Slashdot Mirror
DNI Office Asks Why People Trust Facebook More Than the Government
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."
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.
Because Facebook can't come after you will full force of arms, put you in jail, and otherwise make your life miserable or unlivable by misusing your information.
Have canceled my FB account a long time ago, but still caon't opt out of the government.
When I share something on facebook, it's voluntary.
When you snoop on me confiding something privately to a close friend or family member, it's not voluntary.
Why would that be hard to understand?
I was going to start by talking about the fact that social media can't come after you with guns and exact taxes. Previous commenters covered that well. But government doesn't share the info they collect. They sit on it. At least with Facebook, when I share information with friends, there is a good expectation of reciprocity. With government, it is almost all one way. If government made it clear WHAT information they had on me, and gave me an opportunity to annotate their observations, and if they made decisions affecting me with MY INPUT beyond and above the secret info they collect, I'd have no problem with the information they already collect. I mean, we can't stop them. At every period in history, government has collected as much information as they can. What is important is transparency and accountability. The glass ceiling isn't just for women and racial minorities. If we're going to live in a feudal society, we should at least be honest about it. I hate the pretty illusions and lies.
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?
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
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.
"Litt explained that our expectation of privacy isn't legally recognized by the Supreme Court once we've offered it to a third party. "
Why does Litt flat out lie? Smith v Maryland, which this claim is based on, does NOT say that. The ruling was based on an expectation of privacy assumed when one voluntarily gives information to a third party. It does not address an expectation of privacy explicitly and contractually promised (e.g. a "privacy policy"), nor does it cover information not offered voluntarily (e.g. incoming caller ID, location information, etc.).
Even more significantly, ignoring the legalities, spying on your citizens is simply the wrong thing to do. Litt, and other defenders of these surveillance programs are confusing ethics and law. The US Government seems not to care what the local laws are when criticizing rights violations in other countries, but use the law to defend rights violations at home.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
A government must be limited in its powers at a constitutional level, because you never know who will be running the show in the future. Limits on things they can legally do that no-one else can are necessary, but they need to be beyond the power of the administration of the day to change without further consent or the protections are meaningless.
For the rest, in theory normal laws should suffice. The government itself should legislate to ensure that, for example, businesses must respect privacy to a reasonable extent, because telling a health insurance company that you've been having lots of discussions with people who have cancer lately could potentially have serious consequences too.
The catch here is that when politicians and lawyers are involved, the distinction between government and non-government authority and restrictions can get blurred, so I am increasingly of the view that basic rights must be protected at a constitutional level against anyone who might infringe them unjustly.
None of it matters anyway if your judicial system declines to enforce the law, of course, but at least this removes any ambiguity regarding whether those fundamental rights are legally protected.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.