6 ms·

UK government irate at Twitter’s surveillance API crackdown

51 points by pearlsteinj 9y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
Ah yes, I'm sure terrorists are planning things on Twitter in public tweets and replies. You know who actually publicly uses Twitter? Political activists.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  Sure, but political activists also start riots. Just because they are activists doesn't mean they aren't doing "bad" things (violence). There's huge demand from even local LE across the world to turn online postings into some form of intelligence for them. I agree that it'll mostly be abused by government, but knowing what people are planning can be helpful. Right now there are groups of people coordinating a street battle in Berkeley over social media. Giving local police insight into the groups is almost certainly a benefit, assuming the police act to keep the peace.
  - GordonS 9y ago
    So the privacy and rights of many should be violated because of the actions of a tiny minority? I'd argue that any minute amount of good that comes from this is by far and away out balanced by the abuse of those with access (and in the UK there is a tendency for creeping escalation with such powers) and the violation of privacy of innocent people.
  - ionised 9y ago
    > assuming the police act to keep the peace. They act to maintain the status quo.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    Sure, but the correct government response is to use RIPA and warrants, not just to demand that social media companies grant total access to everything. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents
oxryly1 9y ago
This is a bit of puffy PR coup for twitter, right? It can crow about protecting users' privacy from government surveillance while continuing to allow (naturally well-intentioned) companies to pay for the very same access.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mdekkers 9y ago
The UK government believe "1984" was a manual
- helthanatos 9y ago
  Pretty much any government today believes that...
Fifer82 9y ago
It is just such utter bullshit. "fight on terrorism". This is why I just don't do political news. No one reports on "huh fight on terrorism you say, can we shine some light on this claim? How useful has Twitter been to home security...". Why isn't that the story? I keep seeing stories build on just bullshit. The BBC will say "And what about housing Mrs May" and she will say "My government has created a white paper...... and councils are pissed about planning permission....." There is no answer. Over and over and over again. There is no point in the BBC reporter existing, no point in anyone's time being wasted. Just report nothing. Giving Governments access to public data has totally changed the dynamics of politics and the public is losing everything as a result. Government just fabricates an internal memo leak, waits 12 hours to get some data back on public opinion and then depending on that, will deny it, or will go ahead. Time and time again you see this. Our old Chancellor had no experience with finance, and during his term, it was found that he had dodged tax.... the day after he had given a statement that he was serious about tax evasion. Then, something about an old Veteran having cake was the main story that day across the whole media board. Forgotten. David Cameron said one evening after a COBRA meeting "Lets send dogs, and fences to Calais to stop the swarm of immigrants" - That got bad data results, so by 6am the next morning he adapted it to "We will take 10000 and send aid". By 9am, it was all forgotten. What is happening?? Where is reality?? Is no one responsible for anything any more?? Is this a result of the fragmentation of media outlets?? Like, I grew up with 4 channels. Now I don't want TV. Therefor there is no cross reference at all. You can say what you want and like 10% of the populace will hear it. That means government has never had it so easy.
- 7952 9y ago
  An interesting approach is to just make government decisions algorithmic. Have people do a questionnaire during elections, and then optimise policy to maximise benefit to everyone. Try and make the optimisation process as open and explicit as possible.
  - rwmj 9y ago
    A Demand-Revealing Referendum does this, and has a theoretical basis to it, apparently making it impossible to game the system: http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2005/01/voting_the_righ.html http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...
Karunamon 9y ago
The spokesman also called for social media companies to play a role in the government’s fight against terrorism. Indeed. That role is to tell the government to GFTS until they have a warrant in hand.
- oxryly1 9y ago
  or purchase an access license like a good corporate citizen
  - MichaelGG 9y ago
    AFAIK Twitter doesn't sell access for LE purposes and has cut off people doing that. It's a huge business opportunity to sell to local police departments.
  - mpeg 9y ago
    The article is literally about Twitter cutting off access to developers who sell their data feeds to government for surveillance purposes.
    - oxryly1 9y ago
      I know. I'm skeptical that this policy will be enforced consistently. I think they'll enforce it in a few high profile cases for PR purposes, then the LE agencies will get a little more clever, and surveillance will continue.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
Good thing the UK is not a partner of the US in intelligence sharing which just has to send a NSL to Twitter and get access to all the data they have. /s If you use an online service, you should just assume that whatever the company can access, the country the service is based in and their intelligence partners can also access.
sjclemmy 9y ago
I heard 10 Downing Street referred to as Castle Mayskull today.

51 points by pearlsteinj 9y ago

Ah yes, I'm sure terrorists are planning things on Twitter in public tweets and replies. You know who actually publicly uses Twitter? Political activists.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
MichaelGG 9y ago
Sure, but political activists also start riots. Just because they are activists doesn't mean they aren't doing "bad" things (violence). There's huge demand from even local LE across the world to turn online postings into some form of intelligence for them. I agree that it'll mostly be abused by government, but knowing what people are planning can be helpful. Right now there are groups of people coordinating a street battle in Berkeley over social media. Giving local police insight into the groups is almost certainly a benefit, assuming the police act to keep the peace.
- GordonS 9y ago
  So the privacy and rights of many should be violated because of the actions of a tiny minority? I'd argue that any minute amount of good that comes from this is by far and away out balanced by the abuse of those with access (and in the UK there is a tendency for creeping escalation with such powers) and the violation of privacy of innocent people.
- ionised 9y ago
  > assuming the police act to keep the peace. They act to maintain the status quo.
- DanBC 9y ago
  Sure, but the correct government response is to use RIPA and warrants, not just to demand that social media companies grant total access to everything. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents

oxryly1 9y ago

This is a bit of puffy PR coup for twitter, right? It can crow about protecting users' privacy from government surveillance while continuing to allow (naturally well-intentioned) companies to pay for the very same access.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mdekkers 9y ago

The UK government believe "1984" was a manual

helthanatos 9y ago
Pretty much any government today believes that...

Fifer82 9y ago

It is just such utter bullshit. "fight on terrorism". This is why I just don't do political news. No one reports on "huh fight on terrorism you say, can we shine some light on this claim? How useful has Twitter been to home security...". Why isn't that the story? I keep seeing stories build on just bullshit. The BBC will say "And what about housing Mrs May" and she will say "My government has created a white paper...... and councils are pissed about planning permission....." There is no answer. Over and over and over again. There is no point in the BBC reporter existing, no point in anyone's time being wasted. Just report nothing. Giving Governments access to public data has totally changed the dynamics of politics and the public is losing everything as a result. Government just fabricates an internal memo leak, waits 12 hours to get some data back on public opinion and then depending on that, will deny it, or will go ahead. Time and time again you see this. Our old Chancellor had no experience with finance, and during his term, it was found that he had dodged tax.... the day after he had given a statement that he was serious about tax evasion. Then, something about an old Veteran having cake was the main story that day across the whole media board. Forgotten. David Cameron said one evening after a COBRA meeting "Lets send dogs, and fences to Calais to stop the swarm of immigrants" - That got bad data results, so by 6am the next morning he adapted it to "We will take 10000 and send aid". By 9am, it was all forgotten. What is happening?? Where is reality?? Is no one responsible for anything any more?? Is this a result of the fragmentation of media outlets?? Like, I grew up with 4 channels. Now I don't want TV. Therefor there is no cross reference at all. You can say what you want and like 10% of the populace will hear it. That means government has never had it so easy.

7952 9y ago
An interesting approach is to just make government decisions algorithmic. Have people do a questionnaire during elections, and then optimise policy to maximise benefit to everyone. Try and make the optimisation process as open and explicit as possible.
- rwmj 9y ago
  A Demand-Revealing Referendum does this, and has a theoretical basis to it, apparently making it impossible to game the system: http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2005/01/voting_the_righ.html http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...

Karunamon 9y ago

The spokesman also called for social media companies to play a role in the government’s fight against terrorism. Indeed. That role is to tell the government to GFTS until they have a warrant in hand.

oxryly1 9y ago
or purchase an access license like a good corporate citizen
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  AFAIK Twitter doesn't sell access for LE purposes and has cut off people doing that. It's a huge business opportunity to sell to local police departments.
- mpeg 9y ago
  The article is literally about Twitter cutting off access to developers who sell their data feeds to government for surveillance purposes.
  - oxryly1 9y ago
    I know. I'm skeptical that this policy will be enforced consistently. I think they'll enforce it in a few high profile cases for PR purposes, then the LE agencies will get a little more clever, and surveillance will continue.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

Good thing the UK is not a partner of the US in intelligence sharing which just has to send a NSL to Twitter and get access to all the data they have. /s If you use an online service, you should just assume that whatever the company can access, the country the service is based in and their intelligence partners can also access.

sjclemmy 9y ago

I heard 10 Downing Street referred to as Castle Mayskull today.