Slashdot Mirror
Snowden Documents Show How Well NSA Codebreakers Can Pry
Der Spiegel has published today an excellent summary of what some of Edward Snowden's revelations show about the difficulty (or, generally, ease) with which the NSA and collaborating intelligence services can track, decrypt, and correlate different means of online communication. An interesting slice: The NSA and its allies routinely intercept [HTTPS] connections -- by the millions. According to an NSA document, the agency intended to crack 10 million intercepted https connections a day by late 2012. The intelligence services are particularly interested in the moment when a user types his or her password. By the end of 2012, the system was supposed to be able to "detect the presence of at least 100 password based encryption applications" in each instance some 20,000 times a month.
For its part, Britain's GCHQ collects information about encryption using the TLS and SSL protocols -- the protocols https connections are encrypted with -- in a database called "FLYING PIG." The British spies produce weekly "trends reports" to catalog which services use the most SSL connections and save details about those connections. Sites like Facebook, Twitter, Hotmail, Yahoo and Apple's iCloud service top the charts, and the number of catalogued SSL connections for one week is in the many billions -- for the top 40 sites alone. ...
The NSA also has a program with which it claims it can sometimes decrypt the Secure Shell protocol (SSH). This is typically used by systems administrators to log into employees' computers remotely, largely for use in the infrastructure of businesses, core Internet routers and other similarly important systems. The NSA combines the data collected in this manner with other information to leverage access to important systems of interest.
this is truly disgusting
And there's basically nothing we can do for a long-term solution.
Some people care, and you should care, since the information can and will be used to your detriment any time there is profit in it.
Snowden did us a favor. We owe him one in return.
Bring Snowden Home
Sign it.
I'll point out that SSL is meaningless when the MITM can record it all and decrypt later, or possibly decrypt on the fly.
And HSTS is meaningless as well, so don't bother bring up that nugget.
I doubt there is any readily available encryption that can protect you at this point.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Before we all get too hysterical, from the article itself:
In other words, the NSA, GCHQ and other intelligence services are probably only able to crack badly configured or unpatched and badly out of date systems. That doesn't stop them from using out of band vulnerabilities like hacking into someone's PC or forcing some online service to open up the decrypted data, but it seems likely that if you have a well-managed cert chain and your systems are kept up to date and patched, the odds of anyone, government or otherwise, busting into your encrypted data seems pretty low.
My big fear out of all this isn't the unlikely hacking of mainstream encryption schemes, but rather that those that do use encryption may end up being targets of other methods; like malware, to get at their critical data.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So that if anyone becomes a threat, it's easy to find a law they've broken, something embarrassing about them, or whatever. For most people, it is of no consequence. But for the very few who try to rock the status quo, this'll ensure they can't.
Richelieu said, "Give me six lines written by an honest man, and I will find something in it with which to hang him." Well, this just makes sure that the six lines have been collected in advance.
#1 financial information
#2 any idea they want to steal
#3 retroactive imprisonment, yeah it's not a crime today but tomorrow it is and they have all the evidence.
Remember who they share this info with.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
It's time to stop sending keys using dumb methods. Time to start generating keys and physically swapping/installing them.
I wish it was so simple my fellow AC. Unfortunately these days not having a FB account means you are missing out in your social life. It has become the de facto for keeping in touch with friends and family.
Unfortunately these days not having a FB account means you are missing out in your social life.
No, it doesn't. For instance, you could always hang out with people not dumb enough to use Facebook, or reject 'social' nonsense. Or, you know, actually hang out with people if for some reason you actually want to be a social tool.
The authenticity of host '...' can't be established. RSA key fingerprint is .... Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)?
That's ssh letting you know that a man-in-the-middle attack could be successfully launched at you, and decrypt all your communication.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Maybe live thousands miles away from your friends and family. Maybe your friends and family do not share the same principles like you do.
Who gives a shit what they do? You think being "social" is about reading petty nonsense that they post online, and perhaps responding? I don't think that's socialization at all. If I was a "social" person, I would just do it the old fashioned way: Find some decent people to hang out with in real life. If my family lived too far away, too fucking bad; I don't need to know about them. Maybe you could even occasionally use something called a phone or send a letter. No, that's simply impossible; you need to know every thought that pops into their heads.
Like it or not social networking is an amazing way to keep in touch and follow peoples life.
That's worthless, especially for actual nerds. And all you'll get is useless information.
It seems that too many people readily sacrifice everything for convenience.
Move on to what? Being complicit in spying? Being ok with it? Kissing goodbye to any shred of democracy left?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I am the AC that posted child to the post referred to as "parent" in the post that is parent to this post.
I am glad to know you care. The "you" in my post was intended to be ambiguous as to whether it referred to you specifically or whoever was reading the post. But text as a form of communication always leaves a bit to the imagination.
I just hope that my post gets modded up enough that people actually read it, as the petition is close to completion, and I can only sign it once myself. I am sad that the American public has drug its feet so badly on protecting the interests of someone that made such sacrifice on their behalf.
Oh, shut up already. Not everyone is a 45-year-old neckbeard troll living in their mom's basement with greasy Doritos hands and Mountain Dew stains on their shirts. I know and like my friends since before they joined Facebook. It's outrageously unreasonable to suggest that I ditch them now because they have an account on a website. Surely they don't expect them to judge me on having an account on /.
Facebook allows us to communicate on some aspects of our lives, perhaps today most commonly through sharing pictures, much as people used to do with postcards and snail mail. It isn't meant to replace face-to-face conversations. There may be something to be said about people who exclusively rely on Facebook, or who share TMI. But instead of ranting aimlessly like an old fart, I just unsubscribe to their feed.
Not everyone can afford or is willing to end friendships based on social network memberships. Facebook's success in particular and the emergence of so many networks in general are evidences to that. Your dogmatic view on social relationships is neither correct nor necessary nor relevant nor required.
Unfortunately these days not having a FB account means you are missing out in your social life. It has become the de facto for keeping in touch with friends and family.
The above is utter bullshit.
I have friends in five different countries and none of us use Facebook.
I maintain contact with my family using communications which have nothing
to do with Facebook.
Not everyone is as stupid as you so obviously are ( making blanket statements
which claim that Facebook is somehow necessary for having a social life is proof
of your stupidity ).
You sound like a real joy to spend time with.
Facebook is intolerable to anyone with actual principles. That's just a fact. Maybe having principles isn't popular, but then again, I don't really want to hang out with people who use Facebook anyway.
If you love to be an extremely social fool (and I don't, personally), then there are plenty of options besides Facebook, which I've already mentioned.
#1 financial information
#2 any idea they want to steal
#3 retroactive imprisonment, yeah it's not a crime today but tomorrow it is and they have all the evidence.
Remember who they share this info with.
That is actually just the start. I'll be happy to give some more examples:
1: A DA going on a fishing expedition. That data, plus parallel construction, plus civil asset forfeiture ensures that they will have a packed jail and prison system, ensuring the campaign donations from private prison corporations keep on coming. Remember: 48 states have signed an agreement with Corrections Corporations of America to keep their jails at 90% bed space or else face fines hourly.
2: Lawsuits. People may have forgotten the MPAA and RIAA lawsuits, suing people for millions. It wouldn't take much for copyright law to be amended, forcing people to have to "prove" ownership of IP, just as businesses have to cough up proof when the BSA guy comes around, or else the BSA guy will be back with the constable and lawyers with a motion of discovery. Even the mention of "hey, dude, listen to this band!" that is logged, may be enough to get a IP infringement lawsuit going. Don't forget libel and slander lawsuits. It wouldn't take much for a lawyer to go through, say Slashdot's postings, and file hundreds of thousands of lawsuits on anyone bashing Sony.
3: Other country's laws. People don't realize it in the US that Thailand's lese majeste laws apply here? Well, they do, and an American can get shipped over there for breaking them, due to extradition treaties. Same with Turkey and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In theory, someone handing out events for their pagan festival or church bulletins can be shipped over there to be executed, due to violating Islamic sharia laws. Privacy is important, since it isn't just domestic LEOs, but LEOs of foreign countries who can press charges and have US citizens answer for them. Right now, it tends not to be enforced, but the laws are on the books, and the pastor who was televised burning a Koran might find himself in Riyadh facing an imam and a crowd with rocks and a can of gasoline.
4: Laws created by treaties. The gun nuts fear the UN gun ban treaty that went into in effect last Christmas Eve. It wasn't ratified in the US... but that can change, and even though it didn't affect gun sales inside the US... it had a clause saying that UN could act as an enforcement agency within the US, operating independently from other LEOs. Now, think about this a minute. A law enforcement group with the power to use deadly force and enforce laws that were never put on the books by domestic lawmakers, with no way to contest their decisions. It might be something 3 percenters talk about now on talk radio... but do people remember how close ACTA came to being passed? It wouldn't be surprising to see another law like this come on the books under "anti-hacking statues" that would allow the UN to detain "hackers" under their own law, and under their own opinion.
5: Ex wifes/husbands. An acquaintance of mine lives in California, had a bad marriage, with the wife divorcing him for someone richer. Well, she had a good attorney (courtesy her new BF), and got a pretty insane alimony settlement. Well, the husband was out of work at the time, couldn't pay the payments... so the judge tossed him in for nonpayment for six months. He got out after that, two years later, was back in (as in California, unemployment isn't a good enough reason to not pay alimony costs.) Well, this shit went on for about two years, until this guy, once he got released, booked it to Mexico. Now, the ex wife is offering a bounty for anyone to find him and bring him to "justice". Not that she needs the money, but just out of pure malice. Without privacy, people who just had a bad relationship with a sadistic other can be killed.
6: Insurance companies. I've read cases on Slashdot where people have walked into a humidor at a Spec's, someone takes a
Oh, shut up already.
No. Facebook is an awful company and no one should deal with them. Giving your information to such a company only ensures it will be abused.
It's outrageously unreasonable to suggest that I ditch them now because they have an account on a website.
You don't need to ditch them, but at least don't follow them in getting a Facebook account unless you want to join them in being unprincipled ignoramuses who sacrifice massive amounts of privacy for convenience.
Surely they don't expect them to judge me on having an account on /.
Is Slashdot evil like Facebook? No. Facebook is designed to violate people's privacy and sell information to advertisers.
The company I work for asks me to change my password every month, so I am safe. Right?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
... but then again, I don't really want to hang out with people who use Facebook anyway.
If you love to be an extremely social fool (and I don't, personally), then there are plenty of options besides Facebook, which I've already mentioned.
LOL what?
If you reject people with facebook and similar stuff and people don't share your principles, you've just rejected 99.9% of the human population. You must be a very lonely boy.
For those of us 'extremely social' people who you know actually have a few friends and get along with acquaintances, we can't go scorched earth on everyone.
It's not that we're not tempted, it's that the cost benefit analysis of a scorched earth policy sucks donkey balls. No matter how you slice it, being a shut-in is very sad.
Liberty.
those protocols or programs have a major rating (major according to the article means impossible unless someone made a mistake or malware was used)
OTR
TrueCrypt
those protocols have a catastrophic rating (catastrophic for the NSA is a win for US)
ZRTP
PGP
about the SSH thing, it all depend on the cipher used, if you use ssh with a MD2-DES cypher expect it to be decrypted
if you use something like twofish or salsa20 your probably quite secure
If you don't like FB there are alternatives out there. Just saying...
I couldn't agree more. FB is joyless. I've moved around the world a fair bit, and I've friends and family "thousands of miles away" who I don't need to communicate with on a day to day basis and read the minute of their lives. What do you talk about when you do get together?
Also, everyone does the same stuff anyway. Get together with someone, have kids, get married, buy a house, hop jobs. It could be anyones partner/kids/house, how would I even know? Until you're actually seeing them, it does not impact you, so you may as well keep the surprise.
It is not in the best interest of Mr. Snowden to re-enter the United States. He can be at his most effective and most free outside of U.S. possessions and territories, and any country with an extradition treaty with the U.S. Even with a presidential pardon his life Stateside would not be easy.
On the other hand, if Bill Clinton can pardon Mark Rich, then Barack Obama can pardon Edward Snowden. It would be a great litmus test for the 2016 presidential candidates.
"Lonely" implies that you feel sad due to a lack of interaction with others. That's not accurate for a lot of people.
For those of us 'extremely social' people who you know actually have a few friends and get along with acquaintances, we can't go scorched earth on everyone.
Then just don't use a Facebook account if you don't want to go that far.
No matter how you slice it, being a shut-in is very sad.
What is and is not sad is completely subjective, so no. And I reject the notion that you can't find people who don't use Facebook; others participating in this discussion have said as much.
Bwahahahahaaaa! What an utter crock of shit! My fellow AC, you should try and spout that sort of horseshit in my local pub, where my friends and family meet and drink. You'd be laughed out of the establishment. We all *loathe* fecesbook with a passion, and we all have a very healthy and happy social life. We prefer actual reality to virtual reality any day of the week. And for those friends and family who are far away, well, I don't want to worry your shareholders, my fellow AC and obvious fecesbook shill, but we have email and other forms of communication for that.
"It has become the de facto for keeping in touch"
It has become the de facto WHAT for keeping in touch? De facto malware? De facto spyware?
Facebook will wither into insignificance just as myspace did. Hopefully it will not take too long to do so.
I'm sure you would think that of anything as long as it grows so big it becomes mainstream.
Popular or unpopular, evil is evil to me, so your confidence is misplaced.
every action taken by Big Corp is justifiable and reasonable.
I think about the larger picture, not necessarily about individuals, so again, no.
Thanks for the list. This is a good counter to the people who say "if you aren't doing something wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
"Facebook will wither into insignificance" only to be replaced by something else. It's up to us to make sure it will be replace by something "better".
If you reject people with facebook and similar stuff and people don't share your principles, you've just rejected 99.9% of the human population
99.9?? Seriously? You, sir or madam, are someone who knows nothing about the actual statistics, or a shill, or a fuckwit. 99.9 percent. Hah!
In my busy local pub, the group with whom I am closest all strongly dislike facebook. I have other friends in the pub who do use facebook, and good luck to them, but I find I get along better with the people who simply ignore 'social' online bollocks. We have more in common. And we are not a small group within that pub.
Other country's laws. People don't realize it in the US that Thailand's lese majeste laws apply here? Well, they do, and an American can get shipped over there for breaking them, due to extradition treaties.
Extradition almost exclusively applies to to laws in other countries that would be also be considered criminal in the USA. Kill someone in Thailand, well murder is criminal in the USA, so they'll extradite you. Slander someone, well, that's not criminal in the USA, so you're safe. The USA also will not extradite if they think the punishment may be considered "extreme".
assuming human population being at 7b, rejecting 99.9% means you still (can) socialize with .1% which is 7m. Pretty social or?
Why so aggressive. There are social people. Then there are owners of super male brain. Then there are sociopaths, or just simple assholes etc. There is very small chance that the social people will ever understand what super male brain actually means. I know because I tried to explain it to my mom, my concerned friends etc. Some people like me because I am good at discussing things (I suppose). All my relationships ended badly which made me research(!) and the result was exactly this. I am maybe not very intelligent but then I am not very social either. I still can hold to few friends that accept that I need some distance and ask nicely from time to time how is it going and then accept complex answer that they get (I guess some of them have the same problem as I do). Keeping a distance is a key not be become a major asshole which works well but not with women.
Ease up a bit - let it go. Some people do not need cuddling and talking about weather. For them discussion about some technical matter instead of weather is very social even if done over IM. It is also better if you talk to them in a way that they can understand i.e. certain procedures of social interaction make chances of professional and date success higher, some not. Please quote relevant statistics and reports.
... but then again, I don't really want to hang out with people who use Facebook anyway.
If you love to be an extremely social fool (and I don't, personally), then there are plenty of options besides Facebook, which I've already mentioned.
LOL what?
If you reject people with facebook and similar stuff and people don't share your principles, you've just rejected 99.9% of the human population. You must be a very lonely boy.
For those of us 'extremely social' people who you know actually have a few friends and get along with acquaintances, we can't go scorched earth on everyone.
It's not that we're not tempted, it's that the cost benefit analysis of a scorched earth policy sucks donkey balls. No matter how you slice it, being a shut-in is very sad.
Eh?? 99.9% of the human population?? In which parallel universe do you live where all but 0.01% of the population is a hopeless Facebook junky? I can't possibly be the only person outside of stone age communities in places like the deep Amazon jungle or the great Namib desert who manages to make friends without involving Facebook?!? You don't have to be a bitter bomb making, manifesto writing recluse to be irritated by the sort people who can't seem to interact with the rest of humanity unless they do it though E-mail, chat programs, SMS, Facebook, a Bluetooth headset, Twitter, Google+ or something similar...
That's just a fact.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. That's an opinion.
Facebook is intolerable to anyone with actual principles.
"Actual" principles being the principles that you hold, and no one else's principles being "actual", No True Scotsman style.
Social networking is an option for socialization. Almost no one uses it to the exclusion of more traditional social activities, although I agree that Internet socialization is a mere shadow of in-person socialization.
You've either got an oversimplified black-and-white view of the world, or you're just getting a kick out of trolling everyone. Either way, I hope it works out for you. The way I'm living my life is working out wonderfully for me, in spite of our differences of opinion.
You can continue being all "stop liking what I don't like!" I'm gonna get back to talking to my friends and spending time with my wife.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
You could tie 1 and 2 together, keep the prisons and work camps full with "pirates".
Hell.. they are probably reading this and gleefully rubbing their hands together at the idea.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Being "social" is all about interacting. If you don't interact, you're not social and may as well not be a human. Until humans figure out a way to reproduce asexually, we'll need to interact. Even asexual organisms are still social because there is safety in numbers. I guess what I'm saying is that what others are doing is logical, you're the illogical one. Don't be so eager to pass judgement.
The article mentions:
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
LOL what indeed. Even in my little town of 8000 people, .1% of the population gives me plenty of people to regularly interact with. People that I might want to interact with. Of course, YMMV and if you think happiness revolves around Facebook (or Slashdot or whatever) then good for you.
I personally don't like all that many folks on my lawn.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
If you reject people with facebook and similar stuff and people don't share your principles, you've just rejected 99.9% of the human population.
You say this like it's a bad thing?
No, not really. Especially considering the article.
"This is just a fact". hmm. classic weasel words.
"classic weasel words". Hmm. Classic weasel words.
would you care to share which principles everyone must share that are violated by having a fb account?
It almost always comes at the cost of trading privacy for convenience, and enabling Facebook's privacy-invading behavior.
you have posted nothing so far that i can see could argue for your opinion.
Facebook's policies are well-known. If you don't know about them, then get out of your cave.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
It means exactly what I think it means.
"Actual" principles being the principles that you hold, and no one else's principles being "actual", No True Scotsman style.
I don't consider sacrificing privacy for convenience to such a degree and enabling Facebook's behavior by using it to be a very principles move.
or you're just getting a kick out of trolling everyone.
Erm... I would hope that my opinion wouldn't anger anyone on a website for nerds like Slashdot. My opinion should be nearly universal given all the unethical things that Facebook does, and considering the nature of social networking trash.
Being "social" is all about interacting. If you don't interact, you're not social and may as well not be a human.
Not much real interaction from Facebook, and certainly not of the sexual variety. Also, individuals are social to varying degrees.
Until humans figure out a way to reproduce asexually, we'll need to interact.
I guarantee you that the human race could survive without Facebook. You used the more general term "interacting," but the topic is about Facebook, so nice try.
I guess what I'm saying is that what others are doing is logical, you're the illogical one.
Incorrect. I'm only illogical if I'm violating my own principles, which I am not. There is nothing inherently logical about desiring to live, and nothing inherently illogical about desiring the opposite. Not that I do, since you rather missed the point of all these comments, but your statement itself was so illogical that I couldn't overlook it.
No, using Facebook isn't inherently logical or necessary. It certainly isn't principled, and giving an unethical company like Facebook attention is just enabling its behavior.
I'm British but I live in Spain. Should I not know what is going on in the lives of people in the UK? Or get them to e-mail me everything? Or convince them all to sign up for a service I consider to be 'better'?
I don't consider sacrificing privacy for convenience to such a degree and enabling Facebook's behavior by using it to be a very principles move.
To which degree? Providing a fake name, birthdate, and other information, blocking image tags, and posting untagged text information? I suppose that they can extract a fair amount of info about me from information that my friends post, but if I didn't have an account, Facebook has algorithms that would infer most of those connections anyhow.
Facebook is a tool that encourages incorrect use. Kind of like a bank, or a credit card. Still, I enjoy the conveniences of direct-deposited paychecks, not carrying around the amounts of cash that would encourage the police to seize it, and paying for things that are difficult to get by cash. Facebook has less utility than a credit card, of course. Therefore, they have less information about me. Although they've done things that I consider annoying, I haven't actually been harmed in a way that I can measure. Part of that is because I haven't given them sufficient leverage to do so.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
3: Other country's laws. People don't realize it in the US that Thailand's lese majeste laws apply here? Well, they do, and an American can get shipped over there for breaking them, due to extradition treaties. Same with Turkey and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In theory, someone handing out events for their pagan festival or church bulletins can be shipped over there to be executed, due to violating Islamic sharia laws. Privacy is important, since it isn't just domestic LEOs, but LEOs of foreign countries who can press charges and have US citizens answer for them. Right now, it tends not to be enforced, but the laws are on the books, and the pastor who was televised burning a Koran might find himself in Riyadh facing an imam and a crowd with rocks and a can of gasoline.
Errrr, no, that's totally wrong. Where did you learn this stuff?
If you commit an illegal activity in Thailand, and then enter the United States, there is a chance that the US could return you to Thailand. If you do something that is illegal in Thailand but not illegal in the United States in the United Staes, then it does not matter at all. Only US law applies to acts committed in the US.
I don't know where you learned your understanding of extradition laws, but this is so far out in right field. Maybe you should lay off the internet conspiracy crack for a while.
Seriously, learn a few things about extradition. It only applies to crimes committed in the country trying to get their hands on the person.
To which degree? Providing a fake name, birthdate, and other information, blocking image tags, and posting untagged text information?
By even using Facebook, you grant their service legitimacy, and enable (albeit only slightly, but change has to start somewhere) their unethical behavior. You mention algorithms that Facebook uses to infer connections, which is yet another evil.
IT's not about missing out on the social life. If you don't have FB, then FB isn't bound by their TOS for how they handle your information, and they are collecting information on you. Your friends can tag you and you'll be in pictures, but have no ownership or say in how your information is treated or used, unless there are law changes, or you sign up for your own account.
Learn to love Alaska
Yeah, except nearly all of my high school classmates have an account, and have posted prom and group pictures with people in them that don't have accounts. And what about family? Not a single family member has an account? I don't believe you. There are plenty of grandmas with accounts these days.
Learn to love Alaska
Facebook is intolerable to anyone with actual principles.
And let me guess, "actual" principles means "exactly my" principles, right?
Learn to love Alaska
It means that I don't believe sacrificing privacy to a greedy company that has shown itself to be wildly unethical for convenience and/or enabling it by using the service is a very principled move.
Say, I further "encrypt" my https sessions using ROT13. If NSA is on to me specifically, they will have no problem figuring it out. But if they opportunistically monitor main internet pipes for vulnerable traffic, I should be safe. What if web browsers encrypted data with one of hundreds of algorithms independently developed by smart people worldwide *before* standard https? At least some of them will prove resistent to cryptanalysis and even vulnerable ones will consume some of NSA's computing power and employee time to crack.
So does that list include Wal-Mart, Sony, Ford, GM, Chrysler, MS, and countless others, or are you just anti-facebook and not principled?
Learn to love Alaska
While there will be a certain amount of collateral damage, Facebook users ultimately control what they post, and that is where they can manage what they reveal in on-line surveillance. Admittedly recent tracking methods linking Amazon purchases to Facebook feeds are getting really creepy, but it would be hard for the NSA to have anything suspicious about me considering I post pictures of my kids and a few inoffensive jokes (not that there is anything suspicious).
One observation on this thread, the percentage of ACs are much higher than normal.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
It includes many, where it is actually viable. It's trivial to avoid Facebook (and I would say the ones you listed, too) despite excuses of peer pressure or not knowing how else to communicate.
While there will be a certain amount of collateral damage, Facebook users ultimately control what they post, and that is where they can manage what they reveal in on-line surveillance.
But they don't ultimately control what Facebook does with the data they have, which is to use it in privacy-violating ways. You shouldn't legitimize an unethical service by using it.
Admittedly recent tracking methods linking Amazon purchases to Facebook feeds are getting really creepy, but it would be hard for the NSA to have anything suspicious about me considering I post pictures of my kids and a few inoffensive jokes (not that there is anything suspicious).
Are you under the delusion that they need anything "suspicious" to flag you? You can get in trouble just by making a joke or using sarcasm that the authorities don't understand. It's not only malice that you must watch out for, but incompetence too. In addition, if you happen to post anything disagreeable, they could flag you and conduct surveillance on you more closely. Better hope you don't make any 'mistakes' (including posting something considered taboo or possibly illegal).
How do you avoid facebook when any picture posted of you makes a stealth profile? You have more rights and "power" as a user, than a non-user-datapoint. So avoiding it is worse than accepting it.
Learn to love Alaska
You sound autistic.
I don't know a better way to describe it. I get why people use social networks to keep in touch, and "too fucking bad" is not something that normal, social people would say.
Keep in mind that, since at least the agrarian revolution, it has been a beneficial trait to give at least one, admittedly estimated, tenth of a damn, about what other people think and why they think it.
As a privacy advocate I agree with your sentiment. But your reasoning is flawed, and your understanding destructively so.
You sound autistic.
You sound like an Internet psychologist.
Keep in mind that, since at least the agrarian revolution, it has been a beneficial trait to give at least one, admittedly estimated, tenth of a damn, about what other people think and why they think it.
Giving a damn about important events != needing to read their every worthless thought on Facebook. There are many, many alternatives to Facebook (email, blogs, phone, letters, etc.). People were fine before Facebook and such existed, and they'll be fine now.
More importantly, privacy is what matters. "too fucking bad" is an appropriate response.
But your reasoning is flawed, and your understanding destructively so.
My reasoning (Facebook is unethical and therefore you shouldn't use it) is not flawed, and I understand why people use Facebook, but privacy is more important.
How do you avoid facebook when any picture posted of you makes a stealth profile?
Assuming that happens to you, it's still no reason to get an account and likely give them even more information. And with how these unethical companies act, the TOS means very little.
So avoiding it is worse than accepting it.
Accepting it gives the appearance that the service is legitimate and that using it is inevitable, and that's something I am not willing to do.
Until Snowden and his co-conspirators are brought to a US court of law, this means nothing. It's (at best) a Schrodinger's Unauthorized Disclosure.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Is this the same as paying wait staff $2.13 an hour plus tips or face fines hourly in the form of minimum wage? If not, specify.
Actually, I've had a Facebook account for years and I use it regularly.
Of course I'm well aware that they sift through all of my information and try to resell it. But IMO, it's a pretty well understood trade, and one that I don't have a big problem with. The fact remains, Facebook will only have the information that I willingly provide by way of posting it up there or filling out fields on the site. And meanwhile, they're enabling ME to obtain information on all of my friends and other online connections too.
I don't share or say anything on FB that I'm not already comfortable sharing with other people, so it's not like huge secrets are being revealed. Things I do get out of Facebook include using local buy/sell/trade type groups that people have set up (no fees to post listings or fees owed to the site operator upon successful sales) and special interest groups, such as one for one of the cars I own.
I've also been able to keep in touch with a number of old friends who I probably wouldn't keep up with otherwise, after moving. (And let's face it... that's primarily because there's nothing critical or earth-shattering to be gained by keeping up with these people's daily lives when you don't even live in the same city as them anymore. But when it's free and as easy as checking in on FB, it makes for a mildly enjoyable way to kill some time while better preserving those old friendships. You never know when you're going to visit a place you used to live, and it's nice not to do so without having to wonder if those people you "used to know" still live at the same address, etc.)
If Facebook does nothing for you, great. Don't use it! But I see so much bashing of the site that I think is unwarranted. Did FB ever so much as beg for donations from you to keep it operational, or limit how much time you could spend using it each month or day? Nope! And yet, you're even free to create new groups (even closed, private ones) without owing a dime. IMO, there's a lot of value to be wrung out of using the site -- despite knowing they're trying to cull value out of the content you put out there.
> Thanks for the list. This is a good counter to the people who say "if you aren't doing something wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Here's an example everybody can understand: That time when the FBI tried to blackmail MLK Jr with sex tapes they secretly recorded of him. Just because most of us are unimportant in the grand scheme of things doesn't mean the occasional person who can change society won't be victimized in order to hurt us all.
I see a lot of similar comments, but I liked yours so I'll address the themes here.
First, facebook is not the only problem. You're kidding yourself if you think it is. The list of technology companies that sucker their users are as long as the list of technology companies that sell 'the cloud'. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft etc.
Worse than this, the evil is not marketing. The real evil is the secret pact between the tech companies and the government's monopoly on the initiation of force, for the benefit of a minority of oligarch families. The elite's technology branch
The real evil is the patriot act, the capture of government, the capture of industry and the subversion of the constitution. All tech companies are a part of this, most willingly, some unwillingly or unwittingly and the only honest ones are forced to shut down.
The capture of the government and industry is nothing new, but it reached tremendous success in the 20th century. First they captured the congress and the judicial, then the executive, then the monetary system and then they really captured the executive with the JFK assassination. Don't forget where some of the recent oligarchs originated.
Do you see it yet? if you rule out the vast majority of the population based on internet usage, you're out of whack. Firstly because that's not the real problem.
Also, you might have MUCH MORE in common with someone who uises fb daily than on someone who doesn't, based on your OTHER principles and virtues.
It's like saying, "I'll only hang out with people who are atheists.". That's not enough. In 10 years time that could still be all you have in common. Or they could change their minds.
Finally I would just like to remind people that not only is the USA responsible for millions of deaths around the world, it now tortures people.
If you refuse to interact with people who support these acts, how will you ever change their minds?
Oh and just for good measure. A fucking surveillance blimp. The internet of things is coming to spy on you from the sky 24/7. Is it not enough that you've captured the mass media? If you were to only hang out with people who share all your principles or most important beliefs, you would not hang out with anyone.
Furthermore, having intelligent debate with people who disagree with you (and are virtuous enough to have an intelligent debate) is the only way that you can make any sort of real progress in self discovery and discovery of the universe. If your ideas an principles are not challenged, if you don't go back to first principles to figure what what's really important, if you don't re-assess your beliefs in the face of new evidence, you'll never improve.
Liberty.
Too bad that the only option is Facebook.
Actually, that's not true. It's because of people like you that distributed/non-commercial social networks don't make much headway.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
You should be allowed to care
my gf doesn't have a Facebook account and she's a hullava lot more social than me.
I only use Facebook for sharing holiday snaps and agreeing to meet up once in a while. nothing really social about that.
What does he need a pardon for? He's done nothing to require one. What he needs is a big shiny medal - the sort that says "you done a good thing there, thank you" and a great big "anybody touches him is in a whole truckload of trouble" award.
Yet another digital fortress!!!
http://popularbloggingtopics.c...
Hurray, let's dehumanize the likes of the schizotypal!
Rejecting people who disagree with you is a bad thing. Taken to an extreme, you have Kim Jong *. But even in normal western society, just because someone doesn't match 100% with what you believe doesn't make them a bad person, or not worth your time. Maybe there are intelligent people who have come to *their* set of opinions and principles because they grew up in a different environment, or have different priorities. Maybe some of these people can challenge your set of principles; maybe you can change their mind on a few things, maybe they can change yours.
Without the possibility of that back and forth, you end up with Congress.
-- My Sig is a P228.
So "what is and is not sad" is subjective, yet what is "intolerable to anyone with principles" is just a fact.
I see.
-- My Sig is a P228.
Isn't there a law that makes threatening the POTUS a crime/felony?
One could argue that slandering the King of Thailand is like threatening the POTUS. Boom, you're on a plane to Bangkok for an unforgettable holiday...
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Sign it.
And what will signing it do ? I've yet to see a petition actually change anything. Even officially sanctioned "we the people" petitions only trigger nicely written reports and possibly reminders of the changes they already planned or done before the petition.
What if might do is help the government refine their algorithms monitoring public opinion. And there is a very small chance that by signing the petition, they may consider clemency as a move that will get them more votes. It may also have the opposite effect : they may notice that very few of a class of people they thought were pro-Snowden signed the petition.
What Snowden revealed is that, as suspected, the government already knows a lot of things about you, and it includes your opinion about all this affair. And to be clear, the "you" I am talking about is not you personally, it is "you" as part of the voting population : they don't need 100% accuracy about a person as long as the errors balance out when the numbers are added up.
But IMO, it's a pretty well understood trade, and one that I don't have a big problem with.
Okay, then, we're done. Good job enabling their unethical behavior.
I would think that intelligent people would care more about privacy and ethics, is all, especially on a site supposedly for nerds.
First, facebook is not the only problem. You're kidding yourself if you think it is. The list of technology companies that sucker their users are as long as the list of technology companies that sell 'the cloud'. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft etc.
Of course it's not the only evil. Don't deal with any of those companies, either.
Worse than this, the evil is not marketing. The real evil is the secret pact between the tech companies and the government's monopoly on the initiation of force, for the benefit of a minority of oligarch families.
Facebook's evil does not stop at mere marketing, though those practices are something I'm definitely against.
Do you see it yet? if you rule out the vast majority of the population based on internet usage, you're out of whack.
"rule them out"? What you can do is try to cure their ignorance.
I would venture to say most users here care very much.
But you're right, the average household tumblr/facebook/instagram/imgur/twitter teen or soccer mom won't really care, as long as they still get attention. I suspect the Internet, to a lot of people, is the easy road to their 15 minutes of fame.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Can I drink with you?
None I've really found viable or as popular, unfortunately. Which is a shame, because I hate Facebook's godawful interface. They change it around often enough to probably dissuade people from setting better privacy controls, and getting to the right menu or setting you want is anything but clear or intuitive. It could be so much better. It'd also be nice if you had more control over who saw your comments to another's post, but nope. I even hate the fact that whenever I change my profile pic, it has to announce it on my wall. OMG who cares? Supposedly you can change who sees that, but again, it's murky waters.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
In Business you have an ethical race to the bottom. Those who ignore morality do better than those who don't. Therefore the most popular/used/successful businesses will always be the most immoral ones.
If you insult the King of Whateverstan on the internet, then your post happens in that country. It's just like going there for a visit and publicly insulting their king. The USA used exactly that argument to arrest some guy from England for hacking, and the former president of Panama was extradited to the USA for breaking American drug laws (done remotely).
Great list! People can be really clueless about how information can be used against them.
As one more example, consider something as mundane as buying a new car. Your browsing habits could reveal (1) how badly you want a particular car, (2) how much you've looked at competing cars/dealerships, (3) how much pricing research you've done (KBB, NADA, etc.), (4) your intentions w.r.t. a trade-in, and (5) hints as to your disposable income. That's tactical knowledge that could cost you thousands of dollars in the hands of a savvy salesman.
As others have pointed out, you aren't going to be extradited for Thailand's lese majeste laws. However, it could be a problem if you ever want to travel there. Or if your plane is forced to make an emergency landing there.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Oh exactly. I don't use Facebook, mind you I'm a geek, an only child, quite old and I can do without a lot of superficial non-communication. I talk to my friends and have dinner with them, once or twice a week in meatspace. There's probably a camera in my curry, isn't there? Just a joke.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
But they don't ultimately control what Facebook does with the data they have, which is to use it in privacy-violating ways. You shouldn't legitimize an unethical service by using it.
Are you under the delusion that they need anything "suspicious" to flag you? You can get in trouble just by making a joke or using sarcasm that the authorities don't understand. It's not only malice that you must watch out for, but incompetence too. In addition, if you happen to post anything disagreeable, they could flag you and conduct surveillance on you more closely. Better hope you don't make any 'mistakes' (including posting something considered taboo or possibly illegal).
I've seen Brazil.
I don't see Facebook as a binary 'good/evil' service. Much of it is useful, and a lot of their monetization strategies are unethical, but they are the conduit, not the source of the problem. Frankly, I worry more about my usenet history than I do Facebook. The source of the problem is the permanent archive of every keystroke, and this belief that every thought is indicative of intent.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Well, not exactly.. WHat he did was noble, a breath of fresh air, and I think, considering the lifelong threat on his life from now on, pretty brave. It was, however, also treason, Just like the treason the nation's founders committed during the war for independance. I'm not sure BO *can* even pardon him, although, frankly, he's guilty of far worse treason against the nation than Snowden, for his , totally selfish, actions weren't intended to uphold the constitution, but bypass it. Or dismantle it altogether, in some instances. Perhaps he ought to pardon himself, except he really doesn't deserve it. In any case, as I implied earlier, I do not know if it is possible to pardon someone for treason at all.
And people think hackers are that stupid to carry out these recent attacks. It's the NSA stupid! It's a way to manufacture consent through the populace so they can pass internet controls in the form of regurgitated bills formerly know as PIPA and SOPA!
I don't see Facebook as a binary 'good/evil' service.
They have too many unethical practices to be worth using.
Much of it is useful
Only if you consider lots and lots of useless, mundane information to be useful, and don't know of any alternatives (phones, email, voice chat, and pretty much any method of communication).
but they are the conduit, not the source of the problem
They are the source of many problems.
Frankly, I worry more about my usenet history than I do Facebook.
I worry about the NSA more than I do Facebook, but that doesn't mean Facebook and their ilk aren't a problem. I just don't use it.
I use facebook strictly because it's the only way I can keep communication with people.
How can anyone be so ignorant as to suggest that Facebook is the only method of communication? It's not even the only method of long-distance communication. Not that it's even important to hear all of someone's mundane thoughts anyway.
I would expect Slashdotters to be smarter than this; come on.
If I didn't use things because of something they did, I'd be locked in a cardboard box behind a goodwill.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
You are WHITEWASHING them. NSA+GCHQ are interested in the latest "emissions" of humans. The TEXT of your emails, you SMSs, the transcription of your phone, skype conversations. The TEXT you type into FarceBook. And SURE AS HELL, they have the storage capacity to record every single soul on this planet. Do the maths and you will figure. Most people do not generate more than 10kBytes of text per day. All that TEXT is then stored in a Google-esque Data Mart and ready to be queried and minded - just like you query the google index. That TEXT can be fed into AI systems in order to do all sorts of stuff. Like predicting who will be the next president or whether the plebs like your Next New War. And they can store this TEXT FOREVER. DO the math. What they can do, they will. It can be used as KOMPROMAT AS LONG AS YOU LIVE. And as long as you allow yourself to be intimdated by that, of course. They are running an ELECTRIC CHECKA, just without widespread torture and killing of their compatriots. Wait for that to happen, because they have already accustomed themselves to that during the 9/11 craze FOR THE WAR INDUSTRY.
...they have some built-in stuff, which (just as one example) works like this: You browse with your FreeBSD user "mike" to slashdot.org. They intercept traffic and insert a nice little exploit for FF. The exploit will run with FF privileges and exfiltrate the ssh key to NSA. This works on 99% of users. The 1% of the rest will be had by other means, some of which might reside in the kernel and/or the CPU itself. How difficult is it to insert a crack developer into a FOSS project in order to lay some easter eggs ? How difficult is it to insert a crack EE into Intel ? With the SSL crappile they have done it to the standard and major implementations themselves. Simply too complex to do properly.
I think the more relevant quote would be this..."There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." Atlas Shrugged.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
"Evil" is a very loaded word, and I wouldn't include data-mining under that label. As far as censorship goes, I think you've got to look at their motivation. Is it their intent to suppress speech? No, it's their intent to play a sophisticated game of "Cover Your Ass".
Want to make a real change? Build up a social network where all income comes through subscription fees rather than advertising and selling information. Don't be a citizen of a country that will require you to put backdoors into the network, and don't host any part of it in such a country. Build it so that it provides every functional benefit that Facebook has, without any of the drawbacks. Until you've got a workable alternative, people will continue using what works for them. You don't find the price acceptable, and neither does Stallman (no surprise there), but the herd won't follow until it's made clear to every one of them exactly what they're paying, and to whom...*and* you get a critical mass of users to move to something else.
You can rail against something that you don't like as much as you want, but it's not going to do any practical good.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
You can rail against something that you don't like as much as you want, but it's not going to do any practical good.
I'm not only railing against it, I'm *not using it*. Facebook to me is useless and harmful, and the company is unethical.
Building an alternative would be a noble goal, but I don't care about 'social networking.' But there is a deeper problem: The willingness to sacrifice your privacy and ignore unethical decisions by companies for the sake of convenience. As long as the willingness to make these tradeoffs exists, we will continue to end up with things like Facebook, and also things like the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, and the numerous other things that violate our privacy and constitution. The problem is that people are not principled when it comes to liberty or privacy.
You don't care about social networking, but you care about what you consider to be others' unprincipled actions. A tool is a tool...you don't care about the tool itself, you care about the results that it gets you. If starting a social network that you'd consider "principled" would fix everyone else's behavior, then that's the tool that you'd use. It doesn't matter that you "don't care" about social networking, because a great mass of other people do.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I've noticed a disturbing trend over the last few months from commenters on various forums to first make a point opposing the previous comment then top it off with a personal dig. I foresee an interesting 2015 as people spend more time throwing insults, epithets and derision than actually making a point.
My point about not needing a pardon is that Snowden didn't give information to the enemy - he told the world. According to the way the intelligence & military communities are portrayed in the released documents that means *us*. All of us, be it communist, capitalist or just plain don't give a fuck. I don't consider myself an enemy and I'm pretty sure you aren't as you've done me no harm. The real enemy is the intelligence & military community. Remove them - and their paranoia and lust for secrecy & big shiny toys that go boom - from the scene (and the religious zealots, etc, etc) and the world might be a slightly better place.
And I'm teetotal. What's your excuse?
Hopefully, that it will happen when ISP's are prodded into letting non-business accts run servers of their own and the new thing will be a turnkey, out of the box, 'face-book-like' app curated by the end-user and by invite only.
resist propaganda
If starting a social network that you'd consider "principled" would fix everyone else's behavior, then that's the tool that you'd use. It doesn't matter that you "don't care" about social networking, because a great mass of other people do.
Well, yes, *if* it would fix everyone's unprincipled behavior. But in practice, they'd use it for all the wrong reasons. Only education can fix this problem.
And certain tools can be objectionable, like proprietary software, so results aren't always the only thing on my mind.
Didn't see this posted but what the hell. Would this be a good opportunity to push self driving cars forward? These DUIs need to get to work, we need real world testing of these steering wheel-free Google cars. Might save a few folks who made a mistake from falling into a hole they can't crawl out of. Morally superior types have their Scarlet Letter in the form of the Google Dorkmobiles. Cameras everywhere inside/out to make sure the system isn't gamed. I'm sure I've ludicrously simplified the issues, but think there is an opportunity here.
Remember: 48 states have signed an agreement with Corrections Corporations of America to keep their jails at 90% bed space or else face fines hourly.
Actually that was merely a proposal by CCA, zero states signed up. There are occupancy clauses in contracts with some private prison operators, but it's on a case-by-case basis, and given the number of hideously expensive empty prisons in the US you can see why they'd want some sort of guarantee that they'll get a return on their investment.
(The problem isn't so much CCA or similar operators, it's the concept of running prisons as private for-profit operations).
Check out https://www.kickstarter.com/pr.... That's exactly what we are trying to do. We are still long way to go, but we will get there.