3 ms·

Gravity of what incidents? Because if you are talking about the NSA using data from Facebook, then the you shouldn't be surprised answer is correct: No one in t

Gravity of what incidents? Because if you are talking about the NSA using data from Facebook, then the you shouldn't be surprised answer is correct: No one in their right mind ought to think putting all that data on Facebook didn't have massive privacy implications. If not from the NSA, than from companies like Facebook itself. No amount of legal safe guards can prevent that problem and preserve those free social networks because it's an inherent business property of those networks. You are the product and we shouldn't let people delude themselves otherwise. If you are talking about the use of phone log data and other meta-data that develop incidental to your use of a communications system that are supposed to be private because they exist for limited purposes, then sure I agree with you. But let's not pretend that the NSA looking at Facebook is really much worse than anyone else doing it. The reason raison d'etre for these things is to record such information.

droopyEyelids 13y ago
Again, you're really minimizing the impact of this. 99% of people have no framework to understand the implications of facebook, and that doesn't make them out of their right mind.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  Saying no one in their right mind ought to think this isn't a logical consequence of the existence of Facebook is not the same thing as saying anyone who hasn't yet come to that conclusion is out if their mind. Telling people you shouldn't be surprised is telling them it is an expected consequence, not something exceptional that can be prevented. It's telling them that if after actually thinking through the implications of Facebook existence , they shouldn't be surprised. They should have seen it coming. Conversely, telling people that this is surprising make it seem like the government did something monumentally evil that we did't expect them to be capable of and if we merely make the government not evil, it goes away. It doesn't. Facebook can and still will do those things and sell it to advertisers. The government can and will do it with public profiles. As a side note, most of the article isn't about "social networks" like Facebook. It's about actual people's networks of social interactions as extracted from phone, email, and other metadata. The fact that the government is doing analysis on a huge scale should both be surprising and deeply distressing.

droopyEyelids 13y ago

Again, you're really minimizing the impact of this. 99% of people have no framework to understand the implications of facebook, and that doesn't make them out of their right mind.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
anologwintermut 13y ago
Saying no one in their right mind ought to think this isn't a logical consequence of the existence of Facebook is not the same thing as saying anyone who hasn't yet come to that conclusion is out if their mind. Telling people you shouldn't be surprised is telling them it is an expected consequence, not something exceptional that can be prevented. It's telling them that if after actually thinking through the implications of Facebook existence , they shouldn't be surprised. They should have seen it coming. Conversely, telling people that this is surprising make it seem like the government did something monumentally evil that we did't expect them to be capable of and if we merely make the government not evil, it goes away. It doesn't. Facebook can and still will do those things and sell it to advertisers. The government can and will do it with public profiles. As a side note, most of the article isn't about "social networks" like Facebook. It's about actual people's networks of social interactions as extracted from phone, email, and other metadata. The fact that the government is doing analysis on a huge scale should both be surprising and deeply distressing.