3 ms·

If GCHQ access is assumed a common "feature" of both Facebook and "GovBook" then it's irrelevant when choosing between the two. So assuming all else is equal,

by comice 8y ago

If GCHQ access is assumed a common "feature" of both Facebook and "GovBook" then it's irrelevant when choosing between the two. So assuming all else is equal, if GovBook has a charter to harness data only for the public good (and Facebook certainly does not) then GovBook wins.

dev_north_east 8y ago
Except in (most likely) features, people on it (would non-UK people allowed?), support.... but I suppose it would have JC's assistant posting stories about how great the government are on it... what a draw.
- comice 8y ago
  fair points but different issues entirely to what I was replying to.
notahacker 8y ago
A hypothetical UK-govt-run real names location-sensitive communications tool could also be used for operations intelligence services usually wouldn't bother about and Facebook usually wouldn't respond to requests for, like police dragnets or political sentiment analysis
mindcrime 8y ago
If GCHQ access is assumed a common "feature" of both Facebook and "GovBook" then it's irrelevant when choosing between the two. But we don't know the specifics how much easy it is / how much they access / etc., w/r/t NSA & GCHQ access to data from Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. But with a State run site, I think we can safely assume they will have access to everything, no questions asked. That said, this seems like more of 1a / 1b thing, and neither option is exactly appealing. For those of us in the public at large, the real answer is probably some variation of "the only way to win, is to not play". So assuming all else is equal, if GovBook has a charter to harness data only for the public good (and Facebook certainly does not) then GovBook wins. I don't trust any State government to do anything "only for the public good" and I can't imagine how anybody could think such a thing. Our governments are tools of the rich and powerful and exist to protect their interests. Any "public good" is an incidental side effect at best.

by comice 8y ago

dev_north_east 8y ago

Except in (most likely) features, people on it (would non-UK people allowed?), support.... but I suppose it would have JC's assistant posting stories about how great the government are on it... what a draw.

comice 8y ago
fair points but different issues entirely to what I was replying to.

notahacker 8y ago

A hypothetical UK-govt-run real names location-sensitive communications tool could also be used for operations intelligence services usually wouldn't bother about and Facebook usually wouldn't respond to requests for, like police dragnets or political sentiment analysis

mindcrime 8y ago

If GCHQ access is assumed a common "feature" of both Facebook and "GovBook" then it's irrelevant when choosing between the two. But we don't know the specifics how much easy it is / how much they access / etc., w/r/t NSA & GCHQ access to data from Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. But with a State run site, I think we can safely assume they will have access to everything, no questions asked. That said, this seems like more of 1a / 1b thing, and neither option is exactly appealing. For those of us in the public at large, the real answer is probably some variation of "the only way to win, is to not play". So assuming all else is equal, if GovBook has a charter to harness data only for the public good (and Facebook certainly does not) then GovBook wins. I don't trust any State government to do anything "only for the public good" and I can't imagine how anybody could think such a thing. Our governments are tools of the rich and powerful and exist to protect their interests. Any "public good" is an incidental side effect at best.