5 ms·

I haven't asked Zuck personally if he made these comments. However I can say that after working with him on privacy and photo related issues that these comments

I haven't asked Zuck personally if he made these comments. However I can say that after working with him on privacy and photo related issues that these comments definitely don't characterize his approach to the subject. He seems like a pretty normal guy just trying to make the world more open and connected. I agree with jacquesm...this is a great lesson. Don't email, IM, text, etc anything you wouldn't want to read on Valleywag.

awakeasleep 16y ago
Don't use a search engine to look for it either, or visit websites related to it from a browser or location that could be tracked back to you. And don't leave voicemails about it to someone with google voice, or talk about it to someone using google to call you. Don't talk about it internationally on skype, and don't visit untoward locations with your smartphone in your pocket. Don't drive there using gps, either.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  There are laws regarding the recording of conversations, and GPS usage does not leave a trail.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    Indeed, although they're surprisingly inconsistent (at least as regards telephonic conversation): http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm I don't really see any qualitative difference between that and logging IMs, it's just that the latter is technically much easier to do. But as a record of a private conversation between two people, I feel it ought to be subject to the same evaluations of admissibility.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      Not really, since IMs are expected to be logged they can even be subpoenaed, but a recording made outside of a warranted wiretap would not be admissible evidence. Ditto email, log files and so on, basically any textual communication is subject to subpoena, but the 'spoken word' is expected to be transient unless you have a microphone stuck in your face or have been warned very explicitly that one is present.
      - anigbrowl 16y ago
        Yes, but my point is that the written word now encompasses the kind of ephemeral that would never have been preserved in the past.
        jacquesm 16y ago
        That's absolutely true, after all, IM messages are more on the level of 'brainfarts' than a carefully considered letter would be. But since people are being sued and fired over tweets it seems safe to assume that those kinds of communications now carry the same weight as every other written form.
        anigbrowl 16y ago
        We agree about that - I'm just concerned that our technological ability is outpacing the responsiveness of our legal system. Like, imagine you were in court and someone pulled out a scrap of paper from 2004 saying 'gone 2 lunch, back in 15 minutes - Jacques' and then argues that you were actually gone for a full half hour, and that this calls your entire character into question. You're not wrong about people needing to be more careful; I just have reservations about the ramifications. I rather like the European approach that internet companies have a responsibility to wipe the data they host after a certain time rather than keep it online perpetually. ps Ephemera, not ephemeral. Damn auto-correcting phone :-)
      - markstansbury 16y ago
        No that's not true. A private person can privately record any conversation he or she wants. (Remember Monica?) Warrant requirements only apply to government action, meaning the government itself or someone acting on the government's behalf. If you talk to someone on the phone and that person records you on his own, without government inducement, then the court will consider the recording hearsay but admissible at trial under a few exceptions to the hearsay rule.
        jacquesm 16y ago
        The world is larger than the USA, and twelve US states have laws forbidding the recording of private conversations without all parties consent.
  - blasdel 16y ago
    If the call was already being recorded (say for voicemail) it can simply be subpoenaed. In the eyes of the law the defendant wiretapped themselves. Of course the actual GPS service, involving beeping atomic clocks in space and a passive receiver in your device leaves no trail. But everybody appears to use 'GPS' to refer to "directed navigation" applications running on small computers that like to keep logs of waypoints and intended destinations. The iPhone's Maps app even takes a screenshot when you switch away from it to make it feel snappier when you return, and these pictures can be recovered forensically.
- vixen99 16y ago
  Why not talk on Skype? How does someone set about recording or listening in to a call made on Skype?
  - danielnicollet 16y ago
    The issue here is that Zuck's IM buddy probably logged the conversation and then released to the media or as part of the law suit later. So calling is nice but there is plenty of equally efficient skype plugins for recording voice. duh.
    - stanleydrew 16y ago
      Without the "duh" this is a good comment. Why sully it?
      - danielnicollet 16y ago
        Ok then - sorry for the duh if it offended anyone. It's really not that insulting you know. Plus I had a humorous smirk on my face when I replied. So much for my joking mood! Now, what in the name of Elvis does "sullying comments" mean?
        stanleydrew 16y ago
        sully –verb (used with object) 1. to soil, stain, or tarnish. 2. to mar the purity or luster of; defile: to sully a reputation.
    - vixen99 16y ago
      Some buddy! In my naivety I was thinking of a third party. Thanks for the 'duh'. This is not a term I use or have heard used by anyone I know (well, that's how the world can be sometimes for English speakers outside the US) but I have now looked it up and have therefore learned something.
  - awakeasleep 16y ago
    I was referring to something I had heard a while ago about the NSA requiring keys to skype encryption because it can cross international borders. Don't know how true it is.
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  Is there a plausible way to spread disinformation about your activity, such that if anyone ever brought up your past electronic activities you could show that there's no way to tell what's a true record and what's just random shit created by some service?
  - EGreg 16y ago
    Well, there's always http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-Record_Messaging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-Record_Messaging which gives "perfect" forward secrecy
    - danielnicollet 16y ago
      I am not much of a crypto but I'd be curious to know if this is open to goverment monitoring. Do you know?
      - cullenking 16y ago
        No, it's not open to government monitoring, unless of course they have the ability to break "unbreakable" encryption. And, if they do manage to magically brute force a single key, they only get a single message decrypted. Each message uses a different key, so compromising a single message doesn't compromise the whole conversation. For a school project I (sorta) implemented this on Android 1.5 two years ago. I stopped before finishing the key rotation stuff, so ended up with just a encrypted text messaging client. Another company just recently announced an OTR text message program for android, you should look it up! Textsecure by Whisper Systems. Clickable link: http://www.whispersys.com/ http://www.whispersys.com/
        danielnicollet 16y ago
        Very nice. This is reassuring that such stuff is still available, legal and protects us from the peering eyes of whoever is in power at any time...
    - jamesbritt 16y ago
justsaying 16y ago
New rule: If you didn't work at Facebook or with Zuck when there was a "the" in the URL, you don't really know much about the origins of the company, and you know even less about the guy.
- edanm 16y ago
  You're saying that people who actually work with Mark Zuckerberg know less about him than the people who have never met him that are writing articles about him? And that have an incentive to write sensational things about him?
- justsaying 16y ago
  (Since I can't reply to the comment below mine) I'm saying that new hires and people whose companies remain in the Facebook honeymoon period don't know much.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

awakeasleep 16y ago

Don't use a search engine to look for it either, or visit websites related to it from a browser or location that could be tracked back to you. And don't leave voicemails about it to someone with google voice, or talk about it to someone using google to call you. Don't talk about it internationally on skype, and don't visit untoward locations with your smartphone in your pocket. Don't drive there using gps, either.

jacquesm 16y ago
There are laws regarding the recording of conversations, and GPS usage does not leave a trail.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  Indeed, although they're surprisingly inconsistent (at least as regards telephonic conversation): http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm I don't really see any qualitative difference between that and logging IMs, it's just that the latter is technically much easier to do. But as a record of a private conversation between two people, I feel it ought to be subject to the same evaluations of admissibility.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Not really, since IMs are expected to be logged they can even be subpoenaed, but a recording made outside of a warranted wiretap would not be admissible evidence. Ditto email, log files and so on, basically any textual communication is subject to subpoena, but the 'spoken word' is expected to be transient unless you have a microphone stuck in your face or have been warned very explicitly that one is present.
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      Yes, but my point is that the written word now encompasses the kind of ephemeral that would never have been preserved in the past.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        That's absolutely true, after all, IM messages are more on the level of 'brainfarts' than a carefully considered letter would be. But since people are being sued and fired over tweets it seems safe to assume that those kinds of communications now carry the same weight as every other written form.
        anigbrowl 16y ago
        We agree about that - I'm just concerned that our technological ability is outpacing the responsiveness of our legal system. Like, imagine you were in court and someone pulled out a scrap of paper from 2004 saying 'gone 2 lunch, back in 15 minutes - Jacques' and then argues that you were actually gone for a full half hour, and that this calls your entire character into question. You're not wrong about people needing to be more careful; I just have reservations about the ramifications. I rather like the European approach that internet companies have a responsibility to wipe the data they host after a certain time rather than keep it online perpetually. ps Ephemera, not ephemeral. Damn auto-correcting phone :-)
    - markstansbury 16y ago
      No that's not true. A private person can privately record any conversation he or she wants. (Remember Monica?) Warrant requirements only apply to government action, meaning the government itself or someone acting on the government's behalf. If you talk to someone on the phone and that person records you on his own, without government inducement, then the court will consider the recording hearsay but admissible at trial under a few exceptions to the hearsay rule.
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        The world is larger than the USA, and twelve US states have laws forbidding the recording of private conversations without all parties consent.
- blasdel 16y ago
  If the call was already being recorded (say for voicemail) it can simply be subpoenaed. In the eyes of the law the defendant wiretapped themselves. Of course the actual GPS service, involving beeping atomic clocks in space and a passive receiver in your device leaves no trail. But everybody appears to use 'GPS' to refer to "directed navigation" applications running on small computers that like to keep logs of waypoints and intended destinations. The iPhone's Maps app even takes a screenshot when you switch away from it to make it feel snappier when you return, and these pictures can be recovered forensically.
vixen99 16y ago
Why not talk on Skype? How does someone set about recording or listening in to a call made on Skype?
- danielnicollet 16y ago
  The issue here is that Zuck's IM buddy probably logged the conversation and then released to the media or as part of the law suit later. So calling is nice but there is plenty of equally efficient skype plugins for recording voice. duh.
  - stanleydrew 16y ago
    Without the "duh" this is a good comment. Why sully it?
    - danielnicollet 16y ago
      Ok then - sorry for the duh if it offended anyone. It's really not that insulting you know. Plus I had a humorous smirk on my face when I replied. So much for my joking mood! Now, what in the name of Elvis does "sullying comments" mean?
      - stanleydrew 16y ago
        sully –verb (used with object) 1. to soil, stain, or tarnish. 2. to mar the purity or luster of; defile: to sully a reputation.
  - vixen99 16y ago
    Some buddy! In my naivety I was thinking of a third party. Thanks for the 'duh'. This is not a term I use or have heard used by anyone I know (well, that's how the world can be sometimes for English speakers outside the US) but I have now looked it up and have therefore learned something.
- awakeasleep 16y ago
  I was referring to something I had heard a while ago about the NSA requiring keys to skype encryption because it can cross international borders. Don't know how true it is.
jamesbritt 16y ago
Is there a plausible way to spread disinformation about your activity, such that if anyone ever brought up your past electronic activities you could show that there's no way to tell what's a true record and what's just random shit created by some service?
- EGreg 16y ago
  Well, there's always http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-Record_Messaging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-Record_Messaging which gives "perfect" forward secrecy
  - danielnicollet 16y ago
    I am not much of a crypto but I'd be curious to know if this is open to goverment monitoring. Do you know?
    - cullenking 16y ago
      No, it's not open to government monitoring, unless of course they have the ability to break "unbreakable" encryption. And, if they do manage to magically brute force a single key, they only get a single message decrypted. Each message uses a different key, so compromising a single message doesn't compromise the whole conversation. For a school project I (sorta) implemented this on Android 1.5 two years ago. I stopped before finishing the key rotation stuff, so ended up with just a encrypted text messaging client. Another company just recently announced an OTR text message program for android, you should look it up! Textsecure by Whisper Systems. Clickable link: http://www.whispersys.com/ http://www.whispersys.com/
      - danielnicollet 16y ago
        Very nice. This is reassuring that such stuff is still available, legal and protects us from the peering eyes of whoever is in power at any time...
  - jamesbritt 16y ago

justsaying 16y ago

New rule: If you didn't work at Facebook or with Zuck when there was a "the" in the URL, you don't really know much about the origins of the company, and you know even less about the guy.

edanm 16y ago
You're saying that people who actually work with Mark Zuckerberg know less about him than the people who have never met him that are writing articles about him? And that have an incentive to write sensational things about him?
justsaying 16y ago
(Since I can't reply to the comment below mine) I'm saying that new hires and people whose companies remain in the Facebook honeymoon period don't know much.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]