Facebook vs World Governments

[Tony L]

My maxim for all the above is "Don't trust - verify!" i.e. transparency and scrutiny to enable accountability. I certainly don't trust the big net company owners any more than I do politicians. The record shows they'd sell data to pretty much anyone who pays enough - *including* politicians you or I would loath.

And come the next election we can vote out politicians who've been caught out - unless, of course, the targetted and out-of-our-sight propaganda fouls up democractic accountability... now why does that sound familiar these days?... We can't vote to change who runs FarceBook.

Yes, I've been on the net since 'pine' etc. I recall when a 56k modem was 'wow'. And 'Janet' was the big UK network. Now it's '60MB is OK'...

For clarity I do agree with much of what you say. The point I’m trying to make is I’m a firm believer in social media and the internet in general existing far above any nation state level, i.e. I really don’t want local government meddling in it in any context. I don’t really care whether what floats to the top is open source (Wikipedia etc) or corporate (Facebook, Twitter etc), the end-users can decide that and make their choice what to use. The internet is a fluid and dynamic thing, attempts to force it in any direction are wrong IMO. If Vuk or whoever hates Facebook, Amazon, Google or whatever he shouldn’t use them, or if he is bright enough, he should create an alternative. I just don’t get the whinging and whining.

I also believe censorship should come from within the platforms, e.g. if enough Facebook users complain about data-mining or their platforming political and religious extremists then as a service provider they should respond to that market pressure. FWIW I think they are, though rather more slowly than is ideal. I’ve always had a very clear mindset as to what I am prepared to publish here and have deleted hundreds of user accounts over the years (tens of thousands if you include spammers, ad-bots etc!). I would like to see Facebook and Twitter take a more forceful approach, but I understand only too well the considerable time moderating even a small, relatively quiet and upmarket area of social media actually takes. Something the size of Facebook is simply incomprehensible, though again I don’t hate them for their success!

PS IIRC my first modem was a 9.6 Amstrad ISA job that I plugged into my second hand IBM PS/2 Model 30 DOS PC and attempted to access Compuserve very, very slowly! I later spent a lot of time on Janet, using Archie, Gophers, Newsnet etc before the www arrived, and when it did I stuck the first static pfm site up on my Demon account, that would have been 1993. Technically pfm is older than all of these corporate giants like Google, Facebook, eBay, Amazon etc!

 

[vuk]

Just so I am clear, you would rather MORE human beings killed, raped, tortured etc. than have governments use surveillance?

he is willing to accept the possibility of that. we don't know all of the ramifications of stopping surveillance. add to it total government transparency and perhaps they don't do things that end up creating terrorism, as one example.

regardless though, it's a trade-off a non-authoritarian person is glad to make.

 

[vuk]

The real issues are ones of transparency and accountability. The problem is that they allow - without our scrutiny - hidden third parties to propagandise *targetted* individuals without anyone else being able to see who is being fed what propaganda. And in UK election terms - outwith the UK election laws governing spending on propaganda.

to me, that is not the real issue at all. even with total transparency, private corporations controlling what is essentially a public utility for communication should not have their own censorship laws. they should be following the same ones government institutions do.

 

[Tony L]

to me, that is not the real issue at all. even with total transparency, private corporations controlling what is essentially a public utility for communication should not have their own censorship laws. they should be following the same ones government institutions do.

Really? So you would like to see Facebook (or any other internet entity) bow to the laws in whatever authoritarian state in question, e.g. Putin has the right to access data, Saudi has the right, Iran has the right, Syria, China etc etc? This is pure authoritarianism/tyranny.

IMHO humans should be able to communicate freely even if they live in highly oppressive authoritarian nation states such as those I list. At present Facebook, Twitter etc provide a secure global method for this. If one can get online at all one can communicate in a way oppressive local government thugs and goons can’t impede or monitor. This is a good thing.

To put it another way the *customer/user* should have the absolute right to decide who holds their data, not their nation state. Anything other than that is authoritarianism.

 

[Marky-Mark]

The problem is the universal one of how people with any measure of power inevitably become shit. Other than that, I've never understood how someone has an expectation of privacy on the internet.

 

[vuk]

the conversation isn't about expectations of privacy.

 

[Tony L]

the conversation isn't about expectations of privacy.

Sorry, I didn’t realise you alone get to dictate the terms of the conversation!

 

[Arkless Electronics]

For some time now PE has been running semi-routine items on what the 'social media' etc net companies *do* as distinct from what they *say*. Some of it coming from admissions forced out of them by US Congress investigations where they were forced to attend/answer. Unlike the UK where the people refuse to turn up, because they can get away with it.

I've been telling people for ages that if they don't read PE they probably have no idea what's *really* going on. Want to know who funds BloJo and his chums? Want to know how many of them are 'shorting' Brexit - i.e. arranging to make a big profit if it is a disaster? Read PE. Want to know where the money really goes in the NHS? What to know about the patents the net companies have taken out for things like using 'net connected devices' to listen to the sounds in your home so they can tell media companies what you are lstening to/watching? etc, etc, etc...

Ah well I couldn't find it on the on-line edition... I used to read it regularly but just kind of got out of the habit...

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

to me, that is not the real issue at all. even with total transparency, private corporations controlling what is essentially a public utility for communication should not have their own censorship laws. they should be following the same ones government institutions do.

That's why I also specified accountability. That way both *users* and Government can take an evidence based view.

FWIW pretty much every country has laws on 'censorship' even when under a different name. e.g. IPR forbidding selling knock-off copies is a form of 'censorship'. As are anti kiddie port laws, slander laws, etc. However by their nature these vary from place to place. Fortunately the relevant media companies know where you are.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

For clarity I do agree with much of what you say. The point I’m trying to make is I’m a firm believer in social media and the internet in general existing far above any nation state level, i.e. I really don’t want local government meddling in it in any context.

I'm also a fan of having global systems that aren't simply controlled by one national government or state. But that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do whatever they fancy and be unaccountable to their *users*. Until users can find out what uses the company makes of their personal data they can't tell when they'd object or regard it as a threat to their individual liberty. We now know that data *has* been used to essentially bias or rig elections in democractic countries. But we didn't find this out because the companies told us. It happened via whilstle blowers and good journalism.

That means other things like it may be happening now, and will go on doing so unless the basic requirements of transparency and accountability are applied.

e.g. whatever 'terms and conditions' the companies demand should, in your or my legal jurisdiction, be regarded as over-ruled by a *requirement* to tell the user what details about you are being sold or given to what 3rd parties and what they have stated they can only use it for. Simply saying "we hoover up your data, and flog it to whioever we fancy to do as they choose, take it or leave it" should be legally void.

There are some good reasons for having a state with a legal system. Without it, you'd not be able to enforce any contract you made, short of sending the Krays round with a hammer and some nails. No doubt some countries might take that approach.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Ah well I couldn't find it on the on-line edition... I used to read it regularly but just kind of got out of the habit...

Subscribe. It costs you more in the long run *not* to.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Just so I am clear, you would rather MORE human beings killed, raped, tortured etc. than have governments use surveillance?

Yes!

The gov are responsible for many many times more deaths than all criminal and terrorist activity combined and more guilty than any terrorist organisation. It is their actions and policies, often enacted for the base and loathsome reasons of profit and control for the already wealthy and powerful, that cause most of the conditions that result in terrorism and which drive many people to the state of desperation where crime is their best/only option!

They'll drive you to the poverty and desperation where you may be forced to steal to get £5 worth of food to survive whilst simultaneously spending 10's of £millions on surveillance equipment in order to make sure they catch you for it! This is beyond sick, twisted and perverse!

There are estimates bandied about of 130,000 deaths due to austerity.

How many die each day due to UK arms sold to foreign govs? Lots! This is beyond premeditated murder as not only is it in cold blood from the gov perspective but they calmly sit down and work out how much profit they can make from it!

How many die each day from treatable diseases that the gov has decided are too expensive for the NHS to treat.... whilst they spend billions on QE for bankers and "sweeteners" to attract foreign car companies etc?

Hence if "Steve from Stevenage" is made homeless by Tory bedroom tax and looses all benefits due to Tory sanctions I say shop lift away my son and if you rob from a top Tories huge SUV outside the golf club then may you be blessed.... just watch out for all the CCTV!

Liberté, égalité, fraternité and the pursuit of happiness are INFINITELY more important than wealth, profit and power!

 

[Marky-Mark]

the conversation isn't about expectations of privacy.

Well, maybe not for you, but I was taken aback when amazon suggested this -

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07W94YDL5/?tag=pinkfishmedia-20

and this -

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07J37HGDB/?tag=pinkfishmedia-20

using nothing but tracking cookies!

 

[roman]

Yes!

The gov are responsible for many many times more deaths than all criminal and terrorist activity combined and more guilty than any terrorist organisation. It is their actions and policies, often enacted for the base and loathsome reasons of profit and control for the already wealthy and powerful, that cause most of the conditions that result in terrorism and which drive many people to the state of desperation where crime is their best/only option!

They'll drive you to the poverty and desperation where you may be forced to steal to get £5 worth of food to survive whilst simultaneously spending 10's of £millions on surveillance equipment in order to make sure they catch you for it! This is beyond sick, twisted and perverse!

There are estimates bandied about of 130,000 deaths due to austerity.

How many die each day due to UK arms sold to foreign govs? Lots! This is beyond premeditated murder as not only is it in cold blood from the gov perspective but they calmly sit down and work out how much profit they can make from it!

How many die each day from treatable diseases that the gov has decided are too expensive for the NHS to treat.... whilst they spend billions on QE for bankers and "sweeteners" to attract foreign car companies etc?

Hence if "Steve from Stevenage" is made homeless by Tory bedroom tax and looses all benefits due to Tory sanctions I say shop lift away my son and if you rob from a top Tories huge SUV outside the golf club then may you be blessed.... just watch out for all the CCTV!

Liberté, égalité, fraternité and the pursuit of happiness are INFINITELY more important than wealth, profit and power!

I've long held the view you make at the start that it's the government's you need to watch cos they'll usually be the ones to kill you. I'm not sure I share all your conclusions (still thinking) but its hard to argue against the points you make.

 

[richardg]

For clarity I do agree with much of what you say. The point I’m trying to make is I’m a firm believer in social media and the internet in general existing far above any nation state level, i.e. I really don’t want local government meddling in it in any context. I don’t really care whether what floats to the top is open source (Wikipedia etc) or corporate (Facebook, Twitter etc), the end-users can decide that and make their choice what to use. The internet is a fluid and dynamic thing, attempts to force it in any direction are wrong IMO. If Vuk or whoever hates Facebook, Amazon, Google or whatever he shouldn’t use them, or if he is bright enough, he should create an alternative. I just don’t get the whinging and whining.

But there are challenges that need considering beyond that. My 12 year old seems to be interested in nothing else. We push and or force her into doing the stuff we think is good for her. She is in an athletics club. Tomorrow she will do a sponsored work around Strasbourg for breast cancer. We are going to the cinema now. But really she just wants to be on her phone. We probably make it worse by rationing it. I really have no idea how to make her life more balanced, so high is the addiction for her and all her friends. And that is the reason why it is worrying. Not politics. And it is not just me failing the next generation via my kids. It's all the parents of her friends too. Which means that it is probably most of the developed world.

There is an impending cultural and social shitstorm ahead. Or is there? Am I just old? Am I treating social media in the way parents in the 50s and 60s did with rock n roll? It's evil, get it out the house etc. Maybe if the next generation wants to see the world through their phone, we need to just let them. I know I am unable to change it. And I am kind of sad about it.

 

[vuk]

But really she just wants to be on her phone.

it's a serious social problem masked by the shiny beauty of the technology and faulty philosophical assumption that all innovation = progress = good. on top of it are the problems exposed in this excellent "frontline" documentary (which all parents should watch):

in case of regional restriction, here is a (possible) alternative link:

 

[Guest432]

Yes!

The gov are responsible for many many times more deaths than all criminal and terrorist activity combined and more guilty than any terrorist organisation. It is their actions and policies, often enacted for the base and loathsome reasons of profit and control for the already wealthy and powerful, that cause most of the conditions that result in terrorism and which drive many people to the state of desperation where crime is their best/only option!

They'll drive you to the poverty and desperation where you may be forced to steal to get £5 worth of food to survive whilst simultaneously spending 10's of £millions on surveillance equipment in order to make sure they catch you for it! This is beyond sick, twisted and perverse!

There are estimates bandied about of 130,000 deaths due to austerity.

How many die each day due to UK arms sold to foreign govs? Lots! This is beyond premeditated murder as not only is it in cold blood from the gov perspective but they calmly sit down and work out how much profit they can make from it!

How many die each day from treatable diseases that the gov has decided are too expensive for the NHS to treat.... whilst they spend billions on QE for bankers and "sweeteners" to attract foreign car companies etc?

Hence if "Steve from Stevenage" is made homeless by Tory bedroom tax and looses all benefits due to Tory sanctions I say shop lift away my son and if you rob from a top Tories huge SUV outside the golf club then may you be blessed.... just watch out for all the CCTV!

Liberté, égalité, fraternité and the pursuit of happiness are INFINITELY more important than wealth, profit and power!

Yeh, down with the man comrades.

Pretty much everything you've said there has fvck all to do with day to day security. Most of the people that use surveillance/interception are doing it to make peoples lives safer and don't give a bottle of monkey piss who the current govt is.

What about the other agencies?

The NCA who deal with drug trafficking, pedo groups, people smuggling.
MI5 where the biggest issue at the moment is right wing nut jobs.
MI6 who have to monitor terrorist threats, foreign govts interfering in politics and even friendly (orange) govts interfering.
Special Branch who have to monitor and surveil the right wing nut jobs.
GCHQ who (generally) provide most of the intel for agencies above.

 

[Tony L]

Hence if "Steve from Stevenage" is made homeless by Tory bedroom tax and looses all benefits due to Tory sanctions I say shop lift away my son and if you rob from a top Tories huge SUV outside the golf club then may you be blessed.... just watch out for all the CCTV!

Throw that amount of law and order away and you may as well go the extra mile and say also struggling shopkeepers have every right to crack open the heads of aforementioned shoplifters with baseball bats. It really is a dumb argument.

PS How would you feel if some smackhead broke in to your home and stole the test gear you need to work?

 

[richardg]

it's a serious social problem masked by the shiny beauty of the technology and faulty philosophical assumption that all innovation = progress = good. on top of it are the problems exposed in this excellent "frontline" documentary (which all parents should watch):

in case of regional restriction, here is a (possible) alternative link:

Or are you just old?

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Yeh, down with the man comrades.

Pretty much everything you've said there has fvck all to do with day to day security. Most of the people that use surveillance/interception are doing it to make peoples lives safer and don't give a bottle of monkey piss who the current govt is.

What about the other agencies?

The NCA who deal with drug trafficking, pedo groups, people smuggling.
MI5 where the biggest issue at the moment is right wing nut jobs.
MI6 who have to monitor terrorist threats, foreign govts interfering in politics and even friendly (orange) govts interfering.
Special Branch who have to monitor and surveil the right wing nut jobs.
GCHQ who (generally) provide most of the intel for agencies above.

Strange how the best and most expensive and comprehensive surveillance is often found where the wealthy are to be found and around the govs own facilities isn't it...
...and that in really dodgy areas where you could be mugged for your take away it's usually missing... oh wait a minute those are often the places where the poorest people live....