6 ms·

The Stasi and KGB would have given everything to have something like Facebook. Here they were installing listening devices, torturing people, following them, ge

by rdtsc 9y ago

The Stasi and KGB would have given everything to have something like Facebook. Here they were installing listening devices, torturing people, following them, getting family members to spy on each other. They just needed Facebook and none of that would have been necessary. People would voluntarily log in and type everything they do, where they travel, what food they are eating, what political parties they support, who their friends are, everything connected nicely in a pretty graph with nodes and edges. > https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb fucks

cirgue 9y ago
The point of the Stasi wasn't the information. They didn't give two shits about truth or verifiable fact, it was the awareness of survailence and the mistrust it created that was useful to them.
- ahartmetz 9y ago
  I don't know, from their actions it looked quite like they actually wanted the information. They needed it, among other things, to sow mistrust among the right groups.
appleshore 9y ago
People can dismiss this saying he was a teenager, and just randomly chatting to a friend privately. But I've been developing programs since I was 15, and created my first startup (hardware) at 18 with an engineer 10-years older than me. Never once did I ever refer to any of our customers or clients as "dumb fucks". Why? What did they do to Zuck? Although, I did refer to AOL executives, FBI agents, Secret Service agents, federal prosecutors and lame wannabe hackers as dumb fucks. Both then and now. And I work with the federal government, with an agency that's often unfairly demonized by a variety of people. Which makes me think of a new phrase: dumb zucks. Quasi wannabe devs who build products and services not to advance the hacker ethos or crypto-anarchy but to get rich being essentially technical marketing partners for the FBI and corporate America. EDIT- Facebook's address is 1 Hacker Way. Zuck is not a hacker. He is the opposite of one.
- tritium 9y ago
  Meh, if Mark Zuckerberg has only that one, same, tired sideways quote dragged out and tossed around every time criticism is leveled against him, then Christ almighty if he isn't squeaky clean. A little too clean, if you really wanted my opinion. His attitude and all-around conduct is pretty much that of a boy scout, and to be honest, I find it boring. Linus Torvalds curses like a sailor, and he doesn't spare anyone's feelings with his criticism, whether it's an individual or a broad generalization. Would you mistrust Linux based on the principal developer's language, or is it more about the project's overall opacity? Mark Zuckerberg's general demeanor can be read from many obvious tells across all the things he touches. He's not dating super models, he's not buying people Audis, his flagship website has one theme for everyone, two colors (blue & white), five uninteresting emojis, and all the personality of AOL and Yahoo! combined. Yet this reveals nothing about what goes on across Facebook's backplane. If you're going to criticize his character, you have to criticize the depth and breadth of whatever the faustian bargain is, according to the Snowden leaks. You can compare Zuckerberg to Snowden in terms of choices made, but you really can't fault Zuckerberg for using harsh language in casual conversation. It comes across as whiny and pathetic, like some petulant child. Actions speak louder than words, as they say.
  - Atheros 9y ago
    Zuckerberg called his users dumb for the very act of using his website. Did Linus ever call people dumb for the very act of using Linux as it is intended to be used? You're focusing too much on the swear word and too little on the meaning of the sentence.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    The fact that it's posted often doesn't change its power. And that you rush to defend Zuck says quite a lot. One thing is true: Those at the top rarely mean what they say. They are masters of dissembling, because they understand how dangerous it is to reveal one's true feelings. This was a rare glimpse into raw, unfiltered Zuck. And what we find is that he's just like the rest of those in power. No wonder they love him so much. We're the dumb fucks to them. And that should be at least a little worrying.
MichaelMoser123 9y ago
I dunno - with the Stasi the stakes were higher: people could actually end up in jail for stating the wrong opinion. Nowadays facebook is all about pushing adds, so there is less drama in the plot. However i guess the analogy is more fitting for Baidu. The Chinese state has some very restrictive laws that are applied in practice. And in Russia you can get sentenced for a wrong repost, so yandex.ru or ok.ru/vk.ru is in the same league.
- some_account 9y ago
  I think you would have to be very gullible to believe companies like this at their word.
  - MichaelMoser123 9y ago
    People did/do take chances: it was not always clear what was allowed and what was crossing the line. * the allowed range of expression used to depend on the political climate (in better times/under liberal rulers you were allowed to say more) * the rules are often not clear as they are not stated explicitly. (however the subjects were expected to know them) * Also some people had more liberties (different degree of toleration, depending on the position in society) * decision to go after someone used to depend on the arbitrariness of some official. Disclaimer: my knowledge is based on historical events, i don't know that much regarding the realities of the present day.
- musage 9y ago
  "pushing ads" may be the used justification and one that some people buy, just like "keeping everybody safe" was the ostensible justification for the Stasi.
SubiculumCode 9y ago
This makes a nice story. However, please consider the following. Right now we use Facebook and share personal details, but the USA does not generally act on the information that is shared. People are not being disappeared, shot, or sent to work themselves to death in the Gulag. If activists and political opponents kept disappearing, you and I would surely shut stop sharing on Facebook so freely.
- denweb 9y ago
  I am waiting for the day they act. Does that say something or am I paranoid? I admin antipolice/antigovernment pages, my outreach is too strong to stop. Am I tagged and catalogued by multiple agencies or do they not care about us little theoretical troublemakers? If a liker of my page commits a crime am I listed for his personal actions?
- gt_ 9y ago
  It’s very well known that the information being discussed is “acted on” constantly. It informs advertising, political propoganda campaigns, lawmaking, voting districts. Bullet point comparisons of a historic authoritarian state to a contemporary capitalist society is rarely a helpful exercise but we should remain humble either way. America maintains the largest prison population per capita of any nation on Earth. America experiences more than 39,000 gun deaths per year. At least 750,000 Americans are homeless.
- mdpopescu 9y ago
  > the USA does not generally act on the information that is shared How would you know that? In any case, the UK does. [1] [1] http://www.vocativ.com/325190/arrests-for-social-media-posts-surge-in-london/ http://www.vocativ.com/325190/arrests-for-social-media-posts...
product50 9y ago
Equifax leaked 142M SSNs alongwith name, email, dob and address for all Americans with credit history. KGB most assuredly already have that data. Why is people's photographs (most of them of which are already public on Instagram) and friend list (which if KGB wanted to get for their targets, they can get in a day) so critical? Google has location data for each and every person globally at almost every minute - I feel that is much more useful than what FB has - if you think from KGB's perspective.
- musage 9y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16613956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16613956 This, too, is missing the middle bit -- where adults with a spine and a conscience struggle for their dignity and a world that's better, not worse than the one we were born into. > Why is people's photographs (most of them of which are already public on Instagram) and friend list (which if KGB wanted to get for their targets, they can get in a day) so critical? Why is it so critical for you to be onboard? Why isn't "if you still have to ask you just don't get it" enough for other people to organize around and despite you?
- kerng 9y ago
  You might not fully be aware, but there is much more to tracking, then the information you biblically post. Every website you visit they know know of, messages you send, they have (incl. private) every transaction you make with your credit card is being gathered/received (indirectly) and collected leveraged by Facebook. The amount of information the possess is unbelievable - and those are the things we know about, reality is probably that there are many other sources where they gather intelligence about you.
  - product50 9y ago
    Yeah - but so does Google and I would argue they know far more than FB does given they own a mobile OS, searches, have credit card info including transactions, have major partnerships with publishers who share data etc. Why is the backlash only against Facebook?
eksemplar 9y ago
I don’t think that’s more than a meme. The Stasi collected information you didn’t want to share, and what you put on Facebook willingly is typically the same sort of front you would have put up publicly in the DDR. As in the best version of you. There is some truth to what you’re saying though, but that’s in the data Facebook collects about you, without your knowledge. I think the facial recognition program is a good example. Even if you don’t have a Facebook account, or even if you do but didn’t share any pictures of your vacation, Facebook might still know you went. They know by recognizing you in pictures of other people. If you get caught in someone’s Instagram selfie in an airport or at a popular tourist spot, then Facebook knows you where there. Stasi would have loved that, but that’s not information people share willingly.
- westiseast 9y ago
  That’s the crux of the issue now with Facebook though - it’s become so pervasive that people don’t even realize what they’re sharing: * It follows you around the internet via the Share/Like plug-ins so your entire internet browsing patterns become exposed * Via the psychological analytics they’ve been applying, you think you’ve just liked (eg) a sports personality page and a TV show, but that’s actually confirmed a whole host of implied personality traits that are then ‘known’ about you.
- buro9 9y ago
  > The Stasi collected information you didn’t want to share, and what you put on Facebook willingly I am not on Facebook though I once had a profile a decade ago. I don't believe that profile has been deleted, I do believe that facial recognition on the photos has included me, I do believe that they've applied said facial recognition to the historical data, and so I believe that I do have a profile that is alive and well within Facebook, and that even receives fresh content... it is just not public. I am so looking forward to the GDPR coming into effect.
- blub 9y ago
  Such a security apparatus would collect any and all information it can get its hands on, and then use it whenever it needs it. For instance to protect the state, to protect itself, to influence and manipulate situations to its advantage and to the advantage of those in power, to destroy opponents and of course for fun and profit. A contemporary Stasi would control Facebook and use all algorithms and all available data sources to figure out who the persons of interest are. Even assuming that the StasiBook app wouldn't auto-upload all pictures and microphone data (why would an upstanding citizen turn off their mic?), they could still correlate many invisible patterns. So all in all, I think they'd be the biggest fans.
boron1006 9y ago
It's mildly ironic that the number 1 criticism against Facebook privacy concerns comes from a leaked anonymous source of the CEO's private texts. Of course you could say that Zuckerberg is getting a taste of his own medicine, but I dunno, it still seems a bit hypocritical to me. Maybe someone can come up with a good argument of whose private data we're allowed to post publicly, and whose we aren't?
dang 9y ago
This tedious trope jumped the shark years ago. Somehow you managed to combine it with a neo-Godwin. That's an Olympian manoeuvre! There's much to say by way of critiquing Facebook, but obviously the "dumb fucks" bit is not it. That's merely an excuse to feel superior, and the discussions it spawns are predictable, therefore uninteresting, therefore off topic for Hacker News. All: if you can't think of something stupid or bad you said as a teenager, dig deeper.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > This tedious trope jumped the shark years ago. Somehow you managed to combine it with a neo-Godwin. That's an Olympian manoeuvre! Well, good point. It was pretty provocative. > All: if you can't think of something stupid or bad you said as a teenager, dig deeper. But I am not the CEO of a company that has all the intimate details of hundreds of millions of users private life. Those in power can handle a bit criticism, it's different than saying it about a random person on the street. Also 26 is not quite a teenager. While people report wild personality changes after that age, it usually doesn't happen. > There's much to say by way of critiquing Facebook, but obviously the "dumb fucks" bit is not it. It goes with the paragraph above on how people volunteer the information and even the designer of the service things is pretty ridiculous. > and the discussions it spawns are predictable, therefore uninteresting, therefore off topic for Hacker News. Hmm, fair point. Agree with flagging.
  - dang 9y ago
    It's not a question of whether Zuckerberg can take the criticism (that's his problem), but of the effect it has on discussion quality here (that's our problem). (I appreciate the polite reply. It's surprisingly rare when there are that many volatiles in the air.)
  - tomhoward 9y ago
    Also 26 is not quite a teenager. He was 19. A normal person's prefrontal cortex (rational brain) is underdeveloped at that age, and is only fully developed at about 25 or even 30 [1]. So your point may be valid if he actually had been 26, but misses badly given the fact that he was 19. [1] https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/ https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-...

by rdtsc 9y ago

cirgue 9y ago

The point of the Stasi wasn't the information. They didn't give two shits about truth or verifiable fact, it was the awareness of survailence and the mistrust it created that was useful to them.

ahartmetz 9y ago
I don't know, from their actions it looked quite like they actually wanted the information. They needed it, among other things, to sow mistrust among the right groups.

appleshore 9y ago

People can dismiss this saying he was a teenager, and just randomly chatting to a friend privately. But I've been developing programs since I was 15, and created my first startup (hardware) at 18 with an engineer 10-years older than me. Never once did I ever refer to any of our customers or clients as "dumb fucks". Why? What did they do to Zuck? Although, I did refer to AOL executives, FBI agents, Secret Service agents, federal prosecutors and lame wannabe hackers as dumb fucks. Both then and now. And I work with the federal government, with an agency that's often unfairly demonized by a variety of people. Which makes me think of a new phrase: dumb zucks. Quasi wannabe devs who build products and services not to advance the hacker ethos or crypto-anarchy but to get rich being essentially technical marketing partners for the FBI and corporate America. EDIT- Facebook's address is 1 Hacker Way. Zuck is not a hacker. He is the opposite of one.

tritium 9y ago
Meh, if Mark Zuckerberg has only that one, same, tired sideways quote dragged out and tossed around every time criticism is leveled against him, then Christ almighty if he isn't squeaky clean. A little too clean, if you really wanted my opinion. His attitude and all-around conduct is pretty much that of a boy scout, and to be honest, I find it boring. Linus Torvalds curses like a sailor, and he doesn't spare anyone's feelings with his criticism, whether it's an individual or a broad generalization. Would you mistrust Linux based on the principal developer's language, or is it more about the project's overall opacity? Mark Zuckerberg's general demeanor can be read from many obvious tells across all the things he touches. He's not dating super models, he's not buying people Audis, his flagship website has one theme for everyone, two colors (blue & white), five uninteresting emojis, and all the personality of AOL and Yahoo! combined. Yet this reveals nothing about what goes on across Facebook's backplane. If you're going to criticize his character, you have to criticize the depth and breadth of whatever the faustian bargain is, according to the Snowden leaks. You can compare Zuckerberg to Snowden in terms of choices made, but you really can't fault Zuckerberg for using harsh language in casual conversation. It comes across as whiny and pathetic, like some petulant child. Actions speak louder than words, as they say.
- Atheros 9y ago
  Zuckerberg called his users dumb for the very act of using his website. Did Linus ever call people dumb for the very act of using Linux as it is intended to be used? You're focusing too much on the swear word and too little on the meaning of the sentence.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  The fact that it's posted often doesn't change its power. And that you rush to defend Zuck says quite a lot. One thing is true: Those at the top rarely mean what they say. They are masters of dissembling, because they understand how dangerous it is to reveal one's true feelings. This was a rare glimpse into raw, unfiltered Zuck. And what we find is that he's just like the rest of those in power. No wonder they love him so much. We're the dumb fucks to them. And that should be at least a little worrying.

MichaelMoser123 9y ago

I dunno - with the Stasi the stakes were higher: people could actually end up in jail for stating the wrong opinion. Nowadays facebook is all about pushing adds, so there is less drama in the plot. However i guess the analogy is more fitting for Baidu. The Chinese state has some very restrictive laws that are applied in practice. And in Russia you can get sentenced for a wrong repost, so yandex.ru or ok.ru/vk.ru is in the same league.

some_account 9y ago
I think you would have to be very gullible to believe companies like this at their word.
- MichaelMoser123 9y ago
  People did/do take chances: it was not always clear what was allowed and what was crossing the line. * the allowed range of expression used to depend on the political climate (in better times/under liberal rulers you were allowed to say more) * the rules are often not clear as they are not stated explicitly. (however the subjects were expected to know them) * Also some people had more liberties (different degree of toleration, depending on the position in society) * decision to go after someone used to depend on the arbitrariness of some official. Disclaimer: my knowledge is based on historical events, i don't know that much regarding the realities of the present day.
musage 9y ago
"pushing ads" may be the used justification and one that some people buy, just like "keeping everybody safe" was the ostensible justification for the Stasi.

SubiculumCode 9y ago

This makes a nice story. However, please consider the following. Right now we use Facebook and share personal details, but the USA does not generally act on the information that is shared. People are not being disappeared, shot, or sent to work themselves to death in the Gulag. If activists and political opponents kept disappearing, you and I would surely shut stop sharing on Facebook so freely.

denweb 9y ago
I am waiting for the day they act. Does that say something or am I paranoid? I admin antipolice/antigovernment pages, my outreach is too strong to stop. Am I tagged and catalogued by multiple agencies or do they not care about us little theoretical troublemakers? If a liker of my page commits a crime am I listed for his personal actions?
gt_ 9y ago
It’s very well known that the information being discussed is “acted on” constantly. It informs advertising, political propoganda campaigns, lawmaking, voting districts. Bullet point comparisons of a historic authoritarian state to a contemporary capitalist society is rarely a helpful exercise but we should remain humble either way. America maintains the largest prison population per capita of any nation on Earth. America experiences more than 39,000 gun deaths per year. At least 750,000 Americans are homeless.
mdpopescu 9y ago
> the USA does not generally act on the information that is shared How would you know that? In any case, the UK does. [1] [1] http://www.vocativ.com/325190/arrests-for-social-media-posts-surge-in-london/ http://www.vocativ.com/325190/arrests-for-social-media-posts...

product50 9y ago

Equifax leaked 142M SSNs alongwith name, email, dob and address for all Americans with credit history. KGB most assuredly already have that data. Why is people's photographs (most of them of which are already public on Instagram) and friend list (which if KGB wanted to get for their targets, they can get in a day) so critical? Google has location data for each and every person globally at almost every minute - I feel that is much more useful than what FB has - if you think from KGB's perspective.

musage 9y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16613956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16613956 This, too, is missing the middle bit -- where adults with a spine and a conscience struggle for their dignity and a world that's better, not worse than the one we were born into. > Why is people's photographs (most of them of which are already public on Instagram) and friend list (which if KGB wanted to get for their targets, they can get in a day) so critical? Why is it so critical for you to be onboard? Why isn't "if you still have to ask you just don't get it" enough for other people to organize around and despite you?
kerng 9y ago
You might not fully be aware, but there is much more to tracking, then the information you biblically post. Every website you visit they know know of, messages you send, they have (incl. private) every transaction you make with your credit card is being gathered/received (indirectly) and collected leveraged by Facebook. The amount of information the possess is unbelievable - and those are the things we know about, reality is probably that there are many other sources where they gather intelligence about you.
- product50 9y ago
  Yeah - but so does Google and I would argue they know far more than FB does given they own a mobile OS, searches, have credit card info including transactions, have major partnerships with publishers who share data etc. Why is the backlash only against Facebook?

eksemplar 9y ago

I don’t think that’s more than a meme. The Stasi collected information you didn’t want to share, and what you put on Facebook willingly is typically the same sort of front you would have put up publicly in the DDR. As in the best version of you. There is some truth to what you’re saying though, but that’s in the data Facebook collects about you, without your knowledge. I think the facial recognition program is a good example. Even if you don’t have a Facebook account, or even if you do but didn’t share any pictures of your vacation, Facebook might still know you went. They know by recognizing you in pictures of other people. If you get caught in someone’s Instagram selfie in an airport or at a popular tourist spot, then Facebook knows you where there. Stasi would have loved that, but that’s not information people share willingly.

westiseast 9y ago
That’s the crux of the issue now with Facebook though - it’s become so pervasive that people don’t even realize what they’re sharing: * It follows you around the internet via the Share/Like plug-ins so your entire internet browsing patterns become exposed * Via the psychological analytics they’ve been applying, you think you’ve just liked (eg) a sports personality page and a TV show, but that’s actually confirmed a whole host of implied personality traits that are then ‘known’ about you.
buro9 9y ago
> The Stasi collected information you didn’t want to share, and what you put on Facebook willingly I am not on Facebook though I once had a profile a decade ago. I don't believe that profile has been deleted, I do believe that facial recognition on the photos has included me, I do believe that they've applied said facial recognition to the historical data, and so I believe that I do have a profile that is alive and well within Facebook, and that even receives fresh content... it is just not public. I am so looking forward to the GDPR coming into effect.
blub 9y ago
Such a security apparatus would collect any and all information it can get its hands on, and then use it whenever it needs it. For instance to protect the state, to protect itself, to influence and manipulate situations to its advantage and to the advantage of those in power, to destroy opponents and of course for fun and profit. A contemporary Stasi would control Facebook and use all algorithms and all available data sources to figure out who the persons of interest are. Even assuming that the StasiBook app wouldn't auto-upload all pictures and microphone data (why would an upstanding citizen turn off their mic?), they could still correlate many invisible patterns. So all in all, I think they'd be the biggest fans.

boron1006 9y ago

It's mildly ironic that the number 1 criticism against Facebook privacy concerns comes from a leaked anonymous source of the CEO's private texts. Of course you could say that Zuckerberg is getting a taste of his own medicine, but I dunno, it still seems a bit hypocritical to me. Maybe someone can come up with a good argument of whose private data we're allowed to post publicly, and whose we aren't?

dang 9y ago

This tedious trope jumped the shark years ago. Somehow you managed to combine it with a neo-Godwin. That's an Olympian manoeuvre! There's much to say by way of critiquing Facebook, but obviously the "dumb fucks" bit is not it. That's merely an excuse to feel superior, and the discussions it spawns are predictable, therefore uninteresting, therefore off topic for Hacker News. All: if you can't think of something stupid or bad you said as a teenager, dig deeper.

rdtsc 9y ago
> This tedious trope jumped the shark years ago. Somehow you managed to combine it with a neo-Godwin. That's an Olympian manoeuvre! Well, good point. It was pretty provocative. > All: if you can't think of something stupid or bad you said as a teenager, dig deeper. But I am not the CEO of a company that has all the intimate details of hundreds of millions of users private life. Those in power can handle a bit criticism, it's different than saying it about a random person on the street. Also 26 is not quite a teenager. While people report wild personality changes after that age, it usually doesn't happen. > There's much to say by way of critiquing Facebook, but obviously the "dumb fucks" bit is not it. It goes with the paragraph above on how people volunteer the information and even the designer of the service things is pretty ridiculous. > and the discussions it spawns are predictable, therefore uninteresting, therefore off topic for Hacker News. Hmm, fair point. Agree with flagging.
- dang 9y ago
  It's not a question of whether Zuckerberg can take the criticism (that's his problem), but of the effect it has on discussion quality here (that's our problem). (I appreciate the polite reply. It's surprisingly rare when there are that many volatiles in the air.)
- tomhoward 9y ago
  Also 26 is not quite a teenager. He was 19. A normal person's prefrontal cortex (rational brain) is underdeveloped at that age, and is only fully developed at about 25 or even 30 [1]. So your point may be valid if he actually had been 26, but misses badly given the fact that he was 19. [1] https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/ https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-...