4 ms·
Someone else raised this point elsewhere but...so what? Monitoring public information is their job. I'd be disappointed if they weren't monitoring those service
by cheald 15y ago
Someone else raised this point elsewhere but...so what? Monitoring public information is their job. I'd be disappointed if they weren't monitoring those services.
If you post public information, it's publicly consumable, including by government intelligence services. If you have a problem with that, consider that the issue might be your choice to post information publicly that you don't want the FBI to see, rather than the fact that the FBI is looking at it.
- c0mpute 15y agoThe difference as far as I can see is that as a startup would I be granted access to all the data? AFAIK facebook terms say I cannot scrape the information and in the past they had forced a hacker to delete the database that was collected by scraping this info. This sets a dangerous precedent. By letting a government authority to oversee the activity, even if considered public, is still personal. Its a step closer to the cliche - "In Soviet Russia TV watches you"
- nab 15y agoWhat in the article suggests that these social networking sites are relaxing their terms for the FBI?
- dconway 15y agoGood point. The two paragraphs at the bottom state that the FBI's app will likely only use public information. Profile set to private? You're golden.
- c0mpute 15y agoCorrect, there is no indication of that. I would be really happy to see if Facebook/twitter reject FBI's request. I was just hypothesizing that in the event that FBI is granted scrapping access, they should give similar access to other bots (or even Google to download contacts?). The ideal situation would be that FBI is not granted access.
- JumpCrisscross 15y agoThe terms restrict scraping without permission. I'm pretty sure that the FBI would be able to find a way to get Fb's permission. And for good reason. Again, it's public information. No harm done.
- c0mpute 15y agoIt is fine as long as other companies/startups are granted such access. The problem here is if FBI can wield a bigger power in getting this access, we have a problem. Not so much with the data itself, but the spirit of how someone with power can get their way.
- JumpCrisscross 15y agoIsn't that sort of the definition of power? The ability to influence more than others? Reputation and relative influence are zero-sum games.
- rickmb 15y agoLet's translate this to the real world shall we: the FBI will monitor all conversations taking place in schools, offices and public transport. Congratulations: you are now living in a police state. "Seeing it" because it's public and "monitoring" it systematically are two very different things.
- cheald 15y agoI think there's a slight difference in that you have an expectation of ephemerality in real-world conversations that you do not (or at least, should not) with Facebook et al. This isn't like the FBI setting up surveillance equipment to capture and monitor conversations; it's like the FBI asking to look at the tapes that people are already gleefully making and leaving around in public bins for others to pick up and watch. I get the reasoning - and honestly, it was my first instinct on the news as well - but I don't think it's a direct analog.