5 ms·

> encrypt your life Absolutely. The problem is: communication is a "network good", you don't do it alone. How do you want the "Facebook people" to understand t

by dan_bk 12y ago

> encrypt your life Absolutely. The problem is: communication is a "network good", you don't do it alone. How do you want the "Facebook people" to understand the gravity of the situation? We all do communicate with Facebook people.

Ancorehraq 12y ago
Perhaps the situation isn't grave. After all, despite EFF's best efforts, NSA is no more than a casual meme among all the Facebook people.
DanBC 12y ago
I genuinely do not understand conversations where people talk about the evils of mass government surveillance and then accept the evils of mass corporate surveillance. GCHQ supposedly operates under UK law and needs warrants to search their huge databases and operates under the oversight of elected representatives. While that's unacceptable it's more regulated than the chaos of corporate data misuse.
- emiliobumachar 12y ago
  I'm much more worried about governments because of the potential synergy of mass surveillance with their other powers.
- AlyssaRowan 12y ago
  GCHQ routinely violates law and lies to its oversight committee, MPs, ministers and Parliament about it. Please do not hold them up as a paragon. Even after Snowden, ministers are not even aware of what JTRIG is, and GCHQ will not comment on intelligence matters even to them. They are a prime example of an agency gone rogue, and their efforts for mass surveillance and against encryption are not a new thing - ask Brian Gladman.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Do you have any examples of the routine viation of law or lies ro oversight committees? Which laws do you think GCHQ have broken? Normally when I ask people this they mention things like RIPA, but fail to notice the excemptions in RIPA for a bunch of GCHQ activity. Here's what IOCCO say: http://www.iocco-uk.info/ http://www.iocco-uk.info/
- growse 12y ago
  Because mass surveillance by a group that can use violence and deprivation of liberty to enforce its will is a lot scarier than mass surveillance by a group who can't. Its not that people accept one and not the other, its that one is much more serious, and is impossible to opt out of.
  - walshemj 12y ago
    Companies have done all of this in the past read up about the pinkertons and the blacklists run by companies in the USA and elsewhere.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      But then again Facebook won't send men in blue full body armour and automatic weapons after you. Agreed that government can get to the corporate data through few hoops, but it feels safer to share with a corporation than with organizations allowed to inflict violence on people.
      - themartorana 12y ago
        Nailed it. That put words to a feeling I was searching for. Government collection supposes everyone is or will be a criminal, while corporate collection is less offensive on the surface. They may want to mine my data to display the appropriate Target ad to me, but that feels a lot more benign than surveillance purely for the sake of possibly removing my freedoms.
        sp332 12y ago
        Once Facebook has your info, federal, state, and local governments can get it just by asking. They're not really separate anymore.
        rosser 12y ago
        You're neglecting a critical little detail: Once Facebook has your data, there's (currently) nothing you can do to stop them from subsequently electing, or being forced, to hand it over to someone whose use-case is, let's say, "less benign" than mere ad targeting.
- walshemj 12y ago
  Probably because a lot of HN commentators jobs/employers rely on weak privacy laws to make their business model's work.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  You actually believe that agencies like GCHQ and NSA have "strong oversight" and are "heavily regulated"? If you do, here's a little something to shaken that belief: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/09/edward-snowden-mps-commons-report-spying http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/09/edward-snowde...
- wcummings 12y ago
  Facebook can't forcefully imprison me so there's that
- opendais 12y ago
  I can control what a corporation knows about me and they can't throw me in jail. I'd say its a weeeeee bit of a difference. Admittedly, the average person may not be able to do the first part...so its probably something that should be reduced and legislated.
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  I agree (while not supporting GCHQ here). We have lost what we used to think of as privacy. We need to find a new model for managing data / information. IP law is not really upto it but at least has a fairly coherent model. But yes, government is evil, capitalism is nice does not wash.

by dan_bk 12y ago

Ancorehraq 12y ago

Perhaps the situation isn't grave. After all, despite EFF's best efforts, NSA is no more than a casual meme among all the Facebook people.

DanBC 12y ago

I genuinely do not understand conversations where people talk about the evils of mass government surveillance and then accept the evils of mass corporate surveillance. GCHQ supposedly operates under UK law and needs warrants to search their huge databases and operates under the oversight of elected representatives. While that's unacceptable it's more regulated than the chaos of corporate data misuse.

emiliobumachar 12y ago
I'm much more worried about governments because of the potential synergy of mass surveillance with their other powers.
AlyssaRowan 12y ago
GCHQ routinely violates law and lies to its oversight committee, MPs, ministers and Parliament about it. Please do not hold them up as a paragon. Even after Snowden, ministers are not even aware of what JTRIG is, and GCHQ will not comment on intelligence matters even to them. They are a prime example of an agency gone rogue, and their efforts for mass surveillance and against encryption are not a new thing - ask Brian Gladman.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Do you have any examples of the routine viation of law or lies ro oversight committees? Which laws do you think GCHQ have broken? Normally when I ask people this they mention things like RIPA, but fail to notice the excemptions in RIPA for a bunch of GCHQ activity. Here's what IOCCO say: http://www.iocco-uk.info/ http://www.iocco-uk.info/
growse 12y ago
Because mass surveillance by a group that can use violence and deprivation of liberty to enforce its will is a lot scarier than mass surveillance by a group who can't. Its not that people accept one and not the other, its that one is much more serious, and is impossible to opt out of.
- walshemj 12y ago
  Companies have done all of this in the past read up about the pinkertons and the blacklists run by companies in the USA and elsewhere.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    But then again Facebook won't send men in blue full body armour and automatic weapons after you. Agreed that government can get to the corporate data through few hoops, but it feels safer to share with a corporation than with organizations allowed to inflict violence on people.
    - themartorana 12y ago
      Nailed it. That put words to a feeling I was searching for. Government collection supposes everyone is or will be a criminal, while corporate collection is less offensive on the surface. They may want to mine my data to display the appropriate Target ad to me, but that feels a lot more benign than surveillance purely for the sake of possibly removing my freedoms.
      - sp332 12y ago
        Once Facebook has your info, federal, state, and local governments can get it just by asking. They're not really separate anymore.
      - rosser 12y ago
        You're neglecting a critical little detail: Once Facebook has your data, there's (currently) nothing you can do to stop them from subsequently electing, or being forced, to hand it over to someone whose use-case is, let's say, "less benign" than mere ad targeting.
walshemj 12y ago
Probably because a lot of HN commentators jobs/employers rely on weak privacy laws to make their business model's work.
higherpurpose 12y ago
You actually believe that agencies like GCHQ and NSA have "strong oversight" and are "heavily regulated"? If you do, here's a little something to shaken that belief: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/09/edward-snowden-mps-commons-report-spying http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/09/edward-snowde...
wcummings 12y ago
Facebook can't forcefully imprison me so there's that
opendais 12y ago
I can control what a corporation knows about me and they can't throw me in jail. I'd say its a weeeeee bit of a difference. Admittedly, the average person may not be able to do the first part...so its probably something that should be reduced and legislated.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
I agree (while not supporting GCHQ here). We have lost what we used to think of as privacy. We need to find a new model for managing data / information. IP law is not really upto it but at least has a fairly coherent model. But yes, government is evil, capitalism is nice does not wash.