4 ms·

To me, this is the right attitude towards this. Really? Are you more scared by your own democratic government than by facebook? Besides i'm not even american,

To me, this is the right attitude towards this. Really? Are you more scared by your own democratic government than by facebook? Besides i'm not even american, so whatever

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
barsonme 9y ago
Well, yeah. I can choose to not use Facebook (for the most part). I can't choose to not use the federal government. Plus, disliking and being wary of government is quintessentially American—it goes back to our roots as a country. As an example that just popped into my head, look at DACA: a bunch of undocumented persons told the federal government about their undocumented status (in exchange for something good) and now that information can/will/may be used to deport them. With the government, it cuts both ways.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- zbentley 9y ago
  Those are valid points, but I think they miss the point of the question: are you more scared about data security in an online identity provider provided by the government or Facebook et. al.? Your answers were more about things the government can do to screw you over. It can do those things if your data is stored in Facebook as well: search warrants, compliance orders, subpoenas, etc. will all result in the government having access to your data unless strong encryption is used on your data (which, as we've seen with Apple, is still not enough sometimes). I think (though I may be wrong) that the question had more to do with whether you trust this solution to be more secure against external/accidental breach than a solution offered by Facebook. I don't know the answer to that question, though.
  - mdpopescu 9y ago
    The point is, a warrant is a tiny bit more difficult to get than no warrant. Having all that data on their own site bypasses the need for one.
    - zbentley 9y ago
      True, but having all the data on the government's site may (may) make it more secure from being leaked to sources other than the government. This isn't a statement of the government's software quality, but one of incentives: large private companies have not, historically, suffered much (legally or in terms of growth/revenue) from data breaches. The government losing data that it has independent reasons to keep safe is probably a larger perceptual risks, since government departments/funding can be suddenly cut in the wake of disasters of this nature, and elections can be lost. TL;DR the feedback loop for bad security might be more direct if the government is the one doing the securing. That's a troublesome prospect in several regards, but is plausible, I think.
  - barsonme 9y ago
    I like the other commenter's remarks about warrants. > are you more scared about data security in an online identity provider provided by the government or Facebook et. al.? Fair question. I'd still choose Facebook, mostly because they have an economic incentive not to screw it up. The government, on the other hand, has no such incentives. I mean, I trust both about as far as I can throw them, but at least one stays in business by practicing good security.
antimatter 9y ago
What you have to realize is that the US government is full of life long bureaucrats who are not democratically elected and are in no way held accountable like the representatives. And the representatives are perfectly happy to throw their hands up and hold hearings every time the bureaucrats do something wrong without actually taking the effort to change anything. To me, this is no different than Facebook and Google.

To me, this is the right attitude towards this. Really? Are you more scared by your own democratic government than by facebook? Besides i'm not even american, so whatever

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

barsonme 9y ago

Well, yeah. I can choose to not use Facebook (for the most part). I can't choose to not use the federal government. Plus, disliking and being wary of government is quintessentially American—it goes back to our roots as a country. As an example that just popped into my head, look at DACA: a bunch of undocumented persons told the federal government about their undocumented status (in exchange for something good) and now that information can/will/may be used to deport them. With the government, it cuts both ways.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
zbentley 9y ago
Those are valid points, but I think they miss the point of the question: are you more scared about data security in an online identity provider provided by the government or Facebook et. al.? Your answers were more about things the government can do to screw you over. It can do those things if your data is stored in Facebook as well: search warrants, compliance orders, subpoenas, etc. will all result in the government having access to your data unless strong encryption is used on your data (which, as we've seen with Apple, is still not enough sometimes). I think (though I may be wrong) that the question had more to do with whether you trust this solution to be more secure against external/accidental breach than a solution offered by Facebook. I don't know the answer to that question, though.
- mdpopescu 9y ago
  The point is, a warrant is a tiny bit more difficult to get than no warrant. Having all that data on their own site bypasses the need for one.
  - zbentley 9y ago
    True, but having all the data on the government's site may (may) make it more secure from being leaked to sources other than the government. This isn't a statement of the government's software quality, but one of incentives: large private companies have not, historically, suffered much (legally or in terms of growth/revenue) from data breaches. The government losing data that it has independent reasons to keep safe is probably a larger perceptual risks, since government departments/funding can be suddenly cut in the wake of disasters of this nature, and elections can be lost. TL;DR the feedback loop for bad security might be more direct if the government is the one doing the securing. That's a troublesome prospect in several regards, but is plausible, I think.
- barsonme 9y ago
  I like the other commenter's remarks about warrants. > are you more scared about data security in an online identity provider provided by the government or Facebook et. al.? Fair question. I'd still choose Facebook, mostly because they have an economic incentive not to screw it up. The government, on the other hand, has no such incentives. I mean, I trust both about as far as I can throw them, but at least one stays in business by practicing good security.

antimatter 9y ago

What you have to realize is that the US government is full of life long bureaucrats who are not democratically elected and are in no way held accountable like the representatives. And the representatives are perfectly happy to throw their hands up and hold hearings every time the bureaucrats do something wrong without actually taking the effort to change anything. To me, this is no different than Facebook and Google.