7 ms·

So what if they collect it and share it with foreign governments? Social media is public to begin with, so big deal if they are basically indexing the informati

So what if they collect it and share it with foreign governments? Social media is public to begin with, so big deal if they are basically indexing the information. Doesn't stop them moaning it's not enough or preventing bomb attacks.

mandelbrotwurst 9y ago
What do you mean that "social media is public to begin with"? As I'm sure you're aware, while most social media sites have options to post publicly, many (at least ostensibly) also offer a wide variety of options for sharing data in narrower circles (i.e. private groups, direct messages, etc). If you're talking about only the content that the users intended to share publicly, that seems like a reasonable enough position to take, but if it goes beyond that I hope you wouldn't still say "big deal". One of the "Key Points" on the Privacy International release linked from the TechCrunch story and available at https://privacyinternational.org/node/1532 https://privacyinternational.org/node/1532 is that "GCHQ collected and accesses this information by gaining access to private companies’ databases." That sounds an awful lot like they're going beyond simply indexing the public web.
saimiam 9y ago
It doesn’t work for the same reason American gun control hasn’t worked - you cannot stop bad actors and the ones getting unduly impacted by onerous intrusion are law abiding American citizens. I’m neither an American nor a gun owner but I can see the parallel between private citizens being legally forced to give up privacy for dubious reasons and gun owners potentially being asked to give up guns for dubious reasons (dubious because of how few people get killed in rampages in the United States.)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
jstanley 9y ago
> or preventing bomb attacks You're more likely to die by falling down the stairs than by being killed by a terrorist[0]. Bomb attacks are not something you should be concerned by. However much bomb attacks scare you, you should be ~100x more scared of living in a house that has more than one floor. [0] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/12/just-dangerous-terrorism-really.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/12/just-dangerous-terror...
- alva 9y ago
  This argument is repeated ad nauseam and a bit of thinking on distribution and magnitude of risk will show you why it is nonsense in this context.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    Enlighten us?
    - alva 9y ago
      Risks of day-to-day activities are known, their distribution effectively fixed and the magnitude of the risk also understood. The probability of ladder falls tripling year-to-year is of order 10^-14. I understand that driving my car could potential result in my death. There is some variability in the risk depending on how careful I am, time of day, whether I am sober etc, and of course risk out of my hands from other road users. I can have a good understanding of the risk and factor that in whether to carry out a daily activity. War and Terrorism is completely different. When they occur is unknown, whether the event is small or cataclysmic unknown, the secondary effects they have in a wide complex system unknown. You can take the original argument even further to understand why it is silly. Atomic bombs have only been used against people twice, therefore the chance of you dying in a car crash are multi-million times higher than dying from an atomic bomb. Should there not be an intense focus on de-proliferation, de-escalation of conflicts because of this? The consequences of an nuclear attack are so great, we spend huge amount of resources to reduce the likelihood. Terrorism is similar. It is not only the poor victims of the attack who suffer. Our societies function on a fairly fine balance, much of which is predicated on the ability of our governance to keep us safe. Rapidly increasing frequency of attacks and their effectiveness drive us closer to instability and can severely damage our economies. You dying in a car crash is going to hurt your friends and loved ones. You being blown up along with 50 passengers on the underground, the fifth explosion that week can have dramatic and scary results for us all.
      - jstanley 9y ago
        > Should there not be an intense focus on de-proliferation, de-escalation of conflicts because of this? Sure, nuclear disarmament wouldn't hurt, but like you said: atomic bombs have only been used against people twice. There's no evidence that their use against people is likely to substantially increase over the next few years, so it's not something that is worth worrying about. Just like terrorism. EDIT: And certainly it is not worth using the risk of atomic bombs as an excuse to invade the privacy and erode the freedoms of millions of people.
infodroid 9y ago
There are several problems: - It is more than just posts on social media. The databases cover "sensitive medical data" and "financial details" and much more. - The oversight body was not informed that this data was being shared with foreign governments, law enforcement and industry partners. - There is no oversight on the sharing of this data with these partners, and no legal penalties for misuse of the data. - There is no requirement that partner agencies have similar safeguards with respect to processing the data that the UK agencies already have in place.

mandelbrotwurst 9y ago

What do you mean that "social media is public to begin with"? As I'm sure you're aware, while most social media sites have options to post publicly, many (at least ostensibly) also offer a wide variety of options for sharing data in narrower circles (i.e. private groups, direct messages, etc). If you're talking about only the content that the users intended to share publicly, that seems like a reasonable enough position to take, but if it goes beyond that I hope you wouldn't still say "big deal". One of the "Key Points" on the Privacy International release linked from the TechCrunch story and available at https://privacyinternational.org/node/1532 https://privacyinternational.org/node/1532 is that "GCHQ collected and accesses this information by gaining access to private companies’ databases." That sounds an awful lot like they're going beyond simply indexing the public web.

saimiam 9y ago

It doesn’t work for the same reason American gun control hasn’t worked - you cannot stop bad actors and the ones getting unduly impacted by onerous intrusion are law abiding American citizens. I’m neither an American nor a gun owner but I can see the parallel between private citizens being legally forced to give up privacy for dubious reasons and gun owners potentially being asked to give up guns for dubious reasons (dubious because of how few people get killed in rampages in the United States.)

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jstanley 9y ago

> or preventing bomb attacks You're more likely to die by falling down the stairs than by being killed by a terrorist[0]. Bomb attacks are not something you should be concerned by. However much bomb attacks scare you, you should be ~100x more scared of living in a house that has more than one floor. [0] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/12/just-dangerous-terrorism-really.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/12/just-dangerous-terror...

alva 9y ago
This argument is repeated ad nauseam and a bit of thinking on distribution and magnitude of risk will show you why it is nonsense in this context.
- jstanley 9y ago
  Enlighten us?
  - alva 9y ago
    Risks of day-to-day activities are known, their distribution effectively fixed and the magnitude of the risk also understood. The probability of ladder falls tripling year-to-year is of order 10^-14. I understand that driving my car could potential result in my death. There is some variability in the risk depending on how careful I am, time of day, whether I am sober etc, and of course risk out of my hands from other road users. I can have a good understanding of the risk and factor that in whether to carry out a daily activity. War and Terrorism is completely different. When they occur is unknown, whether the event is small or cataclysmic unknown, the secondary effects they have in a wide complex system unknown. You can take the original argument even further to understand why it is silly. Atomic bombs have only been used against people twice, therefore the chance of you dying in a car crash are multi-million times higher than dying from an atomic bomb. Should there not be an intense focus on de-proliferation, de-escalation of conflicts because of this? The consequences of an nuclear attack are so great, we spend huge amount of resources to reduce the likelihood. Terrorism is similar. It is not only the poor victims of the attack who suffer. Our societies function on a fairly fine balance, much of which is predicated on the ability of our governance to keep us safe. Rapidly increasing frequency of attacks and their effectiveness drive us closer to instability and can severely damage our economies. You dying in a car crash is going to hurt your friends and loved ones. You being blown up along with 50 passengers on the underground, the fifth explosion that week can have dramatic and scary results for us all.
    - jstanley 9y ago
      > Should there not be an intense focus on de-proliferation, de-escalation of conflicts because of this? Sure, nuclear disarmament wouldn't hurt, but like you said: atomic bombs have only been used against people twice. There's no evidence that their use against people is likely to substantially increase over the next few years, so it's not something that is worth worrying about. Just like terrorism. EDIT: And certainly it is not worth using the risk of atomic bombs as an excuse to invade the privacy and erode the freedoms of millions of people.

infodroid 9y ago

There are several problems: - It is more than just posts on social media. The databases cover "sensitive medical data" and "financial details" and much more. - The oversight body was not informed that this data was being shared with foreign governments, law enforcement and industry partners. - There is no oversight on the sharing of this data with these partners, and no legal penalties for misuse of the data. - There is no requirement that partner agencies have similar safeguards with respect to processing the data that the UK agencies already have in place.