9 ms·

I haven't had a Facebook for years, yet I'm absolutely convinced that Facebook has maintained my social graph through pictures my friends and others have posted

I haven't had a Facebook for years, yet I'm absolutely convinced that Facebook has maintained my social graph through pictures my friends and others have posted with me in them. This is the real unprecedented threat: crowdsourced surveillance by a private company. We need strong laws and leaders to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place. And should the government be allowed to "tap in" to this graph to monitor people with a warrant? Scary times.

mrmrcoleman 10y ago
+1
- sctb 10y ago
  Please stop doing this.
CapitalistCartr 10y ago
Right now, the police don't even need a warrant, merely the coöperation of the corporation.
- luizlopes 10y ago
  > government uses corporations to do what government cannot do, and corporations use government to do what corporations cannot do. I can't remember where I read, or heard this. However, it made sense to me.
  - paavokoya 10y ago
    The CIA is an arm of US corporate interests that carries out missions to benefit US corporate interests abroad.
    - aisofteng 10y ago
      That's a ridiculous claim. Do you have any evidence of that?
      - dredmorbius 10y ago
        Guatemala (1952-54) and Iran (1953) both come to mind. United Fruit and Anglo-Iranian Oil -- the latter a British firm, but with distinct US interests. Cuba (Bay of Pigs) and US sugar, alcohol, and tobacco interests. Almost certainly Sukarno (Indonesia), though that nominally had Communist concerns as well. Indonesia was a source of oil, natural gas, tin, copper, gold, natural rubber, and tropical hardwoods. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Guatemala#/search https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Guatemala#... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion Noam Chomsky should be a good source for more such information.
- dimino 10y ago
  Well that's simply not true...
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Evidence? Counter-argument? Anything? Just a flat-out denial of a seemingly-true statement does nothing to advance the conversation. (Why do I call it a seemingly-true statement? Because if a local ISP, say, will answer questions from the police, without a warrant, then the police are likely to feel free to call the ISP and ask questions when they don't have a warrant. Human nature likes not having to do the extra work.)
    - dimino 10y ago
      I don't need evidence to question a claim, only to make a counter claim. I am questioning the claim that law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to legally view data about an individual or individuals collected by a 3rd party.
      - pdkl95 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
        dimino 10y ago
        "the Court is cautiously developing new standards of Fourth Amendment protection, including a rejection of a strong third party doctrine." https://works.bepress.com/stephen_henderson/34/ https://works.bepress.com/stephen_henderson/34/
        pdkl95 10y ago
        US v Jones, which your link discusses, didn't rule on the 3rd-party doctrine, which is (unfortunately) still being used. Yes, Justice Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion, made a very good case for revisiting what "expectation of privacy" means and suggested that constitutional protections should extend into 3rd party data. Chief Justice Roberts made similar comments[1] in the court opinion for Riley v. CA. However, those cases addressed specific questions (placing a GPS tracking device, and searching a cellphone that was found upon arrest) and did not rule on the general use of the 3rd-party doctrine. I hope those cases are a sign of change in the court that will lead to broader rulings in the future, but that hasn't happened yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California#Opinion_of_the_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California#Opinion_of...
benevol 10y ago
> We need strong laws and leaders to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place. The government has been benefiting for a long time from surveillance brought to you by Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Co. Our leaders won't prevent anything. And the People have been electing these leaders for a long time and continue to do so.
TearsInTheRain 10y ago
This has already happened. See Geofeedia: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/geofeedia-surveillance-software-high-school-chicago-social-media-monitoring/ http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/geofeedia-surveillance-softwa...
pdkl95 10y ago
For a look at a disturbingly plausible future, see Tom Scott's ~2min sci-fi short "Oversight". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY
- j_s 10y ago
  How prescient pre-Snowden (2013).
- Mathnerd314 10y ago
  It's plausible only in spirit. An actual listing of terrorists does not have 3 terrorists within a 1-mile radius, and does not need volunteers; the FBI already has such a database. But as recent terrorism has shown, the databases are not be sufficient to prove or disprove terrorism. It's just more security theater. If the FBI started extending its database to more trivial crimes, like say speeding tickets, then it might start being useful. A law that isn't enforced evenly isn't really a law; it's an excuse for the police to harm people they don't like. Computerized enforcement seems like a good goal to aim for.
lalos 10y ago
I believe this is widely known as 'dark profiles' can't seem to find that many articles but here is one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2165543/Facebooks-Dark-Profiles-twisted-genius-Mark-Zuckerbergs-quest-total-domination.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2165543/Faceb... Also they keep track of that info easily when somebody migrates their phone address book on to the Messenger or Facebook app, on first install it prompts you to push all that data. They have your name, number and the connection between that user and you.
npsimons 10y ago
> I haven't had a Facebook for years, yet I'm absolutely convinced that Facebook has maintained my social graph through pictures my friends and others have posted with me in them. Considering that Facebook is known to construct shadow profiles of people who don't even use the service "yet", this shouldn't come as a surprise.

mrmrcoleman 10y ago

sctb 10y ago
Please stop doing this.

CapitalistCartr 10y ago

Right now, the police don't even need a warrant, merely the coöperation of the corporation.

luizlopes 10y ago
> government uses corporations to do what government cannot do, and corporations use government to do what corporations cannot do. I can't remember where I read, or heard this. However, it made sense to me.
- paavokoya 10y ago
  The CIA is an arm of US corporate interests that carries out missions to benefit US corporate interests abroad.
  - aisofteng 10y ago
    That's a ridiculous claim. Do you have any evidence of that?
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Guatemala (1952-54) and Iran (1953) both come to mind. United Fruit and Anglo-Iranian Oil -- the latter a British firm, but with distinct US interests. Cuba (Bay of Pigs) and US sugar, alcohol, and tobacco interests. Almost certainly Sukarno (Indonesia), though that nominally had Communist concerns as well. Indonesia was a source of oil, natural gas, tin, copper, gold, natural rubber, and tropical hardwoods. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Guatemala#/search https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Guatemala#... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion Noam Chomsky should be a good source for more such information.
dimino 10y ago
Well that's simply not true...
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Evidence? Counter-argument? Anything? Just a flat-out denial of a seemingly-true statement does nothing to advance the conversation. (Why do I call it a seemingly-true statement? Because if a local ISP, say, will answer questions from the police, without a warrant, then the police are likely to feel free to call the ISP and ask questions when they don't have a warrant. Human nature likes not having to do the extra work.)
  - dimino 10y ago
    I don't need evidence to question a claim, only to make a counter claim. I am questioning the claim that law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to legally view data about an individual or individuals collected by a 3rd party.
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
      - dimino 10y ago
        "the Court is cautiously developing new standards of Fourth Amendment protection, including a rejection of a strong third party doctrine." https://works.bepress.com/stephen_henderson/34/ https://works.bepress.com/stephen_henderson/34/
        pdkl95 10y ago
        US v Jones, which your link discusses, didn't rule on the 3rd-party doctrine, which is (unfortunately) still being used. Yes, Justice Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion, made a very good case for revisiting what "expectation of privacy" means and suggested that constitutional protections should extend into 3rd party data. Chief Justice Roberts made similar comments[1] in the court opinion for Riley v. CA. However, those cases addressed specific questions (placing a GPS tracking device, and searching a cellphone that was found upon arrest) and did not rule on the general use of the 3rd-party doctrine. I hope those cases are a sign of change in the court that will lead to broader rulings in the future, but that hasn't happened yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California#Opinion_of_the_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California#Opinion_of...

benevol 10y ago

> We need strong laws and leaders to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place. The government has been benefiting for a long time from surveillance brought to you by Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Co. Our leaders won't prevent anything. And the People have been electing these leaders for a long time and continue to do so.

TearsInTheRain 10y ago

This has already happened. See Geofeedia: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/geofeedia-surveillance-software-high-school-chicago-social-media-monitoring/ http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/geofeedia-surveillance-softwa...

pdkl95 10y ago

For a look at a disturbingly plausible future, see Tom Scott's ~2min sci-fi short "Oversight". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuf1V1FhpY

j_s 10y ago
How prescient pre-Snowden (2013).
Mathnerd314 10y ago
It's plausible only in spirit. An actual listing of terrorists does not have 3 terrorists within a 1-mile radius, and does not need volunteers; the FBI already has such a database. But as recent terrorism has shown, the databases are not be sufficient to prove or disprove terrorism. It's just more security theater. If the FBI started extending its database to more trivial crimes, like say speeding tickets, then it might start being useful. A law that isn't enforced evenly isn't really a law; it's an excuse for the police to harm people they don't like. Computerized enforcement seems like a good goal to aim for.

lalos 10y ago

I believe this is widely known as 'dark profiles' can't seem to find that many articles but here is one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2165543/Facebooks-Dark-Profiles-twisted-genius-Mark-Zuckerbergs-quest-total-domination.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2165543/Faceb... Also they keep track of that info easily when somebody migrates their phone address book on to the Messenger or Facebook app, on first install it prompts you to push all that data. They have your name, number and the connection between that user and you.

npsimons 10y ago

> I haven't had a Facebook for years, yet I'm absolutely convinced that Facebook has maintained my social graph through pictures my friends and others have posted with me in them. Considering that Facebook is known to construct shadow profiles of people who don't even use the service "yet", this shouldn't come as a surprise.