16 ms·

The headline unfortunately downplays the scope of the data, since it covers a lot more than social media - it can include legally priviliged and "otherwise conf

The headline unfortunately downplays the scope of the data, since it covers a lot more than social media - it can include legally priviliged and "otherwise confidential" information, as well as information on "religion, racial or ethnic origin, political views, medical condition, sexual orientation." What is remarkable is the absolute lack of oversight over the sharing of this sensitive data with foreign governments and law enforcement, but especially with so-called "industry partners". And that there don't appear to be any legal penalties for its misuse.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
QAPereo 9y ago
What’s more remarkable to me is that people happily offer up this data on themselves, and what worries me is what intelligence agencies do to spy on people who care enough not to broadcast their every movement, meal, and stray thought.
- jstanley 9y ago
  If you're not offering up that data, you obviously have something to hide, so that's surely sufficient grounds for a warrant to tap your communications. :)
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    It’s true, I’m almost certainly a drug dealer/pedophile/terrorist, as are all who encrypt so much as a single byte!
  - Sevrene 9y ago
    You're being playful about this, but I'm legitimately worried about a future where job candidates are rejected purely because they didn't offer their social media identities or passwords. I know this does happen sometimes now. What happens when saying "I don't have a facebook account" becomes a significant enough indicator that your're hiding your past? I've heard stories of people at airport customs attempting to enter a country and having to try explain to the customs officers their lack of web presence or social media posts that they would otherwise use to corroborate and back up their intent for travel.
    - vtange 9y ago
      Doesn't this just mean people will eventually start building artificial social presences to point to instead of simply lacking any sort of presence?
      - mikro2nd 9y ago
        I assume that many already do this. There's certainly a number of business opportunities in this, and it's only a matter of time before it turns into an arms race: people building fake social-media identities, other parties (governments, big internet players) deploy AI to distinguish these from real,... rinse and repeat ad infinitum. If I still cared enough about writing software I'd probably do a startup around some of this. Instead I'm writing SF about it.
    - vkou 9y ago
      > You're being playful about this, but I'm legitimately worried about a future where job candidates are rejected purely because they didn't offer their social media identities or passwords. Demanding a social media identity or password is a great idea if you want to paint a huge target on your back for a discrimination lawsuit. Said social media account will contain a lot of information about whether or not you are a member of a protected class. Good luck proving that you didn't use it in your hiring decision.
    - mosselman 9y ago
      Do you have any sources that describe the asking for social media access in job applications? As a software engineer I am very lucky with the amount of jobs that is available to me, so if I were asked this I would walk out of the interview immediately. My only fear is for all those people who don't have a choice because they are part of a pool of hundreds of applications (psychology graduates for example, at least here in the Netherlands). Some employers just want to squeeze every last drop of dignity out of their employees, it is disgusting.
      - Sevrene 9y ago
        I've only read headlines and heard from friends working in larger cities for larger companies experiencing this, so obviously it's not something which is happening all the time everywhere, and based on my quick research it seems like a lot of news came out around 2012 about this issue: https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/your-facebook-password-should-be-none-your-boss-business https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/your-facebook-p... I would act the in the same manner you would as well, it's not worth working for a company if they don't have some very basic principles and it's a huge red flag. If they don't respect your privacy in the interview, they probably wont respect it in day to day business. But just like you explained we have to be careful because there's a lot of people who don't really have a choice, especially in today's job market here in Australia; a lot of people would have to decide between privacy and their ability to pay the power, rent, food, etc.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I once had a pair of police officers try to tell me that my refusal to let them search the vehicle was grounds for probable cause and would enable them to legally search my vehicle. I laughed and pointed out that I'm not a teen and am quite familiar with my rights. They were visibly disappointed and told me that I was kicked out of Kansas and that I'd be arrested if I ever went back to Kansas. I giggled again but left and they followed me to the interstate slipway.
    - alsetmusic 9y ago
      Sheriffs tried the same with me, also in Kansas. Threatened to impound my vehicle to search it, threatened me with arrest, ultimately let me go about my business because I had not violated the law or given a viable appearance of doing so. It was a very clear bully technique that fell apart when I calmly asserted my rights. This certainly isn’t a localized tactic. I recall discussion of videographers printing statutes and employing them when threatened about recording police activity in public spaces. The frightening aspect (to me) is that some law enforcement officers genuinely appear to believe that they have authority that they don’t have. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/gresham_pays_85k_educates_cops.html http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/gresham... https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-portland-police-reach-settlement-filming-case https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-portland-police-reach-settlem... https://www.google.com/search?q=settlement+recording+police https://www.google.com/search?q=settlement+recording+police
      - KGIII 9y ago
        The funny part was it was during one of my extended wanderlust adventures and I'd just finished spending a couple of weeks volunteering in Greenville, KS. They'd just been almost totally destroyed by a tornado and I happened to be just a little ways away. So, lacking anything better to do, I bought some work clothes and went to help move rubble. I was leaving the State and decided I'd nap for a few hours. I didn't feel like getting a hotel so I slept in the car. It turns out, I was sleeping in a factory parking lot and the people who came in to open it called the police - or so the cops said. It probably didn't help that I was in manual labor clothing, I'm not white, and I was in a new BMW. I probably looked like a drug dealer. That's still not an excuse. Not to worry, I didn't let it reflect on the nice people of Kansas. But, after I'd spent a couple of weeks just giving my time to those in need, their cops harassed me and told me that I was banned from their State. I haven't been back but that's just coincidental.
- alchemism 9y ago
  What’s more remarkable to me is how people don’t see how easy it is to set up a clean surface identity and discrete secondary identities, and hide in plain sight.
  - Sevrene 9y ago
    Depends on whom you're trying to hide from, no? Friends and family might have a hard time tracking your discrete secondary identities, but your ISP or facebook might see it very transparently.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      ...and police, intelligence agencies etc... will just flag that and your countermeasures will become a target.
    - nine_k 9y ago
      A VM with a separate OS, talking to the world through a VPN would probably hide you from Facebook, Google, etc, in the sense that it would be hard for them to correlate the two identities. It of course won't work well against police, who can look up the VPN provider, ask who's paying for it, and it's mostly enough to find you.
      - dogruck 9y ago
        They will fingerprint your online presence timing, writing style, forums, audience, etc.
        nine_k 9y ago
        Writing style: this is something you can work on. Forums: often the need for a separate identity arises from the need to join a particular forum frowned upon by your peers or superiors. Same for audience. That is, if you want a different persona and not a sock puppet to support your "main" persona. Timing: this is also solvable if you want to.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  It's kind of rational to do so. I mean, individuals cannot realistically compete with governments who want to oppress them unless they're monumentally stubborn and self-sacrificing, but the various benefits of sharing information on social media has measurable upsides for thema s consumers - they get to meet friends, receive advertising on topics of genuine interest, and so on, which may outweigh the relatively low probability of direct repression. There's a parallel phenomenon in political behavior that's ably explained in Brian Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter. You could practice really rigorous security culture and avoid creating any digital footprint worth talking about in the first place, but then you'd be socially isolated to a degree that was economically disadvantageous (economically meaning in multiple contexts besides purely fiscal). And to the degree that you can be socially connected, inferences could still be made about you through the behavior of your friends. As a crude example, recall that Osama bin Laden's hiding place was determined to be interesting because there was physical traffic of people and goods to the residence, but an uncharacteristic lack of electronic communication for the neighborhood it was situated in. What kind of house has a bunch of people living there and regular visitors, but not internet or phone service? Finally, people have different kinds of risk calculus. Many people know that they're subject to such surveillance and the ramifications that follow from it, but choose to be who they are anyway despite the risks, on the theory that they'd rather live on their feet than die on their knees.
  - visarga 9y ago
    Good point - we're choosing to let all this happen because we prefer to have access to all the other benefits that come with surveillance.
- e12e 9y ago
  It's not so much the data people offer up about themselves, as it is the data they offer up about everyone around them.
  - mosselman 9y ago
    Exactly. When I received my university degree I told someone not to post the picture she was taking of me with my diploma on Facebook. "Why not?" she asked offendedly. Why on earth that was offensive is beyond me, but apparently the urge to 'share' is very strong with some people.
microcolonel 9y ago
And this is why I don't understand how anyone in the U.S. could be flippant or irreverent about any of the rights afforded to them under the constitution. In America, it is still legally feasible to challenge the existing surveillance programs, which are inherently limited in terms of invasiveness.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  A quick but important note on the Constitution and rights. The Constitution was created in order to protect natural rights that exist outside of any government, and does not grant or establish any rights themselves, but merely imparts negative rights and limitations on the government. You may think that an obvious statement, but I've been increasingly concerned at the education of the populace about the subject. Also, the difference between positive and negative rights is an important one not enough are aware of. This is what makes America, despite its flaws, what Christopher Hitchens called "the last revolution to stand a chance", and to this day is the basis for what I consider true American exceptionalism that distinguishes us from other countries such as the UK.
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    > Also, the difference between positive and negative rights is an important one not enough are aware of. I'd go further than that; I'd say that the difference is strongly downplayed in political and educational contexts because so much Government overreach is predicated upon people not knowing, or not caring, about the difference. Also, even people who /do/ understand, often don't care. Because if they did, they'd have to concede that many Federal programmes in the US are unconstitutional, that is, they involve powers not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. And folks want their FCC, FDA and Obamacare, so they let it slide ...
    - arca_vorago 9y ago
      Well said. Honestly I am a bit ashamed I didn't know about the difference sooner. A few years ago though I realized that I should probably better understand this document I swore an oath to protect. That journey has not been easy though because it has forced me to challenge popular opinion in both the public and the legal field.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

QAPereo 9y ago

What’s more remarkable to me is that people happily offer up this data on themselves, and what worries me is what intelligence agencies do to spy on people who care enough not to broadcast their every movement, meal, and stray thought.

jstanley 9y ago
If you're not offering up that data, you obviously have something to hide, so that's surely sufficient grounds for a warrant to tap your communications. :)
- QAPereo 9y ago
  It’s true, I’m almost certainly a drug dealer/pedophile/terrorist, as are all who encrypt so much as a single byte!
- Sevrene 9y ago
  You're being playful about this, but I'm legitimately worried about a future where job candidates are rejected purely because they didn't offer their social media identities or passwords. I know this does happen sometimes now. What happens when saying "I don't have a facebook account" becomes a significant enough indicator that your're hiding your past? I've heard stories of people at airport customs attempting to enter a country and having to try explain to the customs officers their lack of web presence or social media posts that they would otherwise use to corroborate and back up their intent for travel.
  - vtange 9y ago
    Doesn't this just mean people will eventually start building artificial social presences to point to instead of simply lacking any sort of presence?
    - mikro2nd 9y ago
      I assume that many already do this. There's certainly a number of business opportunities in this, and it's only a matter of time before it turns into an arms race: people building fake social-media identities, other parties (governments, big internet players) deploy AI to distinguish these from real,... rinse and repeat ad infinitum. If I still cared enough about writing software I'd probably do a startup around some of this. Instead I'm writing SF about it.
  - vkou 9y ago
    > You're being playful about this, but I'm legitimately worried about a future where job candidates are rejected purely because they didn't offer their social media identities or passwords. Demanding a social media identity or password is a great idea if you want to paint a huge target on your back for a discrimination lawsuit. Said social media account will contain a lot of information about whether or not you are a member of a protected class. Good luck proving that you didn't use it in your hiring decision.
  - mosselman 9y ago
    Do you have any sources that describe the asking for social media access in job applications? As a software engineer I am very lucky with the amount of jobs that is available to me, so if I were asked this I would walk out of the interview immediately. My only fear is for all those people who don't have a choice because they are part of a pool of hundreds of applications (psychology graduates for example, at least here in the Netherlands). Some employers just want to squeeze every last drop of dignity out of their employees, it is disgusting.
    - Sevrene 9y ago
      I've only read headlines and heard from friends working in larger cities for larger companies experiencing this, so obviously it's not something which is happening all the time everywhere, and based on my quick research it seems like a lot of news came out around 2012 about this issue: https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/your-facebook-password-should-be-none-your-boss-business https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/your-facebook-p... I would act the in the same manner you would as well, it's not worth working for a company if they don't have some very basic principles and it's a huge red flag. If they don't respect your privacy in the interview, they probably wont respect it in day to day business. But just like you explained we have to be careful because there's a lot of people who don't really have a choice, especially in today's job market here in Australia; a lot of people would have to decide between privacy and their ability to pay the power, rent, food, etc.
- KGIII 9y ago
  I once had a pair of police officers try to tell me that my refusal to let them search the vehicle was grounds for probable cause and would enable them to legally search my vehicle. I laughed and pointed out that I'm not a teen and am quite familiar with my rights. They were visibly disappointed and told me that I was kicked out of Kansas and that I'd be arrested if I ever went back to Kansas. I giggled again but left and they followed me to the interstate slipway.
  - alsetmusic 9y ago
    Sheriffs tried the same with me, also in Kansas. Threatened to impound my vehicle to search it, threatened me with arrest, ultimately let me go about my business because I had not violated the law or given a viable appearance of doing so. It was a very clear bully technique that fell apart when I calmly asserted my rights. This certainly isn’t a localized tactic. I recall discussion of videographers printing statutes and employing them when threatened about recording police activity in public spaces. The frightening aspect (to me) is that some law enforcement officers genuinely appear to believe that they have authority that they don’t have. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/gresham_pays_85k_educates_cops.html http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/04/gresham... https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-portland-police-reach-settlement-filming-case https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-portland-police-reach-settlem... https://www.google.com/search?q=settlement+recording+police https://www.google.com/search?q=settlement+recording+police
    - KGIII 9y ago
      The funny part was it was during one of my extended wanderlust adventures and I'd just finished spending a couple of weeks volunteering in Greenville, KS. They'd just been almost totally destroyed by a tornado and I happened to be just a little ways away. So, lacking anything better to do, I bought some work clothes and went to help move rubble. I was leaving the State and decided I'd nap for a few hours. I didn't feel like getting a hotel so I slept in the car. It turns out, I was sleeping in a factory parking lot and the people who came in to open it called the police - or so the cops said. It probably didn't help that I was in manual labor clothing, I'm not white, and I was in a new BMW. I probably looked like a drug dealer. That's still not an excuse. Not to worry, I didn't let it reflect on the nice people of Kansas. But, after I'd spent a couple of weeks just giving my time to those in need, their cops harassed me and told me that I was banned from their State. I haven't been back but that's just coincidental.
alchemism 9y ago
What’s more remarkable to me is how people don’t see how easy it is to set up a clean surface identity and discrete secondary identities, and hide in plain sight.
- Sevrene 9y ago
  Depends on whom you're trying to hide from, no? Friends and family might have a hard time tracking your discrete secondary identities, but your ISP or facebook might see it very transparently.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    ...and police, intelligence agencies etc... will just flag that and your countermeasures will become a target.
  - nine_k 9y ago
    A VM with a separate OS, talking to the world through a VPN would probably hide you from Facebook, Google, etc, in the sense that it would be hard for them to correlate the two identities. It of course won't work well against police, who can look up the VPN provider, ask who's paying for it, and it's mostly enough to find you.
    - dogruck 9y ago
      They will fingerprint your online presence timing, writing style, forums, audience, etc.
      - nine_k 9y ago
        Writing style: this is something you can work on. Forums: often the need for a separate identity arises from the need to join a particular forum frowned upon by your peers or superiors. Same for audience. That is, if you want a different persona and not a sock puppet to support your "main" persona. Timing: this is also solvable if you want to.
anigbrowl 9y ago
It's kind of rational to do so. I mean, individuals cannot realistically compete with governments who want to oppress them unless they're monumentally stubborn and self-sacrificing, but the various benefits of sharing information on social media has measurable upsides for thema s consumers - they get to meet friends, receive advertising on topics of genuine interest, and so on, which may outweigh the relatively low probability of direct repression. There's a parallel phenomenon in political behavior that's ably explained in Brian Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter. You could practice really rigorous security culture and avoid creating any digital footprint worth talking about in the first place, but then you'd be socially isolated to a degree that was economically disadvantageous (economically meaning in multiple contexts besides purely fiscal). And to the degree that you can be socially connected, inferences could still be made about you through the behavior of your friends. As a crude example, recall that Osama bin Laden's hiding place was determined to be interesting because there was physical traffic of people and goods to the residence, but an uncharacteristic lack of electronic communication for the neighborhood it was situated in. What kind of house has a bunch of people living there and regular visitors, but not internet or phone service? Finally, people have different kinds of risk calculus. Many people know that they're subject to such surveillance and the ramifications that follow from it, but choose to be who they are anyway despite the risks, on the theory that they'd rather live on their feet than die on their knees.
- visarga 9y ago
  Good point - we're choosing to let all this happen because we prefer to have access to all the other benefits that come with surveillance.
e12e 9y ago
It's not so much the data people offer up about themselves, as it is the data they offer up about everyone around them.
- mosselman 9y ago
  Exactly. When I received my university degree I told someone not to post the picture she was taking of me with my diploma on Facebook. "Why not?" she asked offendedly. Why on earth that was offensive is beyond me, but apparently the urge to 'share' is very strong with some people.

microcolonel 9y ago

And this is why I don't understand how anyone in the U.S. could be flippant or irreverent about any of the rights afforded to them under the constitution. In America, it is still legally feasible to challenge the existing surveillance programs, which are inherently limited in terms of invasiveness.

arca_vorago 9y ago
A quick but important note on the Constitution and rights. The Constitution was created in order to protect natural rights that exist outside of any government, and does not grant or establish any rights themselves, but merely imparts negative rights and limitations on the government. You may think that an obvious statement, but I've been increasingly concerned at the education of the populace about the subject. Also, the difference between positive and negative rights is an important one not enough are aware of. This is what makes America, despite its flaws, what Christopher Hitchens called "the last revolution to stand a chance", and to this day is the basis for what I consider true American exceptionalism that distinguishes us from other countries such as the UK.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  > Also, the difference between positive and negative rights is an important one not enough are aware of. I'd go further than that; I'd say that the difference is strongly downplayed in political and educational contexts because so much Government overreach is predicated upon people not knowing, or not caring, about the difference. Also, even people who /do/ understand, often don't care. Because if they did, they'd have to concede that many Federal programmes in the US are unconstitutional, that is, they involve powers not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. And folks want their FCC, FDA and Obamacare, so they let it slide ...
  - arca_vorago 9y ago
    Well said. Honestly I am a bit ashamed I didn't know about the difference sooner. A few years ago though I realized that I should probably better understand this document I swore an oath to protect. That journey has not been easy though because it has forced me to challenge popular opinion in both the public and the legal field.