Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DNI Office Asks Why People Trust Facebook More Than the Government

Posted by samzenpus on from the like-this dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes "General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Robert S. Litt explained that our expectation of privacy isn't legally recognized by the Supreme Court once we've offered it to a third party. Thus, sifting through third party data doesn't qualify 'on a constitutional level' as invasive to our personal privacy. This he brought to an interesting point about volunteered personal data, and social media habits. Our willingness to give our information to companies and social networking websites is baffling to the ODNI. 'Why is it that people are willing to expose large quantities of information to private parties but don't want the Government to have the same information?,' he asked."

9 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Executive Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously? Gee, I don't know... maybe it's because those private parties can't ruin your fucking life like a government can?

    When was the last time Facebook's swat team raided someone's house, taking all posessions and ruining their job/social image?
    How many people are in jail for life because of Google's will?

    Now granted if a company the size of Facebook decided to target an individual, that person would have a very hard time defending due to the large mismatch in resources. But this kind of this doesn't happen often, because it's not really profitable. On the other hand, targetting alleged law-breaking individuals is part of the government's job and is a regular occurence.

    The government is granted a lot of power for the good of society -- power to decide the fate of any citizen or company. In exchange for that power, they are held to a much higher standard and have a responsibility to implement the most stringent safeguards. However inconvenient those safeguards might be, it's the price of maintaining public confidence.

    1. Re:Executive Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suspect that you underestimate a private party's abilities. Maybe the former can't ruin your life the exact same way the latter can, that doesn't mean that they can't still ruin your life.

      The point is that it isn't in Facebook's financial interest to ruin the lives of its users. If every time a Facebook user posted something incriminating, someone at Facebook filed a police report, people would rapidly stop using Facebook.

      If you're a DoJ bureaucrat, it's in your financial interest to ruin as many lives as possible. The more criminals there are, the bigger a budget you need to track, arrest, try, and imprison them all.

    2. Re:Executive Power by readin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, the government is granted power because we DON'T want private parties to have that power.

      Exactly. We want a clean distinction between those who are allowed to use force to ruin our lives, and those who are granted other abilities. The government by definition has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence for purposes other than self-defence. Having been given that, we should be very wary every time we consider giving them any additional power.

      When we let the government start interfering in those parts of our lives that have previously been dealt with through private means, we are doing exactly what you warn against - we're mixing private and government power.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  2. Neither by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Have canceled my FB account a long time ago, but still caon't opt out of the government.

    1. Re:Neither by Teckla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have canceled my FB account a long time ago, but still caon't opt out of the government.

      I find this attitude short-sighted and sad. You can influence your government. It's hard work -- you have to get involved, and stay involved -- but the government is ultimately beholden to the will of the people. If you don't like it, work to change it.

      Or just throw up your hands in defeat like most people, but then you don't really have any right to complain about the results.

      Kudos for dropping Facebook, though. Given their history of constant "oops, did I invade your privacy again? oops, did I quietly add another opt-out feature? oops, is my misleading UI making you choose the wrong things again?", nobody should use or trust Facebook.

  3. Sorry I never opted in by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I never consented to giving any of my personal data to Facebook. I've never joined. Why is the government using that as an excuse to invade my privacy?

  4. Re:It's opt in? by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if you are explicitly putting data out in the open, the government shouldn't be slurping it up. They should have reason to cast their gaze.

    --
    Good-bye
  5. Volume of data collected by joe_frisch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People have already posted about the government's power to do harm. Another issue is that the government is able to collect from all sources. Many people (including myself) post limited information associated with each online activity and also have a set of information that is never (intentionally) posted online. This prevents any company from forming a complete and possibly dangerous profile. The government has the ability to combine all of these sets of data and the budget to use very sophisticated data mining. This places people at risk of statistically matching some sort of undesirable (child molester, terrorist, etc) even though they themselves are innocent.

    The data is also a very dangerous weapon if the government were to become more authoritarian. We've already seen a number of our constitutional rights weakened in the last decade or two - it is not beyond imagination the they will be weakened much further. If we at some point have a politically unified government there is the concern that it might use this data against political opponents.

    If the government firewalled its own data, it would not be so bad. I don't mind the DOD having attack aircraft and tanks, but I would not give my local police department this technology. In the same way, if a federal organization who's only mission were to protect against external threats had full access to data I would not be very concerned, but under the current rules this data is share with local law enforcement.

  6. Re:Rhetorical question by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Easy answer is not to respond.

    The question is a false premise. It's not the same people giving info to Facebook but not wanting the government to have it. A small group of privacy advocates are arguing on behalf of those who don't understand what giving information away can do.

    Lots of people have no problem with government - if they want to read my shopping lists, or listen to me talk to my wife or kids about whatever, let them.

    The question is only valid for a small subset of people - and I say first you would have to find them, and then ask them.

    Plus, we are not "giving information to Facebook" - we are giving it to our friends, and the fact that Facebook has to have the data is transparent, and largely not understood. I think that explains it much better.

    The question was poorly formulated because it was supposed to be a rhetorical "gotcha" that made you think - well when you say it like that, the government can have whatever it wants to have. And so many people fell into the trap of considering it a real question that deserves an answer.