be more proactive about communicating. We are not psyched that we had to sue in order to get this and we take it very seriously," he said."" Mostly seems concerned about losing money from abroad, being transparent, and getting better communications with the government. http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/25952/56/ http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/25952/56/ Enough evidence of substantial intentional collaboration to form a lawsuit in the EU. Then there's the most recent flap about Facebook supporting CISA, which would encode their relationship with the NSA into law.