5 ms·

I think you're trying really hard to find a reason why you aren't responsible for yourself. You're on Facebook because you put yourself on Facebook. If there's

I think you're trying really hard to find a reason why you aren't responsible for yourself. You're on Facebook because you put yourself on Facebook. If there's a problem why are you still there? The core issue we're seeing is that it is no longer really possible to ignore the fact that most consumers are liabilities to our privacy, and that they'll gladly sell out their fellow man for the dullest of shiny trinkets. I think you have this backward. You can take yourself out of the relationship or you can work towards changes in government. what you're feeling here is the breakdown in society. People think they're fighting alone. They're not. You're not. The biggest fault I'm seeing in discussions is that the blame isn't being placed where it belongs: the government. We have a right to privacy. The US Constitution says we have the right to privacy, It's not something that the government provides or can take away. If they do take it away it is our collective fault. Honestly, the most insidious part of all this isn't our loss of privacy or our trust in some beneficial Big Brother: it's the distressing fact that we can't trust anyone else anymore, and that we've shown that democracy is impossible with such an unworthy populace. That's what being brutalized does to you. It takes away your hope. People without hope can't support a society. If people aren't organized in a society it is much easier for an authoritarian government to take over.

angersock 13y ago
"You're on Facebook because you put yourself on Facebook." We know that that's not true. As for the rest, again, as tempting as it is to blame the evil gubberment for this, the problem at the end of the day is that our own friends and family are ratting us out, because companies make it so goddamn easy and attractive to do so. Look, we've all genuflected at the altar of lean growth and advertising and all the rest, and the price for that is the complete loss of our privacy. You don't get large viral coefficients without targeted advertising and email collection and exploitation--you don't become sticky by being anti-social. This is the naked truth of it, and that's what's so goddamn depressing. The government didn't do this to us by itself, or even mostly itself--it's been done by our friends, families, and founders.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
smacktoward 13y ago
> You're on Facebook because you put yourself on Facebook. Friend with Facebook account takes picture of you at someplace you'd rather not be seen at, posts to Facebook, puts your name in caption.
- mst 13y ago
  I've seen "tagged in picture by friend" lead to "massive avalanche of rage from christian conservative relatives". The recipient of said avalanche is far from technically inept, albeit not technical for a living - although I deleted my facebook account some time ago so I can't tell you if there was/is a way to limit things so that wouldn't've spread across the graph.
  - gte910h 13y ago
    You can now limit tagging. I turned this on the day it occured.
    - smacktoward 13y ago
      Only if you have a Facebook account too. And even if you can turn off the link between the photo and your FB account, your name (suitable for text mining) and your face (suitable for facial recognition) are both still in there.
- snom380 13y ago
  Exactly. Want to hide that tag? You have to register as a user. And, some of your friends hit OK and lets the FB app upload their address book with your contact info in it. I presume that's how they managed to mine my unlisted cell phone number and suggested it ti me.
stonemetal 13y ago
The US Constitution says we have the right to privacy No it doesn't. There is no right to privacy in the original document nor any amendment to it. The closest we come to it is The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures As far as mail goes sealed mail is considered covered but only because of the relationship between the USPS and the government.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  It's rather more complex than that; the right to privayc is (judicially) considered to emanate from other rights, if you go back and look at key decisions like Griswold v. Connecticut. But your basic point is correct, there is no explicit right to privacy. This is a problem, because where judicial interpretation 'discerned' one in the Waren Court, a more conservative Supreme Court might at some point decide otherwise. Even liberal jurists consider that the Warren Court was on rather thin ice with many of their decisions, and of course a 'culture war' still rages in American politics with both sides delegitimizing judicial opinions that they don't like.
  - stonemetal 13y ago
    >This is a problem, because where judicial interpretation 'discerned' one in the Waren Court, a more conservative Supreme Court might at some point decide otherwise. That is pretty much the point I was going for, it isn't explicit so all it would take is a different legal interpretation for it to go away. With the FISA court and all the NSA stuff it seems to already have gone.

angersock 13y ago

"You're on Facebook because you put yourself on Facebook." We know that that's not true. As for the rest, again, as tempting as it is to blame the evil gubberment for this, the problem at the end of the day is that our own friends and family are ratting us out, because companies make it so goddamn easy and attractive to do so. Look, we've all genuflected at the altar of lean growth and advertising and all the rest, and the price for that is the complete loss of our privacy. You don't get large viral coefficients without targeted advertising and email collection and exploitation--you don't become sticky by being anti-social. This is the naked truth of it, and that's what's so goddamn depressing. The government didn't do this to us by itself, or even mostly itself--it's been done by our friends, families, and founders.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

smacktoward 13y ago

> You're on Facebook because you put yourself on Facebook. Friend with Facebook account takes picture of you at someplace you'd rather not be seen at, posts to Facebook, puts your name in caption.

mst 13y ago
I've seen "tagged in picture by friend" lead to "massive avalanche of rage from christian conservative relatives". The recipient of said avalanche is far from technically inept, albeit not technical for a living - although I deleted my facebook account some time ago so I can't tell you if there was/is a way to limit things so that wouldn't've spread across the graph.
- gte910h 13y ago
  You can now limit tagging. I turned this on the day it occured.
  - smacktoward 13y ago
    Only if you have a Facebook account too. And even if you can turn off the link between the photo and your FB account, your name (suitable for text mining) and your face (suitable for facial recognition) are both still in there.
snom380 13y ago
Exactly. Want to hide that tag? You have to register as a user. And, some of your friends hit OK and lets the FB app upload their address book with your contact info in it. I presume that's how they managed to mine my unlisted cell phone number and suggested it ti me.

stonemetal 13y ago

The US Constitution says we have the right to privacy No it doesn't. There is no right to privacy in the original document nor any amendment to it. The closest we come to it is The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures As far as mail goes sealed mail is considered covered but only because of the relationship between the USPS and the government.

anigbrowl 13y ago
It's rather more complex than that; the right to privayc is (judicially) considered to emanate from other rights, if you go back and look at key decisions like Griswold v. Connecticut. But your basic point is correct, there is no explicit right to privacy. This is a problem, because where judicial interpretation 'discerned' one in the Waren Court, a more conservative Supreme Court might at some point decide otherwise. Even liberal jurists consider that the Warren Court was on rather thin ice with many of their decisions, and of course a 'culture war' still rages in American politics with both sides delegitimizing judicial opinions that they don't like.
- stonemetal 13y ago
  >This is a problem, because where judicial interpretation 'discerned' one in the Waren Court, a more conservative Supreme Court might at some point decide otherwise. That is pretty much the point I was going for, it isn't explicit so all it would take is a different legal interpretation for it to go away. With the FISA court and all the NSA stuff it seems to already have gone.