Slashdot Mirror


Charity Promotes Covert Surveillance App For Suicide Prevention

VoiceOfDoom writes Major UK charity The Samaritans have launched an app titled "Samaritans Radar", in an attempt to help Twitter users identify when their friends are in crisis and in need of support. Unfortunately the privacy implications appear not to have been thought through — installing the app allows it to monitor the Twitter feeds of all of your followers, searching for particular phrases or words which might indicate they are in distress. The app then sends you an email suggesting you contact your follower to offer your help. Opportunities for misuse by online harassers are at the forefront of the concerns that have been raised, in addition; there is strong evidence to suggest that this use of personal information is illegal, being in contravention of UK Data Protection law.

74 comments

  1. Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So it auto searches your twitter friends' twitter feeds (stuff they've posted for the world to see) and people think this is a privacy violation? How he fuck is this different than wget-ing and grep-ing your friends' feed?

    Yawn. Manufactured and/or Idiot's Outrage

    1. Re:Um by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 2

      You can have a private twitter feed, can't you? This would also search any private feeds you have access to.

      --
      XDInd
    2. Re:Um by _xeno_ · · Score: 2

      Yes, you can. You can create a Twitter feed and then set it up so that only people you've explicitly allowed to follow you can see your Tweets.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    3. Re:Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It actually states that it only looks at public tweets.

    4. Re:Um by safetyinnumbers · · Score: 1

      It depends on how the app works.

      Does it work like an old-style program that performs some computation and does something, or is it a 'cloud'-based app, i.e. it sends all the raw data off to some server somewhere?

      Given that it is said to send an email instead of just display a notification, I suspect the latter, in which case you're sending those potentially 'followers only' tweets off to a third party.

    5. Re:Um by julesh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, you can. You can create a Twitter feed and then set it up so that only people you've explicitly allowed to follow you can see your Tweets.

      Right, but as this only looks at the feeds that are visible to the user who is using it, and only shares information about those feeds with that user, what's the problem?

    6. Re:Um by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the issue is this. I make a Twitter account. (I dunno why I want to call them "feeds.") I mark it private, which means that only people I allow to follow me can see it. Then, someone else downloads this app which then shares my private Twitter feed to the app makers without my permission.

      So let's say Alice makes a Twitter account, and marks it private. She allows Bob to follow her. Bob then downloads this app, which can then see her tweets as she's allowed Bob to see them. Alice is willing to let Bob read her tweets but doesn't want them shared with other people, and Bob presumably doesn't realize he's violating her privacy by downloading the app.

      At least, that's my understanding of what people are upset about.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    7. Re:Um by julesh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Right. Also: not illegal. The Samaritans are processing the data on behalf of the registered users of their app, not for themselves. The users determine what data is to be processed, and request the specific way in which it will be processed. Therefore, under the definitions from the Data Protection Act, the user is the data controller ("a person who (either alone or jointly or in common with other persons) determines the purposes for which and the manner in which any personal data are, or are to be, processed"). The Samaritans are acting as a data processor ("any person who processes the data on behalf of the data controller").

      The act is quite clear throughout that it is the data contr-oller[1], not the data processor, who must comply with the various restrictions as to how data may be used. The users, as long as they are using the app only for the purposes for which The Samaritans describe it as having been designed, are exempt from the provisions of the Data Protection Act, because the data is "processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual's personal, family or household affairs".

      However, even if this were not the case, here is the principle that TFA interprets as stating that the processing performed should not be permitted: "Personal data shall not be processed unless at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met."

      Unfortunately for this argument, schedule 2 allows processing that is "necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject," which appears to me to be the case here. And, while the data in question is considered sensitive, schedule 3 allows processing which "is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or another person, in a case where the data controller cannot reasonably be expected to obtain the consent of the data subject", which also appears to me to be true. It also allows processing of data that "has been made public as a result of steps deliberately taken by the data subject."

      So, even were we to hold that The Samaritans are the data controller for the data used by the app, it seems they are entitled to perform this processing.

      [1] It seems that slashdot believes the data protection act to be lame, and won't let me post accurate quotes from it. It appears especially to dislike the word that starts "cont" and ends "roller" for some reason I don't quite understand, but unfortunately that word is used very frequently in the text, so I can't really avoid it.

    8. Re:Um by ayesnymous · · Score: 0

      The summary said nothing about sharing those tweets with other people. It only said it sends you an email suggesting you contact them to help.

    9. Re:Um by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Leaving aside that TFA says nothing about that, Bob presumably is otherwise incapable of retweeting, or using ^C/^V, or using a pencil & paper, or going to the pub and talking to Charlie...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Um by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      How he fuck is this different than wget-ing and grep-ing your friends' feed?

      If I ask you: "how was the movie?" and you answered "1001011100111001...", how the f*ck is this different from downloading a torrent?

      The difference is: what the judge thinks of it.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  2. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    How is this invading privacy? Don't I already have access to this data? All I am doing is searching it.

  3. Not personal information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The information scraped from public twitter feeds is not in any way "personal information".

    1. Re:Not personal information... by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1

      not all twitter feeds are "public", and this would scrape data from any feeds that you have access to.

      --
      XDInd
    2. Re:Not personal information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying it has access to the things you have access to? Throw the bastards in jail, I say!

    3. Re:Not personal information... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      and this would scrape data from any feeds that you have access to.

      Still not seeing an issue here.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re: Not personal information... by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 2
      It's a third party that the person with the private feed didn't authorize, reading their tweets.

      Also whether or not they retain the information, and what they do with it if they do.

      --
      XDInd
    5. Re: Not personal information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? It only looks at PUBLIC feeds. Is everyone gone insane? This is Twitter! You cant use Twitter and be concerned about privacy!

    6. Re:Not personal information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't scrape info from public feeds. It's a cloud service. You give it your twitter username and password and then it scans your account for every feed you follow. Twitter has private feeds. This will track them and data mine them. It's a great way to say fuck you to one of your 'friends'.

      Remember, this is a free app backed by a cloud service. They have to pay for that cloud somehow. There's no logical reason for this to be a cloud service unless it's data mining you.

      Details: http://www.samaritans.org/sites/default/files/kcfinder/branches/branch-96/files/Samaritans%20Radar%20Walkthrough.pdf

      As for the parent post, public twitter feeds can definitely contain "personal information", it's just not private personal information. Though I'd assume people expect their private feeds to stay private.

    7. Re:Not personal information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I read the FAQ and they say they don't look at private tweets (last page of FAQ). Though their web app still grabs your username and password.

      http://www.samaritans.org/sites/default/files/kcfinder/files/FAQs%20for%20Radar%20-%20EXTERNAL.pdf

    8. Re:Not personal information... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      and this would scrape data from any feeds that you have access to.

      Still not seeing an issue here.

      I think the issue becomes that in certain jobs, you don't have that job any more if you are considered a suicide risk, or will even be investigated, or lose clearance if people wonder "why" you might be depressed.

      In similar fashion, I worked with a guy who was contstantly saying stuff like "someone ought to kill that son-of-a-bitch". He was harmless, and I convinced him to stop. But that was a different age, today, he would probably be swatted.

      So this just makes one more thing that we would be foolish to do - give any accounting of our emotional state.

      Regardles, a person has to be a fool to use twitter, it is unmatched at destroying lives and careers over stupid shit.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:Not personal information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing the app is doing is looking at stuff you already have access to.
      HR could read the lists and make notes themself. This app just makes it slightly easier.

    10. Re: Not personal information... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      It's a third party that the person with the private feed didn't authorize, reading their tweets.
      Also whether or not they retain the information, and what they do with it if they do.

      Doesn't matter.

      Just because you marked the tweet as private and only viewable to a few, is still viewable to all.

      THERE IS NO PRIVACY SETTINGS. Once you post, even if it's "friends only", it is still public.

      Because anyone who sees it is free to screenshot it (how many tweets have been deleted only to live on in screenshots?), copy/paste, retweet, report, etc.

      If you're typing it out on the internet and someone else can see it, it's public information. A private feed or post is just like sharing a secret - it ain't a secret no more.

      Hell, is it just as bad if all they did was provide a web interface where concerned users could copy and paste said tweets into it? In this case, the user (who you authorized) is reporting to a third party as well.

    11. Re: Not personal information... by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1

      In that case, there is absolutely no private data anywhere since someone can always screen shot it or copy and paste something. But you are right, in most cases, private relies on other people not being dicks.

      --
      XDInd
  4. No, it's not illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    The DPA prevents you from collecting personal information for longer than necessary, or for using it for a purpose other than that for which it was provided. It places no limits on what you can do with published information.

    This app analyses published information (yes, tweeting is publishing, that's well enough established now) about which the DPA has nothing to say.

    There is no privacy concern - if you don't want people analysing what you tweet, don't tweet it!

    What an absolute fucking horseshit abortion of a non-story. VoiceOfDoom must be some kind of utter cunt moron to have submitted it.

    1. Re:No, it's not illegal. by julesh · · Score: 1

      It places no limits on what you can do with published information.

      Actually, it does. It only allows you to process such information for certain purposes, or if you fall into an exempt category of processing. Thankfully, one of those purposes is to protect the interests of the person whom the information concerns, which is what the Samaritans are attempting to do here. And one of those categories is for personal use, which is what the users of the app are doing.

  5. Re:"Opportunities" for problems aren't problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...says the nerd behind the computer judging other nerds. We know how society behaves. Many of us work with them on a daily basis. This is why we hide in our rooms at night while they are all out drinking.

  6. Re:"Opportunities" for problems aren't problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    0/10. Your trolling is just too obvious, and why you're always at -1.

  7. Um... by Threni · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Surely even in the UK it's not illegal to follow other people's tweets?

  8. Bullshit by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Either we want absolute liberty and privacy, OR we want a nanny-state, where we're watched, coddled, and protected from all possible harm. The moment you concede 'higher motives' to surveillance, then you have allowed the camel into the tent. You might think it's just his nose today, but tomorrow someone will say "but .... terrorism" and a little more surveillance is ok. And "but...children" and a little more is ok.

    You *can't* have both.

    The road to hell is paved with "good" intentions.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Bullshit by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Either we want absolute liberty and privacy, OR we want a nanny-state, where we're watched, coddled, and protected from all possible harm.

      Slippery slope fallacy FTW!

    2. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And false dichotomy. Absolute liberty would mean I can murder people. Absolute privacy... I don't even know how that would work.

      Mass surveillance and things like it are definitely wrong, and this app is pointless and ineffective, but I don't agree with his language.

    3. Re:Bullshit by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Either we want absolute liberty and privacy, OR we want a nanny-state, where we're watched, coddled, and protected from all possible harm.

      That's a false dichotomy. Especially since absolute privacy and libery have pretty much never existed for the almost total majority of humanity. nor nanny states.

      This isn't to say that analyzing posts for potential suicidal tendencies is a good thing - I think it is completely evil, and will only serve to encourage online analysis of everything we might post.

      Just as an example germane to this topic, I have an online track record of believing a person should be able to check out if they don't have much point in going on. I've watched too many family members and relatives linger in a demented state for years, and the only ones who did well by that were the nursing homes. They would linger until theit bank accounts and assets were sucked dry. Fortuntely, when they were down to only their SS money, something would take them out for good

      If you want to see something sad, it's a person sitting in their wheelchair in the hallway of the nursing home, shitting in their Depends and catheterized, woken up by the orderly so thay can take their blood pressure and cholesterol meds

      I will not participate in that.

      So does this mean I'm suicidal? Hell no! I'm enjoying myself. But to some it may seem a little suspicious..

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Bullshit by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Either we want absolute liberty and privacy, OR we want a nanny-state,

      Since such a thing as absolute liberty and privacy is impossible, we must be living in a nanny state, watched, coddled and protected from all possible harm.

      <Looks around> Hmm. I'm not seeing that. Perhaps you should work on your debating skills and not employ such easily dismissed false dichotomies?

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    5. Re:Bullshit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Either we want absolute liberty and privacy, OR we want a nanny-state,

      Hmm. I'm not seeing that. Perhaps you should work on your debating skills and not employ such easily dismissed false dichotomies?

      Congratulations, you just attacked a straw man. Desire vs. conclusion. HTH.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Bullshit by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Aside from the fact that my snark attacked a desire vs. a conclusion, do you have any other reason to call it a strawman but for an obviously personal one (you've been whining at me for a couple of posts now)?

      It is still a false dichotomy. No amount of nitpicking changes the fact that the very logic of his statement is fallacious.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    7. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fairly low id. roman_mir must have been keeping it in reserve.

    8. Re:Bullshit by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no.

      Think of 'rights' and 'freedoms' being a continuum. You want to be somewhere in that continuum.

      If you live in a society of absolute freedom, you no longer have, for example, the 'right to be secure in one's person.' Somebody else in your society is at absolute freedom to assault or kill you.

      If, on the other hand, you live in a society of 'absolute rights,' you are not allowed to do anything that society hasn't expressly allowed.

      So you want to be somewhere in the middle. If you want 'privacy,' then somebody else's freedom to gather information about you has been curtailed. If you want 'absolute liberty,' then there can be no privacy, as somebody is at 'absolute liberty' to get information about you, by any means they care to use.

      Put another way: Your rights are, by definition, a curtailment of *somebody's* freedom to act against that right.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    9. Re:Bullshit by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      I assume you wanted to answer my parent, as you are just agreeing with me here.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  9. Monitors those you follow not those who follow you by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to TFA, the software monitors the twitter feeds of people you follow, not people who follow you.

    Not clear what's viewed as so oppressive about this - it doesn't gather any information you're not already getting, it just highlights certain tweets that you might otherwise miss.

    The linked article makes the claim that a stalker could use it to identify when someone is vulnerable, and push them over the edge. I suppose that's a risk, but I'd imagine that someone who's focused enough on someone to actually want them dead would be willing to actually watch their tweets manually...

  10. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I think I'll accept the judgement of a random AC on this, rather than that of a long established charity specialising in helping the depressed and suicidal. After all, how the hell would they know what depressed and suicidal people are likely to tweet?

    Shyeah.

    Perhaps some suffer in silence; perhaps some of those who tweet are attention seekers. Perhaps some who tweet really need help. Including some of the attention seekers. And even if they aren't actually planning to jump off a bridge people don't usually attention seek for no reason.

  11. No privacy issues here by drew30319 · · Score: 1
    Nothing about this app has privacy implications:
    • the data that the app reads is otherwise available to the app user
    • the app applies some level of expert-system analysis to identify potentially life-threatening issues
    • the app then alerts the app user about the potential problem
    • the app user is directed to the potentially troubling tweets for review

    The charity behind the app has now added the ability to opt-out of the above. Of course there's nothing to prevent another app / service to do all of the above because these are tweets that are still available.

    --
    JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
    1. Re:No privacy issues here by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      "ability to opt-out"

      For who? For me the twitter user whose friend thinks I need 'monitoring'? So now I have to know about and proactively opt out of any and all potential monitoring apps?

      Oh wait...I already do that. By not using twitter.

    2. Re:No privacy issues here by drew30319 · · Score: 1

      Oh wait...I already do that. By not using twitter.

      Exactly. That's why this is not a privacy problem.

      --
      JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
    3. Re:No privacy issues here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like saying, "The NSA's mass surveillance isn't a problem because you can just not use the Internet or phones." Bad logic.

      What makes this not a problem is that Twitter isn't even supposed to be private in any way, shape, or form, and it doesn't reveal anything more than what the user posted.

    4. Re:No privacy issues here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the NSA's mass surveillance isn't a problem because we're all going to die.

      Is that the kind of statement this app would be looking for?

    5. Re:No privacy issues here by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

      My point was, if I was a Twitter user, why/how am I supposed to opt-put of some random app? Indeed ALL random apps.
      If some follower of mine decides to use this, why do *I* need to opt out? Or even know about this thing.

    6. Re:No privacy issues here by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Oh, and your sig is particularly poignant here.

      "JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens."

    7. Re:No privacy issues here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the NSA only monitored people they 'friended' or 'followed', they WOULDN'T be a problem.

  12. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I respectfully disagree. I'm "truly depressed"(not a Scotsman) and responsible enough to my friends and family to keep them up to date on my mental health. My social media accounts NEVER get any posts from me, but I was having a hard time recently and there were several red flag posts to anyone paying attention. Nobody picked up on those red flags and I got the help I needed by other means. Would this app have helped someone who was more vulnerable than myself? Possibly.^1 -Which is probably why someone grieving from the loss of a loved one found peace in dedicating time and resources in it's creation. I'm sorry they weren't able to save the person they cared about. They were probably wonderful people, and maybe that death will have some meaning as a result of this app.

    1) "INB4 trolls try to push me over the edge."
    (Seriously: get a hobby! I know misery loves company but have some dignity and self-respect.)

  13. Re: Monitors those you follow not those who follow by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    This app isn't going to help much. People have posted that they were going to kill themselves, over 1000 people replied egging them on. What else could possibly go wrong? Unfortunately we'll find out.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  14. I Think I'm Gonna Kill Myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll be lucky if nobody reports you for this. In most 1st world countries posts like yours are all it takes to declare you mentally incompetent and take away your freedom. It's sort of a catch 22 which prevents people who need help from seeking it out for fear of losing control of their lives.

  15. Re:"Opportunities" for problems aren't problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Fencing around the law", or Gezeirah, is an old concept, and one well understood by the framers of the US constitution. "What might happen" was what they worried about most with regard to rights and freedoms. Protecting them by making government have to jump multiple hurdles before enacting new law was just one way they set this up.

  16. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I think I'll accept the judgement of a random AC on this, rather than that of a long established charity specialising in helping the depressed and suicidal. After all, how the hell would they know what depressed and suicidal people are likely to tweet?

    No matter how specialized they are, an app is not going to be able to automatically detect this sort of thing. Even humans have difficulty doing that.

    This isn't even at the level of soft science; this is just complete nonsense.

  17. Re:I Think I'm Gonna Kill Myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :
    Stick around for a couple of days
    What a scandal if I died

    Yeah I'm gonna kill myself
    Get a little headline news
    I'd like to see what the papers say
    On the state of teenage blues

  18. Cries for help by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    So it auto searches your twitter friends' twitter feeds (stuff they've posted for the world to see) and people think this is a privacy violation? How he fuck is this different than wget-ing and grep-ing your friends' feed?

    Yawn. Manufactured and/or Idiot's Outrage

    Exactly.

    If anything, people who are sharing their problems on twitter are broadcasting them in an attempt to get help. They may just be looking for attention or they may genuinely need help, but either way, having an app scan the feed and flag it doesn't violate their privacy.

    1. Re:Cries for help by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      So it auto searches your twitter friends' twitter feeds (stuff they've posted for the world to see) and people think this is a privacy violation? How he fuck is this different than wget-ing and grep-ing your friends' feed?

      Yawn. Manufactured and/or Idiot's Outrage

      Exactly.

      If anything, people who are sharing their problems on twitter are broadcasting them in an attempt to get help. They may just be looking for attention or they may genuinely need help, but either way, having an app scan the feed and flag it doesn't violate their privacy.

      I wonder if the app misses someone who ends up offing themselves, and the app doesn't flag them, will the app writers will be held responsible?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  19. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they're trying it, under the theory of "it's worth a shot, and it might save even a few people". I don't think anyone involved expects perfection.

    I don't think it will work, either, but I won't unreasonably malign the motives of the people who are at least trying.

  20. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they're trying it, under the theory of "it's worth a shot, and it might save even a few people". I don't think anyone involved expects perfection. I don't think it will work, either, but I won't unreasonably malign the motives of the people who are at least trying.

    I don't question their motives. But I care more about results than motives.

    The author of TFA also forgot about the other scenario involving a malicious user and a false negative. Malicious user calls 911, says the Samaritans' antisuicide app alerted him to a "friend" in need. Victim gets SWATted and malicious user has plausible deniability.

    If you're a good Samaritan (pun intended), you live in a world in which there are few malicious actors. As for the rest of us from the Internet, we're just a wee bit more jaded than that. The Samaritans mean well, but they've created an attractive nuisance that is likely to cause more harm than good.

  21. Re:Monitors those you follow not those who follow by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    According to TFA, the software monitors the twitter feeds of people you follow, not people who follow you.

    Not clear what's viewed as so oppressive about this - it doesn't gather any information you're not already getting, it just highlights certain tweets that you might otherwise miss..

    Because people shouldn't be tracked and analyzed in this manner? If every workd you posted on /. were tracked and analyzed, and the authorities showed up at your doorstep because they thought you were suicidal, or an anarchist, or some kookoo religious sect, you think that would be cool?

    All this is going to do is put a lot of teenagers in therapy, and keep them out of a lot of careers.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  22. Re:I Think I'm Gonna Kill Myself by davester666 · · Score: 3, Funny

    posting on slashdot is enough to have a person declared mentally incompetent and take away their freedom? who knew?

    was this always the case, or only post-beta?

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  23. Other Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great. I wonder if the same technology could be adapted to flag up other potential subjects such as sexual deviants or religious fanatics. This could be a major contributor to our collective safety.

  24. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Malicious user calls 911, says the Samaritans' antisuicide app alerted him to a "friend" in need. Victim gets SWATted and malicious user has plausible deniability.

    Where did that happen?

  25. Re:Monitors those you follow not those who follow by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

    But it's not the authorities doing this, it's a friend that has been alerted.

  26. it is fine, but not a great idea by dominux · · Score: 1

    The privacy thing is utterly overblown, it is a tool for users to pick out interesting bits of the tweet streams they have access to, on criteria in this instance relating to depression. It could equally look for other sentiments and trends, analysing data available to you isn't a violation of anything in particular. It also isn't a particularly good idea. I know right now who would trigger it off for me. It would keep bleeping at several people I follow who are chronically depressed and possibly suicidal, who also live thousands of miles away and don't know me well enough for me to be in any way involved in any kind of productive intervention or words. We are not friends, we are not really acquaintances, I just follow them because they sometimes tweet interesting technical stuff and they seem like interesting people. This might kinda work for people who follow geographically close friends, maybe a school or university where you follow lots of people you actually know by sight, and have a decent chance of seeing. I am just not convinced that many people use twitter like that, and are going to be able to usefully support a friend with a problem that they wouldn't notice some other way.

  27. Re:Monitors those you follow not those who follow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If every word you posted on /. were tracked and analyzed"

    Um, every word you post on /. IS tracked and analyzed. What do you think Slashdot/Google/etc does with your posts? I am really surprised that people are so ignorant of what goes on in the web.

  28. Re:Monitors those you follow not those who follow by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    But it's not the authorities doing this, it's a friend that has been alerted.

    You darn well better hope it is a friend.

    Besides, what is the friend then supposed to do?

    hint: alert the authorities

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  29. Re: Monitors those you follow not those who follow by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    That's actually a crime in the UK. Encouraging suicide or self harm can land you in jail.

    As for the app, the idea is to give you early warning signs before they get to that point. It's a kind of expert system I suppose, providing the "expertise" of the Samaritans in recognizing words and phrases that hint at people being extremely depressed. I have no idea how well it works, but I can tell you that most people have little idea what severe depression is like or how people with it behave (fortunately for them).

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  30. Re:"Opportunities" for problems aren't problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The chin of course. Balls are gross.

  31. Re:I Think I'm Gonna Kill Myself by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    It's so depressing, how nobody has any privacy anymore. Government is spying on us, corporations are spying on us, foreign nations are spying on us. This is no way to live. I mean if one more entity starts spying on me maybe I should just go and kill myself.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways