5 ms·

Your comment has been downvoted, probably because of the hyperbolic "the Internet has been weaponized", but you bring up a good point. I've long thought it abso

by sho 10y ago

Your comment has been downvoted, probably because of the hyperbolic "the Internet has been weaponized", but you bring up a good point. I've long thought it absolutely insane that governments all over the world blithely allow Facebook, and by extension the USG[1], to collect a comprehensive social graph of their entire citizenry. Who's friends with who, who talks to who, how often and about what, who works where, who goes where and when. This level of information about another country's citizens sounds like the wildest dream of an intelligence agency. It literally sounds like the onion: http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-cut-agencys-cos-19753 http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatic... Why did these other governments let FB & friends in? I think they just didn't see it coming, and by the time they realised the cat was out of the bag. Well, China saw it coming, and closed the door before it was too late. I'm not surprised China is doing that - I'm surprised other countries don't do it. [1] Does anyone seriously believe that at least parts of the USG do not have access to facebook's data?

wavefunction 10y ago
One of the first investors in facebook was In-Q-Tel. I think most people who care about things like that already knew a long time ago.
- linkregister 10y ago
  I can't find any reference to In-Q-Tel ownership of Facebook: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/facebook#/entity https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/facebook#/entity > I think most people who care about things like that already knew a long time ago. What does this mean? If you have something to say, you should just say it overtly.
- late2part 10y ago
  This is false. Please provide supporting information for your assertion that In-Q-Tel invested in The Facebook.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    The OP may be confusing Facebook with Google. Apparently there's some evidence of Google's ties with the US intelligence community: https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-in-q-tel-the-cias-venture-capital-firm-preview/ https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-in-q-tel-the-cias-venture... Two of the names that come up most often in connection with In-Q-Tel, however, need no introduction: Google and Facebook. The publicly available record on the Facebook/In-Q-Tel connection is tenuous. Facebook received $12.7 million in venture capital from Accel, whose manager, James Breyer, now sits on their board. He was formerly the chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, whose board included Gilman Louie, then the CEO of In-Q-Tel. The connection is indirect, but the suggestion of CIA involvement with Facebook, however tangential, is disturbing in the light of Facebook’s history of violating the privacy of its users. Google’s connection to In-Q-Tel is more straightforward, if officially denied. In 2006, ex-CIA officer Robert David Steele told Homeland Security Today that Google “has been taking money and direction for elements of the US Intelligence Community, including the Office of Research and Development at the Central Intelligence Agency, In-Q-Tel, and in all probability, both the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command.” Later that year, a blogger claimed that an official Google spokesman had denied the claims, but no official press statement was released.
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
> Why did these other governments let FB & friends in? This is ridiculous. They simply wanted the benefits of having Facebook and the rest of the internet in their countries. In many SE Asian countries that surround China (like Myanmar, Cambodia, and even Vietnam), the internet is even synonymous Facebook and Google. Other countries lack enough scale to get that advantage, unless they decided to go with the Chinese social stack, which they would never do due to mistrust of the Chinese. The only countries that block Facebook ATM are Iran, Bangladesh, North Korea, and China. A lot can be said about the common natures of these countries' governments, and why the blocking occurs (well, at least Iran and Bangladesh are kind of democracies). It is never about protecting their citizens' information! Instead it is about controlling communication among their citizens. They don't care about their citizen's privacy.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > It is never about protecting their citizens' information! Instead it is about controlling communication among their citizens. They don't care about their citizen's privacy. I think you might be missing the point though: Every overbearing government wants that information for themselves. Giving FB access = giving USA access to that info. It gives the US a lot of political power. Locking out FB isn't about protecting their citizens, you are correct. It's about blocking out US intelligence gathering.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    Who the heck posts secrets on Facebook? Well, in China, lots of things are state secrets, like pollution readings, basic street maps, consumer price information, or basically anything that would embarrass the party. In that case, I guess you are right, but it is basically vacuous. But mainly, they want control over the communication channels, so they can shut them down when it suits their difference, as they have done time and time again. Seriously, how does banning this picture do any good? http://globalriskinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TIGGER_2590531b-1.jpg http://globalriskinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TIG...
    - 10y ago
mtgx 10y ago
India may allow Facebook but it also dodged a major bullet with Facebook's "Free Basics". Facebook could've literally controlled 80% of "Internet" usage in India 10 years from now. So things could've been much worse for them. Here's hoping this still won't happen in some African countries as as well.
3pt14159 10y ago
I think the main counterpoint is that as soon as the USG starts to seriously abuse this power the rest of the West will coordinate around a different hegemony, probably the EU, but maybe the UK + Canada / AUS / NZ. The internet and western democracies generally are naturally open, and abusing this power will do more harm than good.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Aren't the major English-speaking countries already cooperating in this abuse of power?
  - rogerbinns 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes : Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. > Despite the impact of Snowden's disclosures, some experts in the intelligence community believe that no amount of global concern or outrage will affect the Five Eyes relationship, which to this day remains one of the most comprehensive known espionage alliances in history
  - linkregister 10y ago
    I think the revelations from the Snowden leaks were that the NSA had a mechanism for getting information from Facebook and other U.S. internet companies, in a program now known as PRISM to the public (known as FAA 702 to the Intelligence Community and Congress). According to disclosures, NSA would submit requests via FBI National Security Letters for information about foreign persons of intelligence interest. So it would appear that only the NSA had the capability to perform these requests; AUS/CAN/UK/NZ would not have access. More information can be found on theintercept.com, theguardian.com, and other online newspapers.
  - 3pt14159 10y ago
    It depends on your definition of "abuse", but what's going on in China and Russia with respect to the internet is far more abusive than an underused and ineffectual dragnet surveillance program.
Lordarminius 10y ago
>Your comment has been downvoted, probably because of the hyperbolic "the Internet has been weaponized", but you bring up a good point. "the Internet has been weaponized" is nowhere near hyperbolic. His comment was downvoted because many Americans even highly educated and enlightened ones hate to consider the actions of their government and its implications.
serge2k 10y ago
> Why did these other governments let FB & friends in? I think they just didn't see it coming, and by the time they realised the cat was out of the bag. Well, China saw it coming, and closed the door before it was too late. I'm not surprised China is doing that - I'm surprised other countries don't do it. Because other countries aren't oppressive regimes and actually place some value in basic human rights.

by sho 10y ago

wavefunction 10y ago

One of the first investors in facebook was In-Q-Tel. I think most people who care about things like that already knew a long time ago.

linkregister 10y ago
I can't find any reference to In-Q-Tel ownership of Facebook: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/facebook#/entity https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/facebook#/entity > I think most people who care about things like that already knew a long time ago. What does this mean? If you have something to say, you should just say it overtly.
late2part 10y ago
This is false. Please provide supporting information for your assertion that In-Q-Tel invested in The Facebook.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  The OP may be confusing Facebook with Google. Apparently there's some evidence of Google's ties with the US intelligence community: https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-in-q-tel-the-cias-venture-capital-firm-preview/ https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-in-q-tel-the-cias-venture... Two of the names that come up most often in connection with In-Q-Tel, however, need no introduction: Google and Facebook. The publicly available record on the Facebook/In-Q-Tel connection is tenuous. Facebook received $12.7 million in venture capital from Accel, whose manager, James Breyer, now sits on their board. He was formerly the chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, whose board included Gilman Louie, then the CEO of In-Q-Tel. The connection is indirect, but the suggestion of CIA involvement with Facebook, however tangential, is disturbing in the light of Facebook’s history of violating the privacy of its users. Google’s connection to In-Q-Tel is more straightforward, if officially denied. In 2006, ex-CIA officer Robert David Steele told Homeland Security Today that Google “has been taking money and direction for elements of the US Intelligence Community, including the Office of Research and Development at the Central Intelligence Agency, In-Q-Tel, and in all probability, both the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command.” Later that year, a blogger claimed that an official Google spokesman had denied the claims, but no official press statement was released.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago

> Why did these other governments let FB & friends in? This is ridiculous. They simply wanted the benefits of having Facebook and the rest of the internet in their countries. In many SE Asian countries that surround China (like Myanmar, Cambodia, and even Vietnam), the internet is even synonymous Facebook and Google. Other countries lack enough scale to get that advantage, unless they decided to go with the Chinese social stack, which they would never do due to mistrust of the Chinese. The only countries that block Facebook ATM are Iran, Bangladesh, North Korea, and China. A lot can be said about the common natures of these countries' governments, and why the blocking occurs (well, at least Iran and Bangladesh are kind of democracies). It is never about protecting their citizens' information! Instead it is about controlling communication among their citizens. They don't care about their citizen's privacy.

CaptSpify 10y ago
> It is never about protecting their citizens' information! Instead it is about controlling communication among their citizens. They don't care about their citizen's privacy. I think you might be missing the point though: Every overbearing government wants that information for themselves. Giving FB access = giving USA access to that info. It gives the US a lot of political power. Locking out FB isn't about protecting their citizens, you are correct. It's about blocking out US intelligence gathering.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  Who the heck posts secrets on Facebook? Well, in China, lots of things are state secrets, like pollution readings, basic street maps, consumer price information, or basically anything that would embarrass the party. In that case, I guess you are right, but it is basically vacuous. But mainly, they want control over the communication channels, so they can shut them down when it suits their difference, as they have done time and time again. Seriously, how does banning this picture do any good? http://globalriskinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TIGGER_2590531b-1.jpg http://globalriskinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TIG...
  - 10y ago

mtgx 10y ago

India may allow Facebook but it also dodged a major bullet with Facebook's "Free Basics". Facebook could've literally controlled 80% of "Internet" usage in India 10 years from now. So things could've been much worse for them. Here's hoping this still won't happen in some African countries as as well.

3pt14159 10y ago

I think the main counterpoint is that as soon as the USG starts to seriously abuse this power the rest of the West will coordinate around a different hegemony, probably the EU, but maybe the UK + Canada / AUS / NZ. The internet and western democracies generally are naturally open, and abusing this power will do more harm than good.

nitrogen 10y ago
Aren't the major English-speaking countries already cooperating in this abuse of power?
- rogerbinns 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes : Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. > Despite the impact of Snowden's disclosures, some experts in the intelligence community believe that no amount of global concern or outrage will affect the Five Eyes relationship, which to this day remains one of the most comprehensive known espionage alliances in history
- linkregister 10y ago
  I think the revelations from the Snowden leaks were that the NSA had a mechanism for getting information from Facebook and other U.S. internet companies, in a program now known as PRISM to the public (known as FAA 702 to the Intelligence Community and Congress). According to disclosures, NSA would submit requests via FBI National Security Letters for information about foreign persons of intelligence interest. So it would appear that only the NSA had the capability to perform these requests; AUS/CAN/UK/NZ would not have access. More information can be found on theintercept.com, theguardian.com, and other online newspapers.
- 3pt14159 10y ago
  It depends on your definition of "abuse", but what's going on in China and Russia with respect to the internet is far more abusive than an underused and ineffectual dragnet surveillance program.

Lordarminius 10y ago

>Your comment has been downvoted, probably because of the hyperbolic "the Internet has been weaponized", but you bring up a good point. "the Internet has been weaponized" is nowhere near hyperbolic. His comment was downvoted because many Americans even highly educated and enlightened ones hate to consider the actions of their government and its implications.

serge2k 10y ago

> Why did these other governments let FB & friends in? I think they just didn't see it coming, and by the time they realised the cat was out of the bag. Well, China saw it coming, and closed the door before it was too late. I'm not surprised China is doing that - I'm surprised other countries don't do it. Because other countries aren't oppressive regimes and actually place some value in basic human rights.