Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Says It Has 'No Intention' To Abuse CISPA
An anonymous reader writes "Facebook is supporting the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), despite opposing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). SOPA and PIPA were about intellectual property, and allowed courts to remove DNS listings for any website hosting pirated content. CISPA is meanwhile about security, and makes it possible for companies to share user information with the U.S. government (and vice versa) if the parties believe it is needed for the greater cyber security good. That being said, CISPA has loopholes that allow it to be abused, especially when it comes to Intellectual Property and privacy. Facebook says it will not do that, and will instead work on closing these loopholes."
...you can trust Facebook when it comes to privacy!
The check's in the mail.
I won't cum in your mouth.
I'll respect you in the morning.
I won't abuse CISPA."
....
You don't give your support to something that is broken, you oppose it and negotiate the bad parts out. How exactly by supporting this thing do they think they're going to get it changed? This is Bullshit. If I was Mr Zuckerberg I'd be careful what I wish for...
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Facebook says it will not do that, and will instead work on closing these loopholes."
So why don't they fight against this bill also until new legislation is proposed that closes the loopholes?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Because lord knows, a multi-billion dollar business doesn't care about protecting IP, and facebook's ALL ABOUT privacy *ahem*
Who put FacePlace in charge of deciding what the greater good is.
If I could mod TFS or TFA, they would definitely get a "+1 Funny"...
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
A with everything, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
If the government doesn't have the resources to monitor you, then recruit all the citizens to monitor one another and turn each other in. Same thing that went in on George Orwell's classic.
I guess that means they'll abuse it "unintentionally", then.
Because they agree to a level of privacy, he then changes the rules on them to reduce that privacy.
Then we discover the privacy hole he created, then there's the outrage, then there's an extra setting somewhere in the privacy settings to restore the previous privacy or part of it. It's a nasty bait and switch game.
For example, only now we've found out that that when you agree to use an App, the app can suck down all the data for your friends too (who didn't agree to that!), and the privacy setting only allows *you* to turn it off, not *them*. So unless *you* turn it off on *their* behalf, the app you downloaded will grab all their data.
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/08/when-you-share-with-facebook-f.html
It's one surprise after another with Facebook, as more and more of previously private data is made available for Facebooks profit (your telephone number for example will become available for selected apps soon, that wasn't the case when you signed up for Facebook its a new 'enhancement').
Or we found out that Facebook steals all your contact data from your phone and uploads it to their servers. Did you agree to that when you signed up to Facebook??? NO! Because the feature didn't exist when you signed up. Douchbag saw that data, decided to grab it, and had his programmers write the code to grab it off your phone.
NDAA - Obama signed a statement saying he won't use the indefinite detention part of it.
What's up with all these laws, that are getting passed and the people who are directly or indirectly responsible for passing them are all promising not to use the new powers they acquire?
Why don't they just own up to the truth - there is no reason to pass these privacy and freedom destroying laws if you have no reason to use them, you pass them because you are intending to use them (or you are intending for them to be used, even if it is not you directly who is going to use them).
When is it going to stop exactly and why would it stop?
You can't handle the truth.
It will patch the holes as it sees fit to make their business more profitable..not to make your life more private, this much you can be assured of!
Sure I do. They will fight CISPA wherever they can.
Afaik they'd have to hand out your private information for free. That cuts directly into their business model. Why should they? Just because you're the US government? You must pay like every other customer.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It is my firm belief that Google, Facebook and other "Big Players" who collect user-data for a living have been sharing all sorts of supposedly "private" user data with various governments for years, without ever talking publicly about this happening, or saying/doing anything that would confirm in any way that this - probably - illegal sharing of data is taking place. CISPA to the rescue: Now, when someone using these services complains or sues about their private data being handed to some government or govt agency, they can simply say: "We checked out your data briefly because of suspicion of a security threat. We found nothing, and deleted your data again. This is all perfectly legal under the rights-of-action granted by CISPA." To put it more simply, Google, FB & Others will continue what they have been doing all along - sharing your data with all sorts of other parties without informing you and without having your consent. But now, if a legal problem or challenge arises from doing this, they can simply invoke the relevant section of CISPA, and it all becomes perfectly legal. In no way can Google, FB & Friends be held liable or accountable for passing your private data on to others anymore. What a terrific law this is! Just what Google, FB & Friends have always wanted...
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
...they will.
The only time a corporation can be trusted is when you have a contract (and, sometimes, not even then). Otherwise, no.
A man or woman can give you their word, and may (or may not) be believed. A corporation cannot, as whatever is said can be changed totally, not least when the people at the top change.
Then I guess that every Facebook executive, along with each and every lawyer at Facebook's service, won't mind placing their testicles in a vice operated by me. After all, just like they claim their intentions to be regarding CISPA, I also have absolutely no intention to abuse the vise in any way. So they can trust me, honest.
But but will they wilfully agree to that? I doubt they will, because they know very well that it is a risk which is simply not acceptable by any standard.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
The ambiguities and intentional non-specifics involve a lot of trust for anyone not to abuse it.
It will be abused, and eventually, so often, that it is the foundation for the next set of freedom-crushing laws.
Is it time to begin a mass exodus of Facebook?
The abuser rarely think they are abusing. Their victims rarely agree.
How about not passing laws with known loopholes in them in the first place??!
Reason? Because a lot of the support for the laws while they were under debate demanded those loopholes. But they weren't going to abuse them. Really. Honest! They'll be removed as soon as the law is passed. We promise!
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
It'll just happen naturally!
Law doesn't give a shit about intentions - unless it's an explicit clause.
... it is not intention that we are bitching about, but the capacity.
Yeah, I feel so much better knowing that Facebook (replace with your favorite government agency) has no intention to misuse a stupid law for profit or advantage.
These corporations start out with good intentions.
Then they realize the stockholders don't care. Their employees don't care. What everyone wants is the bottom line, which can be expressed as a certain amount of progress to financial independence.
We value financial independence because that means we can escape this neurotic society and its neurotic people and go do something fun for a change. Most people won't admit it but they hate their jobs and the people around them because they're inconsistent, nervous, full of doubt, greedy and aggressive.
This is why retirement is prized. You are no longer forced to deal with other people's dysfunction.
And retirement is why we prize the bottom line. We don't care about the ethics. Just get us out of here. And so "Don't be evil" becomes "Don't be unprofitable."
And like all true evils, it's nobody's fault.
Futurist Traditionalism
I certainly feel at ease when Facebook promises not to do unethical but legal things, since their track record on not doing unethical and questionably legal things is already awesome.
We have no intention of abusing CISPA = We have every intention to claim any abuse has been unintentional?
Facebook is offended that you would even suggest that they would have any intention of abusing CISPA. They are really, really hurt that you would think such a thing about them.
Further, they have released a statement saying that they are trying really really hard, and do you have any idea how it makes them feel when you don't trust them? Perhaps you have some trust issues which are preventing you and them from becoming closer, and until you deal with those this relationship cannot get to the next level, which is making social networking more user-friendly! It's always all about you, isn't it? Your privacy. Your rights. You, you, you. How do you think Facebook feels? Do you ever care about them for one minute?
You are welcome on my lawn.
ok so assuming that facebook is telling the truth (their not but lets pretend)
that 1 website down, come back and tell me when you get the other 366,848,492 websites say so as well AND all sign civil agreements making them liable if they do share it. then MAYBE ill consider that POS bills like this might see the light of day.
so how soon till we break out tech consumer sledgehammer and let Washington know (again) DONT FUCK WITH OUR INTERNET!
ive all ready called my reps, but somehow i dont think my voice alone will cut it,
but then then again elections are coming up........................
one more reason to leave facebook
google+ is a good alternative.
I have no intentions to assault others.
I have no intentions to kill others.
I have no intentions to download movies from the internet.
I have no intentions to hack other people's PCs.
I have no intentions to rob a bank.
I have no intentions to scare people to death by walking down the street naked.
This does not mean, of course, that any of the above could not happen.. I just don't currently have an intention to do any of the above.
Except possibly the last, but even then that depends on the amount of alcohol in my bloodstream.
I hope we've learned a few things over the last several decades about just how much we can trust the word of a business, when it may, at some point, decide that it's more profitable to break some promises. I doubt we've learned thoroughly enough, but here's hoping...
Many of the interesting things Facebook knows (or thinks it knows) about you don't come from what you told them yourself. They have such comprehensive surveillance of so much of society because other people are volunteering information that they can paint a pretty good picture of you just from a couple of basic facts you might give them thinking they don't mean much and the vast networking effects that they can data mine.
For example, suppose you only have a Facebook account with a couple of basic personal details, and don't post updates, photos, etc. yourself. However, assume you are Facebook friends with your real life friends so you can follow their news, get invited to their parties, etc. One day, Bill sends you and five other friends an invitation to a social event at a certain place and time. You don't respond on Facebook, but the others all do, and six of you (one couldn't make it) go enjoy a drink after work.
Three weeks later, suppose someone completely unrelated to you or your friends posts a photo they took in the bar that night, which has the six of you in the background playing pool. Facebook can potentially guess the approximate time and place of the photo from metadata (or just because the other person told them) and match it to your friend's invitation. Facebook might also have photos of your five companions, and you are the sixth guy around the table. It's now a pretty good bet that Facebook has a photo of you that they can or will credibly be able to identify, even though you did nothing but receive an invitation from a friend. None of your own friends, who maybe know that you don't like putting too much info on Facebook, even had to provide the photo or tag you in it. Obviously Facebook can also guess that you did in fact attend the event you were invited to, even though you didn't tell them that.
This isn't meant to describe a specific practice that is necessarily happening today, and it's just the first example that came to mind. However, all the necessary technologies are at least working well in R&D labs, and obviously Facebook routinely data mine all kinds of network relationships, so the sort of situation I described isn't exactly a huge stretch. Also, notice how cagey Facebook have been about disclosing exactly what personal data they hold about people, even when required to do so under European law: they seem to be relying on legal weasel words to try to exempt part of the data they have on people from disclosure, on the basis that it would give away their trade secrets or some similar argument. That's a pretty strong hint that they are doing some things with the data that they aren't publicly disclosing and that don't involve just one individual's freely given information.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
makes it possible for companies to share user information with the U.S. government (and vice versa) if the parties believe it is needed for the greater cyber security good.
WHERE IS THE OVERSIGHT??? And don't tell me the FISA court is involved because we all know that dumbass bush pretty much left the door wide open to bypass the court at will. Lord knows that I'm not important enough for the government to be interested but people will use this information to make decisions about you without your input. So essentially it's a license to discriminate will with no real oversight. God this country is sliding down hill so fast.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
I personally think they are supporting CISPA because of their current imbroglio with Yahoo! et al. Before that, they were pro net-neutrality. Now? No so much... The lawyers have taken over!
But we'll still end up doing it.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
"We'll use it, EXACTLY as intended!"
"Abusing" CISPA would involve actions like demanding due process for actions by police and government agencies, or insisting on Warrants in the case of investigations and seizures. Facebook intends no such thing.
Welcome to the desert of the real.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Facebook makes $ in inverse proportion to privacy barriers.
Anything which adjusts privacy expectations downward ins in Facebook's best interest. Ditto Google and all the other companies in this business.
I agree with Facebook on this one, as well as Oracle and host of others.
The way I read the legislation, it's intended to provide something akin to whistle-blower protection. If an ISP finds a user doing something illegal and reports them to police, they're protected from prosecution for turning over the evidence and/or laying the charges. It also explains why the provider participation is voluntary -- some providers like Facebook have people monitoring for abuse and illegal activity, but not all do, and by making it voluntary, the government and law enforcement can't force ISPs to start doing such policing.
This legislation does not set me off like SOPA did. It still needs some work and some loopholes need to be closed, but it's not an obvious ploy backed by the *AA like SOPA was.
Unlike private individuals who file complaints or charges, when a company does it, someone will sue, just on the off chance of a payout. This legislation explicitly makes such lawsuits null and void, enabling the providers to report on abusive and illegal users without fear of being stuck with a multi-year lawsuit as a result.
Note that the legislation doesn't make it very clear whether such evidence collected without a warrant can be used in a court case, or if it can only be used as evidence for obtaining a warrant. Hopefully it's the latter, because that's the one loophole I really, really don't like: the idea of providers doing the policing without oversight in an attempt to do an end-run around protections against unwarranted search and seizure.
Another loophole that needs to be clarified is that the report and charges could ONLY be filed with American authorities against American citizens and/or people/businesses operating on American soil. If this is another attempt to subjugate the world to US law, it needs to be shit-canned.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I took so long to post a comment on this thread because there was a lot of reading and digging to do before I was willing to comment. I've been burned by too many inflammatory "news" articles that paint their own spin on things and present the facts in an extremely biased way. I don't like being led by the nose; I'd rather be informed by the news, do my own digging, and reach my own conclusions.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Isn't the Slashdot comment system a huge potential data mine for spying and profiling people as well? I mean with Facebook, you get to see things such as a persons favorite artists, their friends, whether they like mountain dew or not, etc. With the people actively logging in, commenting, moderating and meta-moderating in slashdot, you get to see their whole idealogy and opinion of various government and political ideas. Which of these two things would governments be more interested in?
Hey yo sorry I haven't been reading my inbox I've been inundated with some personal my grandmother or her pet died and a lot of schoolwork shit has been going on. Anyway, the Harvad Connection is ALMOST FINISHED!! In no way should any off my non-responses be construed as an intention to not perform as agreed. I'm the good guy here.
a few years later.
We have absolutely no intention to abuse CISPA, this is not what it looks like.
Going to laugh my ass off when your beloved Google announces their support.
is paved in "no intentions".
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
If this is true, then a group of anonymous (hacker) wannabes should spam every project on the site (botting as needed) until they reverse the policy.
I'll tell you what --I'll go buy a gun, but I won't shoot anyone, especially politicians or CEO's, with it. Sound fair?
I've wondered, and marveled, at Facebook's dominance in the social media niche. One could chalk it up to Zuckerberg's business brilliance, but that seems less likely than him selling out to the feds (or whatever agents of control that you subscribe to).
The following conversation is complete speculation:
Man in suit: Mr Zuckerberg, how would you like to become filthy rich and control all of social media?
Zuck: Hell ya!
Man in suit: Good. Sign these papers and the pieces will be put in place.
Zuck: First-born son, check. Wait, you guys will have access to any and all user data without warrants?
Man in suit: Sign the papers.
Zuck: What the hell, I'm going there anyway...
"Leave Facebook Alone!"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I really don't care about any one organization or entity such as Facebook committing not to abuse the system. What I worry about is humanity as a whole. The unfortunate truth is that we live in a world that eventually the powers that be _will_ get around to abusing it. Who knows who it will be, but nevertheless, it will happen eventually. Loopholes will be found, laws will be broken, the interpretation of words will come into question, and so on and so forth. Its an age old game thats been going on with all legislation ever since the United States became a country, and this will be no exception. Now on the other hand, if a bill like CISPA is killed and never passed, there will be no spy-data there to be exploited. You can't abuse a system that simply isn't there. That leaves me feeling comfortable and at-ease. Remember that scene from the movie "The Dark Knight" where he turns every cell phone in the city into a sonar? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6cv0KsTTfY) I get that same kind of feeling from CISPA that Morgan Freeman had. Its unethical, dangerous, and wrong. Too much power in the hands of a clearly self-interest-oriented system run by people who have proven themselves corruptable and easily bought-out by private interests time and time again.