6 ms·

You can't believe anything these companies say. If they are ordered to misreport info to the public, they will. Remember that companies are not monolithic thing

by geuis 13y ago

You can't believe anything these companies say. If they are ordered to misreport info to the public, they will. Remember that companies are not monolithic things. They are made of people, and if anyone or a group try to make a stand they will be hunted down. It's easier to follow along than be honest. Personally, I won't trust any of these companies until the entire Homeland security dept is dismantled and its component agencies restored to their pre-9/11 statuses. And although the TSA is not directly part of this spying issue, they need to go away as well. It's all part of the same shadowy cabal and its time for a clean slate. I'm not against the principles of the FBI and NSA. They do a lot of good work. But there's too much dry brush and weeds cluttering up their mandates and it needs to be burned out.

kevando 13y ago
And it's very easy to release misleading statements like this. It's great to know about all the "user data requests" from law enforcement, but they mention nothing about the allegation that NSA didn't need to submit these requests.
- genwin 13y ago
  Yep. If you can't legally acknowledge the request, leave it out of the data you report. Or walk the line by conveniently reporting your data for a six month period that doesn't include the NSA request for all user data now and in the future.
- discostrings 13y ago
  If there's slipperiness in this statement, I think it's probably in the use of the term "user data requests". >The total number of Facebook user accounts for which data was requested pursuant to the entirety of those 9-10 thousand [user data] requests was between 18,000 and 19,000 accounts. Is a "user data request" a request for data about a specific user? Would the request "give us the names and birthdays of everyone that has searched for 'discontent with government'" constitute a user data request? Or would that be a "search term request"? I'm not sure I think this is slippery language, but there's definitely room for that interpretation.
  - startswithaj 13y ago
    If there is slipperyness it's the fact that the guy who wrote this and is Facebook General Counsel, Ted Ullyot, use to be G.W Bush's right hand man.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      If character assassination is wrong when they do it to Snowden, why is it right when you do it to Ullyot? Did he lie or did he not?
      - pyre 13y ago
        I don't view it as character assassination so much as suspicion by association. He was part of the group (Bush + Obama Administrations) that pushed for these programs. It makes him more suspect to be lying than a random person. It's not proof of a lie, just reason for scepticism (grain of salt and all that). The stuff about Snowden doesn't even make any sense. The fact that he's a high school drop-out doesn't matter. Some people who drop out of high school have a lower intelligence, but that doesn't imply the Snowden does. The fact that he worked for the CIA, the NSA, and as a NSA contractor actually implies that he is either intelligent or the CIA/NSA are incompetent. Even if Snowden was of lower intelligence, it would imply that there is less likelihood that the documents are elaborate fakes, and more likely to the be the real deal.
      - startswithaj 13y ago
        I was just bringing the point to light for discussion.
  - icambron 13y ago
    I consider myself unusually sensitive to slippery language and have called out--on HN--several fishy denials by tech companies that I thought were laughably weasely, including Facebook's previous statements. But I'm not seeing it here. A user data request is a request for users' data, and I don't see a way around that. Additionally, this is remarkably unambiguous: ...>this means that a tiny fraction of one percent of our user accounts were the subject of any kind of U.S. state, local, or federal U.S. government request The only wiggle there is "subject to", and it's not much. So right, they could always be lying, but I don't see much room for interpretation. More broadly, at some level, we're always going to be dependent on companies to be honest about what they do with our data. Not trusting them is fine, but that's not really a question of transparency or policy; it's just a question of corporate integrity. We should instead focus on what we can concretely hope to control: - Transparency, which means a) we know exactly what the rules are governing what the government can ask for, b) a detailed accounting of what they actually do ask for, and c) the range of data that can be requested and a precise account of what the standard for requesting the various kinds of data. - Reform, by which I mean changes to the rules about what can be accessed by whom and under what conditions, with an eye towards individualized requests for specific data, the way wiretaps have been handled (until recently) for a long time. The domestic/foreign distinction should also be removed as part of this point. - Accountability, by which I mean that companies should never, ever get any form of immunity from law suits. Companies should be liable to their customers about privacy issues, and they should face real consequences if they lie about it. I think this might be the heart of the trust issue. - Oversight, which is largely colinear with transparency, wherein there is a meaningful adversarial process for balancing the issues of privacy and security, as opposed to the lame, secretive rubber stamping we have now. - Scale. Last but not least, the relative values of privacy and security are way out of wack, especially given how few people terrorism has really killed and how small of a threat thoughtful analysis reveals it to be (or even the extent to which "terrorism" is a coherent concept). So we just need to raise the bar on what constitutes a reasonable seizure of data. All of that is stuff you could reasonably pass laws on, so some of the nihilism in this thread is unfortunate. Maybe we'll get all of those reforms, or some of them, or maybe none of them; I don't know. But if those are genuinely our aims as a people, we should see Facebook's release as a real step in the right direction on three of those fronts. If they're lying, of course that sucks, but I'm not sure what we hope to do here besides pushing for more accountability. But in meantime, kudos to Facebook.
- declan 13y ago
  You should look at this in the context of the company's earlier blanket denials.
- kllrnohj 13y ago
  > but they mention nothing about the allegation that NSA didn't need to submit these requests. That's because everyone has already denied that claim. If you didn't believe them the first thousand times they said they don't do that, why would you believe them if they said it yet again?
fragsworth 13y ago
I wouldn't trust them even after all the agencies are dismantled. New agencies get made and who knows what they'll turn into? The only thing that would work is some kind of widespread ban on the use of gag orders, non-disclosure agreements, and similar legal devices by our government. And for what, so we can trust our own corporations to at least say what is in their own best interest? So then you also have to ban the use of funds to keep them silent. Really, the whole thing is a mess.
raldi 13y ago
But how will you know you're not just a brain in a vat being fed false electrical signals?
- marshray 13y ago
  Presumably the same way he goes about answering that question now.
- flatline 13y ago
  You are just a brain in a biochemical vat being fed electrical signals through the sensory organs. Are they false signals? There are non-negligible priors that support his accusation, such as gag orders and a proven and recent history of lies and obfuscation. I personally think the simpler model of Facebook telling the truth holds more weight -- to the point of a conspiracy of this magnitude sounding more than a little silly -- but there will always be a shadow of doubt to some, and not fully without reason.
  - tripzilch 13y ago
    Then what is going on? What did Snowden risk his life for? Is he just a silly person?
declan 13y ago
There's a lot to be said for cleaning house in D.C. But contrary to your suspicion, there is no law requiring companies to misreport info to the public. Even AT&T, which illegally opened its network to the NSA, never lied about it, as I showed here earlier this week: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillance-retrospective-at-t-verizon-never-denied-it/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillan...
- edouard1234567 13y ago
  To keep things in perspective (assuming these numbers are roughly accurate...) The odds of Facebook handing over your data to a government agency are similar to the odds of dying from a shark attack or lightning... source : http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/how-scared-should-we-be/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/how-scared-should-w... I still find these numbers fairly high. If cops need a warrant to get into my home why don't they need one to get into my "facebook home"?
  - declan 13y ago
    I agree with your point re: the odds of it happening. It puts things in perspective. Entire books have been written about the legal standards required. It's difficult to summarize here. One short answer is that the Fourth Amendment is not viewed as applying to non-U.S. citizens abroad. Check out the NSA director's 2006 testimony on nsa.gov for more on this.
  - SilasX 13y ago
    Well, except that the risk of Facebook handing over my data is uncorrelated with how often I swim at beaches or stand under a tree in an electrical storm. It's not like someone goes around with a random number generator deciding whether you'll have horrible things happen to you. They depend on your specific circumstance.
  - roc 13y ago
    I find it darkly amusing that the rarity of these events is being invoked to convince people to moderate their concern, when this situation only exists due to the government's insistence that we treat even more rare events as gravely serious threats to our way of life.
acchow 13y ago
>Remember that companies are not monolithic things. They are made of people, and if anyone or a group try to make a stand they will be hunted down. It's easier to follow along than be honest. Hunted down? In the bay area? As a software engineer? You must be new here.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
thirsteh 13y ago
Neither the NSA nor the FBI are part of the Department of Homeland Security.
saraid216 13y ago
New rule: anyone who uses a computer for a technical reason may be in on the conspiracy.

by geuis 13y ago

kevando 13y ago

And it's very easy to release misleading statements like this. It's great to know about all the "user data requests" from law enforcement, but they mention nothing about the allegation that NSA didn't need to submit these requests.

genwin 13y ago
Yep. If you can't legally acknowledge the request, leave it out of the data you report. Or walk the line by conveniently reporting your data for a six month period that doesn't include the NSA request for all user data now and in the future.
discostrings 13y ago
If there's slipperiness in this statement, I think it's probably in the use of the term "user data requests". >The total number of Facebook user accounts for which data was requested pursuant to the entirety of those 9-10 thousand [user data] requests was between 18,000 and 19,000 accounts. Is a "user data request" a request for data about a specific user? Would the request "give us the names and birthdays of everyone that has searched for 'discontent with government'" constitute a user data request? Or would that be a "search term request"? I'm not sure I think this is slippery language, but there's definitely room for that interpretation.
- startswithaj 13y ago
  If there is slipperyness it's the fact that the guy who wrote this and is Facebook General Counsel, Ted Ullyot, use to be G.W Bush's right hand man.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    If character assassination is wrong when they do it to Snowden, why is it right when you do it to Ullyot? Did he lie or did he not?
    - pyre 13y ago
      I don't view it as character assassination so much as suspicion by association. He was part of the group (Bush + Obama Administrations) that pushed for these programs. It makes him more suspect to be lying than a random person. It's not proof of a lie, just reason for scepticism (grain of salt and all that). The stuff about Snowden doesn't even make any sense. The fact that he's a high school drop-out doesn't matter. Some people who drop out of high school have a lower intelligence, but that doesn't imply the Snowden does. The fact that he worked for the CIA, the NSA, and as a NSA contractor actually implies that he is either intelligent or the CIA/NSA are incompetent. Even if Snowden was of lower intelligence, it would imply that there is less likelihood that the documents are elaborate fakes, and more likely to the be the real deal.
    - startswithaj 13y ago
      I was just bringing the point to light for discussion.
- icambron 13y ago
  I consider myself unusually sensitive to slippery language and have called out--on HN--several fishy denials by tech companies that I thought were laughably weasely, including Facebook's previous statements. But I'm not seeing it here. A user data request is a request for users' data, and I don't see a way around that. Additionally, this is remarkably unambiguous: ...>this means that a tiny fraction of one percent of our user accounts were the subject of any kind of U.S. state, local, or federal U.S. government request The only wiggle there is "subject to", and it's not much. So right, they could always be lying, but I don't see much room for interpretation. More broadly, at some level, we're always going to be dependent on companies to be honest about what they do with our data. Not trusting them is fine, but that's not really a question of transparency or policy; it's just a question of corporate integrity. We should instead focus on what we can concretely hope to control: - Transparency, which means a) we know exactly what the rules are governing what the government can ask for, b) a detailed accounting of what they actually do ask for, and c) the range of data that can be requested and a precise account of what the standard for requesting the various kinds of data. - Reform, by which I mean changes to the rules about what can be accessed by whom and under what conditions, with an eye towards individualized requests for specific data, the way wiretaps have been handled (until recently) for a long time. The domestic/foreign distinction should also be removed as part of this point. - Accountability, by which I mean that companies should never, ever get any form of immunity from law suits. Companies should be liable to their customers about privacy issues, and they should face real consequences if they lie about it. I think this might be the heart of the trust issue. - Oversight, which is largely colinear with transparency, wherein there is a meaningful adversarial process for balancing the issues of privacy and security, as opposed to the lame, secretive rubber stamping we have now. - Scale. Last but not least, the relative values of privacy and security are way out of wack, especially given how few people terrorism has really killed and how small of a threat thoughtful analysis reveals it to be (or even the extent to which "terrorism" is a coherent concept). So we just need to raise the bar on what constitutes a reasonable seizure of data. All of that is stuff you could reasonably pass laws on, so some of the nihilism in this thread is unfortunate. Maybe we'll get all of those reforms, or some of them, or maybe none of them; I don't know. But if those are genuinely our aims as a people, we should see Facebook's release as a real step in the right direction on three of those fronts. If they're lying, of course that sucks, but I'm not sure what we hope to do here besides pushing for more accountability. But in meantime, kudos to Facebook.
declan 13y ago
You should look at this in the context of the company's earlier blanket denials.
kllrnohj 13y ago
> but they mention nothing about the allegation that NSA didn't need to submit these requests. That's because everyone has already denied that claim. If you didn't believe them the first thousand times they said they don't do that, why would you believe them if they said it yet again?

fragsworth 13y ago

I wouldn't trust them even after all the agencies are dismantled. New agencies get made and who knows what they'll turn into? The only thing that would work is some kind of widespread ban on the use of gag orders, non-disclosure agreements, and similar legal devices by our government. And for what, so we can trust our own corporations to at least say what is in their own best interest? So then you also have to ban the use of funds to keep them silent. Really, the whole thing is a mess.

raldi 13y ago

But how will you know you're not just a brain in a vat being fed false electrical signals?

marshray 13y ago
Presumably the same way he goes about answering that question now.
flatline 13y ago
You are just a brain in a biochemical vat being fed electrical signals through the sensory organs. Are they false signals? There are non-negligible priors that support his accusation, such as gag orders and a proven and recent history of lies and obfuscation. I personally think the simpler model of Facebook telling the truth holds more weight -- to the point of a conspiracy of this magnitude sounding more than a little silly -- but there will always be a shadow of doubt to some, and not fully without reason.
- tripzilch 13y ago
  Then what is going on? What did Snowden risk his life for? Is he just a silly person?

declan 13y ago

There's a lot to be said for cleaning house in D.C. But contrary to your suspicion, there is no law requiring companies to misreport info to the public. Even AT&T, which illegally opened its network to the NSA, never lied about it, as I showed here earlier this week: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillance-retrospective-at-t-verizon-never-denied-it/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillan...

edouard1234567 13y ago
To keep things in perspective (assuming these numbers are roughly accurate...) The odds of Facebook handing over your data to a government agency are similar to the odds of dying from a shark attack or lightning... source : http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/how-scared-should-we-be/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/how-scared-should-w... I still find these numbers fairly high. If cops need a warrant to get into my home why don't they need one to get into my "facebook home"?
- declan 13y ago
  I agree with your point re: the odds of it happening. It puts things in perspective. Entire books have been written about the legal standards required. It's difficult to summarize here. One short answer is that the Fourth Amendment is not viewed as applying to non-U.S. citizens abroad. Check out the NSA director's 2006 testimony on nsa.gov for more on this.
- SilasX 13y ago
  Well, except that the risk of Facebook handing over my data is uncorrelated with how often I swim at beaches or stand under a tree in an electrical storm. It's not like someone goes around with a random number generator deciding whether you'll have horrible things happen to you. They depend on your specific circumstance.
- roc 13y ago
  I find it darkly amusing that the rarity of these events is being invoked to convince people to moderate their concern, when this situation only exists due to the government's insistence that we treat even more rare events as gravely serious threats to our way of life.

acchow 13y ago

>Remember that companies are not monolithic things. They are made of people, and if anyone or a group try to make a stand they will be hunted down. It's easier to follow along than be honest. Hunted down? In the bay area? As a software engineer? You must be new here.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

thirsteh 13y ago

Neither the NSA nor the FBI are part of the Department of Homeland Security.

saraid216 13y ago

New rule: anyone who uses a computer for a technical reason may be in on the conspiracy.