Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Says It Has 'No Intention' To Abuse CISPA

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the but-anything-could-happen-by-accident dept.

Facebook 103

An anonymous reader writes "Facebook is supporting the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), despite opposing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). SOPA and PIPA were about intellectual property, and allowed courts to remove DNS listings for any website hosting pirated content. CISPA is meanwhile about security, and makes it possible for companies to share user information with the U.S. government (and vice versa) if the parties believe it is needed for the greater cyber security good. That being said, CISPA has loopholes that allow it to be abused, especially when it comes to Intellectual Property and privacy. Facebook says it will not do that, and will instead work on closing these loopholes."

cancel ×

103 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Because, Lord knows... (5, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684301)

...you can trust Facebook when it comes to privacy!

Re:Because, Lord knows... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684323)

Agreed,

intentions ain't worth nothing in law. Intentions can turn at any time. Rather just let not happen such a law in the first place.

Needs to be modded up (3, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684383)

If I could mod TFS or TFA, they would definitely get a "+1 Funny"...

"We Won't Abuse CISPA" (3, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685517)

"We'll use it, EXACTLY as intended!"

"Abusing" CISPA would involve actions like demanding due process for actions by police and government agencies, or insisting on Warrants in the case of investigations and seizures. Facebook intends no such thing.

Welcome to the desert of the real.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (2)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684421)

Agreed,

intentions ain't worth nothing in law. Intentions can turn at any time. Rather just let not happen such a law in the first place.

It will be interesting to see how those who oppose the policy on facebook are treated by facebook.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684555)

I put this link on my wall, and it is still there. http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/cispa_facebook/?source=fb [demandprogress.org] And it seems to be growing. Perhaps that is why FaceBook is in GoDaddy PR mode right now. I wonder if that would change if people started removing pictures and personal information?

Re:Because, Lord knows... (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684609)

Good luck with that - it doesn't get deleted, it just gets "de-publicified". And if you were silly enough to share it with anyone there's no chance.

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684729)

Good luck with that - it doesn't get deleted, it just gets "de-publicified". And if you were silly enough to share it with anyone there's no chance.

I know it is not really gone, but would it scare FaceBook into thinking people are no longer trusting it? Or worse, trusting someone else?

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

PessimysticRaven (1864010) | more than 2 years ago | (#39688549)

Facebook isn't concerned, since they know that people are addicted. Even if there ARE other games in town, none of them have the reach and grip that FB has on social culture. Count up how many websites are using a FB login as THEIR services login.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (3, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684537)

Agreed,

intentions ain't worth nothing in law. Intentions can turn at any time. Rather just let not happen such a law in the first place.

You are being generous. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions ... but you get there faster if there are no good intentions.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (3, Insightful)

hemo_jr (1122113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684867)

When doing a practical threat analysis, one looks at potential rather than intention. The vague and over broad language of the CISPA makes its potential vast and excessive. Facebook's intentions may be honestly stated for now, but history has shown us that is not enough.

ACTA negotiations were conducted in secrecy and public knowledge of its negotiations was restricted under the guise of national security. So the precedence has been set that national security encompasses anything and everything any petty bureaucrat says it does.

If the US government, the administration, or even Facebook had a history of restraint, self-control or even good judgement when it comes to these matters, it would be one thing. But their failure to do so, especially that of the US government, is still a raw wound. Not only should they not be trusted in a theoretical sense as a best practice, they cannot be trusted in in a real, immediate and visceral sense,

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685263)

Ah, but Progress seeks to be judged upon its swell intentions, rather than its empirically wretched results.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685835)

...intentions ain't worth nothing in law.

Unless you 'intend' to commit murder. Then intention is everything.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 2 years ago | (#39690767)

Agree completely. If we could trust the good intentions of either those who enforce laws or those who are bound and regulated by them, we would have let SOPA pass. Come to think of it, if we could trust intentions, we wouldn't need most laws at all.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (4, Funny)

jo42 (227475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684339)

"Facebook, invading your privacy since 2004".

- Mark Douchebagberg

Re:Because, Lord knows... (3, Interesting)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684349)

How is it "invading" someone's privacy when they willingly give away their personal information to you?

Re:Because, Lord knows... (4, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684373)

Facebook was found to be tracking users even those without an account across websites with the button. Yes, very "willingly giving away" /s

Re:Because, Lord knows... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684567)

You mean like Google, and every ad network in the history of ever?

Noting that the same machine has visited 3 sites that have the facebook button isn't exactly an invasion of privacy. No dark magic, no new technique, no privacy nightmare.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39685013)

Yes, exactly like that, meaning it's all wrong not that because other do it it's okay.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 2 years ago | (#39695217)

But cookies are sent willingly...

Re:Because, Lord knows... (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684377)

How is it "invading" someone's privacy when they willingly give away their personal information to you?

Facebook has changed the way they share your personal information several times since I joined up, sometimes doing something as blatant as default sharing information that was previously hidden.

My bank also has a lot of my personal information, but I don't expect them to one day just throw some of it up on their website.

I understand the relationship between a person and a bank vs a person and a social media website is completely different, but I wanted to use a really extreme example to make my point.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

tapspace (2368622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39690761)

I woke up one day recently and realized it's not 1999 anymore; it's not even 2005. Javascript is everywhere and does everything. Deleted doesn't have to mean deleted anymore and the US government (and probably others) is likely hooked into all of your communications. To top it all off, TOSes have gotten worse not better (look at Google's evolution).

I have deleted my facebook for good. I have deleted my google accounts (I am working on Gmail, but it's going ASAP). I quit using Opera so I can use NoScript in FF. I never search with google, yahoo or bing on my personally owned computers (always use startpage.com or previously scroogle.org). The web is a changed place and we, the users, have given our trust away too easily. It was one massive bait and switch. We need to change the way we think about our e-lives and fast.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684411)

How is it "invading" someone's privacy when they willingly give away their personal information to you?

You assume it is limited to only what you give them willingly. That's cute but please realize you are not informed if you think so. That's not a put-down or an insult, it's the facts of the matter.

What you give them willingly can be used to deduce a LOT about you that you didn't willingly give them. That's what the invasion is. You're all in or you don't participate. The idea that you can parcel out as much or as litte info as you like and remain in control because of some bullshit illusion of privacy settings is false. That's the notion of a fool who has no idea what modern database technology and marketing research can do and decided to form an opinion without first finding out. That false idea amounts to them playing a game far more shrewdly than their users.

I deal with this by simply not using Facebook and also blocking the little icons they scatter all over the web. It's the only rational choice if you value privacy. Anything else means you either don't value privacy and don't mind surrendering it for little or no compensation (substandard web hosting with a lot of strings attached), or you have the foolish idea that you can have your cake and eat it too. Concerning that latter option, lots of people are delusional that way, and how they get so irritated when you point out that what they try to do isn't possible.

Bait and switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684413)

Because they agree to a level of privacy, he then changes the rules on them to reduce that privacy.

Then we discover the privacy hole he created, then there's the outrage, then there's an extra setting somewhere in the privacy settings to restore the previous privacy or part of it. It's a nasty bait and switch game.

For example, only now we've found out that that when you agree to use an App, the app can suck down all the data for your friends too (who didn't agree to that!), and the privacy setting only allows *you* to turn it off, not *them*. So unless *you* turn it off on *their* behalf, the app you downloaded will grab all their data.

http://boingboing.net/2012/04/08/when-you-share-with-facebook-f.html

It's one surprise after another with Facebook, as more and more of previously private data is made available for Facebooks profit (your telephone number for example will become available for selected apps soon, that wasn't the case when you signed up for Facebook its a new 'enhancement').

Or we found out that Facebook steals all your contact data from your phone and uploads it to their servers. Did you agree to that when you signed up to Facebook??? NO! Because the feature didn't exist when you signed up. Douchbag saw that data, decided to grab it, and had his programmers write the code to grab it off your phone.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

Brucelet (1857158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684507)

The same way that if I make an online purchase and the vendor sells my credit card number, it's an invasion of my privacy. Willingly giving up information does not necessarily mean it can or should be used for any purpose.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684581)

How is it "invading" someone's privacy when they willingly give away their personal information to you?

So can I see a copy of your medical records? Hmm... How is that Cyalis working out for you?

Networking effects and data mining (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685299)

Many of the interesting things Facebook knows (or thinks it knows) about you don't come from what you told them yourself. They have such comprehensive surveillance of so much of society because other people are volunteering information that they can paint a pretty good picture of you just from a couple of basic facts you might give them thinking they don't mean much and the vast networking effects that they can data mine.

For example, suppose you only have a Facebook account with a couple of basic personal details, and don't post updates, photos, etc. yourself. However, assume you are Facebook friends with your real life friends so you can follow their news, get invited to their parties, etc. One day, Bill sends you and five other friends an invitation to a social event at a certain place and time. You don't respond on Facebook, but the others all do, and six of you (one couldn't make it) go enjoy a drink after work.

Three weeks later, suppose someone completely unrelated to you or your friends posts a photo they took in the bar that night, which has the six of you in the background playing pool. Facebook can potentially guess the approximate time and place of the photo from metadata (or just because the other person told them) and match it to your friend's invitation. Facebook might also have photos of your five companions, and you are the sixth guy around the table. It's now a pretty good bet that Facebook has a photo of you that they can or will credibly be able to identify, even though you did nothing but receive an invitation from a friend. None of your own friends, who maybe know that you don't like putting too much info on Facebook, even had to provide the photo or tag you in it. Obviously Facebook can also guess that you did in fact attend the event you were invited to, even though you didn't tell them that.

This isn't meant to describe a specific practice that is necessarily happening today, and it's just the first example that came to mind. However, all the necessary technologies are at least working well in R&D labs, and obviously Facebook routinely data mine all kinds of network relationships, so the sort of situation I described isn't exactly a huge stretch. Also, notice how cagey Facebook have been about disclosing exactly what personal data they hold about people, even when required to do so under European law: they seem to be relying on legal weasel words to try to exempt part of the data they have on people from disclosure, on the basis that it would give away their trade secrets or some similar argument. That's a pretty strong hint that they are doing some things with the data that they aren't publicly disclosing and that don't involve just one individual's freely given information.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685955)

I suppose a better slogan would be:

"Facebook, pretending to care about privacy and the wishes of users since 2004."

"Facebook, pissing on truth since 2004."

I closed my (admittedly full of fake info...) account over 3 months ago, and I haven't missed it. I figured at some point they'd get around to seeing my profile was full of superbly bogus info (I mean, I went to Al Sharpton College Prep in New York.)

I don't think there's a "Bob's House of Pez" in Ohio either. (If there is, how 'bout that!) heh.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684391)

Time to boycott Facebook then. Oh, wait, they're like Sony -- impossible to boycott them even more than I already do. Bummer.

Re:Because, Lord knows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39685317)

Because they have none?

Re:Because, Lord knows... (1)

davydagger (2566757) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685497)

this, qft

Re:Because, Lord knows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39686071)

Precisely, especially when you consider the fact they are partners with M$ and we all know how much M$ values privacy. Is it any wonder $lashdot and M$ align themselves with Failbook. Stick with the free solutions and software while avoiding non-free software and solutions.
--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk
Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.

Yeah, yeah, yeah .... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684331)

The check's in the mail.

I won't cum in your mouth.

I'll respect you in the morning.

I won't abuse CISPA."

....

Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah .... (5, Funny)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684343)

Man, you do some weird shit with Facebook...

Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684477)

Didn't you gear? Facebook is the new booty call..

Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah .... (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684593)

New?

Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39688453)

I won't abuse the allowances the NDAA gives me to treat citizens like prisoners of war and worse.

So, shouldn't they OPPOSE CISPA? (5, Insightful)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684347)

You don't give your support to something that is broken, you oppose it and negotiate the bad parts out. How exactly by supporting this thing do they think they're going to get it changed? This is Bullshit. If I was Mr Zuckerberg I'd be careful what I wish for...

Re:So, shouldn't they OPPOSE CISPA? (1)

golden age villain (1607173) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684463)

I doubt they are stupid. They know it is broken. Seriously, how much do you think Zuckerberg's parole is worth? Sure, give us all these rights, we promise we won't abuse them.

Re:So, shouldn't they OPPOSE CISPA? (2)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684599)

It indemnifies companies for sharing data. That is the part he supports. Indemnification so users can't sue.

Re:So, shouldn't they OPPOSE CISPA? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685049)

Having no intention to do something does not mean they won't do it.

Ok, then..... (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684355)

Facebook says it will not do that, and will instead work on closing these loopholes."

So why don't they fight against this bill also until new legislation is proposed that closes the loopholes?

Re:Ok, then..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684375)

Because they don't really want to opposed it. They made some backroom deals with corrupt politicians the MAFIA bought.

Re:Ok, then..... (2)

million_monkeys (2480792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684497)

That is the obvious question. If you support the creation of a system full of loopholes, then a claim of "we don't intend to abuse the system" has the unspoken addition "...but we think it's OK for people to abuse the system (and we reserve the right to abuse it if we change our minds)." If they don't agree with that little addition, then they should oppose it until the potential for abuse is fixed. Why start with a broken system and try to fix it later?

Hmmmm..... (1)

EddyGL (15300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684361)

Because lord knows, a multi-billion dollar business doesn't care about protecting IP, and facebook's ALL ABOUT privacy *ahem*

Greater good, my ass (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684365)

Who put FacePlace in charge of deciding what the greater good is.

Re:Greater good, my ass (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684457)

Funny though, they have what, over half a billion of accounts? I don't know if that's half a billion people of-course, maybe most of the accounts are dead or maybe not, but if they have even 1/10th of accounts that are real then actually they could easily claim they have a 'mandate from the people', can't they? Sounds ridiculous for now, but just wait until Sugarburger comes out declaring he is now the new world's dear leader.

Re:Greater good, my ass (1)

nautsch (1186995) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684655)

... but if they have even 1/10th of accounts that are real then actually they could easily claim they have a 'mandate from the people', can't they?

No, they cannot. None (I suspect) of the people on facebook have joined to be represented by facebook. Least of all politically. They joined facebook to .. "socialize" or whatever it is you do there.

The road to hell (1)

Bysshe (1330263) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684393)

A with everything, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re:The road to hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684517)

Or in facebook's case, "good intentions"

1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684405)

If the government doesn't have the resources to monitor you, then recruit all the citizens to monitor one another and turn each other in. Same thing that went in on George Orwell's classic.

Re:1984 (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684455)

It's more efficient to just hire the various corporations. Fewer moving parts, easier to handle and please.

Face it, your subjects might have different ideas what they like. Corporations are easy, they like money.

That means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684409)

I guess that means they'll abuse it "unintentionally", then.

NDAA (3, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684423)

NDAA - Obama signed a statement saying he won't use the indefinite detention part of it. [huffingtonpost.com]

What's up with all these laws, that are getting passed and the people who are directly or indirectly responsible for passing them are all promising not to use the new powers they acquire?

Why don't they just own up to the truth - there is no reason to pass these privacy and freedom destroying laws if you have no reason to use them, you pass them because you are intending to use them (or you are intending for them to be used, even if it is not you directly who is going to use them).

When is it going to stop exactly and why would it stop?

Re:NDAA (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684469)

It's going to stop after a revolution. But first we need to have the jackboot firmly across the face for a while; those who vote these things through aren't going to get it until we get 'a strong leader' who starts 'indefinitely detaining' members of the mainstream parties who vote the wrong way.

It's going to be such fun.

What facebook really means.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684433)

It will patch the holes as it sees fit to make their business more profitable..not to make your life more private, this much you can be assured of!

I believe Facebook (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684439)

Sure I do. They will fight CISPA wherever they can.

Afaik they'd have to hand out your private information for free. That cuts directly into their business model. Why should they? Just because you're the US government? You must pay like every other customer.

Merely "legalizing" the sharing of Private Data (2, Interesting)

dryriver (1010635) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684465)

It is my firm belief that Google, Facebook and other "Big Players" who collect user-data for a living have been sharing all sorts of supposedly "private" user data with various governments for years, without ever talking publicly about this happening, or saying/doing anything that would confirm in any way that this - probably - illegal sharing of data is taking place. CISPA to the rescue: Now, when someone using these services complains or sues about their private data being handed to some government or govt agency, they can simply say: "We checked out your data briefly because of suspicion of a security threat. We found nothing, and deleted your data again. This is all perfectly legal under the rights-of-action granted by CISPA." To put it more simply, Google, FB & Others will continue what they have been doing all along - sharing your data with all sorts of other parties without informing you and without having your consent. But now, if a legal problem or challenge arises from doing this, they can simply invoke the relevant section of CISPA, and it all becomes perfectly legal. In no way can Google, FB & Friends be held liable or accountable for passing your private data on to others anymore. What a terrific law this is! Just what Google, FB & Friends have always wanted...

Re:Merely "legalizing" the sharing of Private Data (2)

smpoole7 (1467717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684615)

> It is my firm belief that Google, Facebook and other "Big Players" ... now, if a legal problem or
> challenge arises from doing this, they can simply invoke the relevant section of CISPA ...

Someone with mod points, kick this one up. Dead on the money. :)

Re:Merely "legalizing" the sharing of Private Data (1)

Internal Modem (1281796) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684975)

"Like"

If they have the right to abuse it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684471)

...they will.

Corporations have no "word" (3, Insightful)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684491)

The only time a corporation can be trusted is when you have a contract (and, sometimes, not even then). Otherwise, no.

A man or woman can give you their word, and may (or may not) be believed. A corporation cannot, as whatever is said can be changed totally, not least when the people at the top change.

Re:Corporations have no "word" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39685421)

"The only time a corporation can be trusted is when you have a contract (and, sometimes, not even then)."

Actually, this is true ONLY if you also have controlling interest in the corporation as well.

Re:Corporations have no "word" (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685557)

Corporations have no "word"

Why not? Think about what a "word" actually is. It's a promise that other people expect you to keep; that's about it. If you break your word, certain social consequences ensue, such as a loss of trust, anger being directed at you, etc. Facebook is perfectly capable of giving their word, and moreover, there is some small incentive for them to keep it (which is much the same incentive to people keeping their word): basically fewer people will trust them and use their services.

Of course, at this stage, this is largely superfluous, since most people who would pay attention to this stuff don't trust them anyway. However, it does raise the question: when have they been outright lied about the extent of their use of our private information? I'm just curious; maybe their word is still worth a little something.

Testicles in a vise (1)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684501)

Then I guess that every Facebook executive, along with each and every lawyer at Facebook's service, won't mind placing their testicles in a vice operated by me. After all, just like they claim their intentions to be regarding CISPA, I also have absolutely no intention to abuse the vise in any way. So they can trust me, honest.

But but will they wilfully agree to that? I doubt they will, because they know very well that it is a risk which is simply not acceptable by any standard.

Re:Testicles in a vise (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684549)

won't mind placing their testicles in a vice operated by me.

So long as that vise is remotely-operated via a magic packet transmitted over the Internet.

If I have to worry about my private information being spread around at any moment, they should have to worry about their privates being spread around as well ... at any moment.

Trust (1)

Ramley (1168049) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684505)

The ambiguities and intentional non-specifics involve a lot of trust for anyone not to abuse it.

It will be abused, and eventually, so often, that it is the foundation for the next set of freedom-crushing laws.

Is it time to begin a mass exodus of Facebook?

Re:Trust (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684579)

Is it time to begin a mass exodus of Facebook?

"I'm afraid that time has come and gone my friend." -- Professor Rapson, "The Day After Tomorrow"

Define "Abuse" (1)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684595)

The abuser rarely think they are abusing. Their victims rarely agree.

or, OR... (3, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684641)

That being said, CISPA has loopholes that allow it to be abused, especially when it comes to Intellectual Property and privacy. Facebook says it will not do that, and will instead work on closing these loopholes."

How about not passing laws with known loopholes in them in the first place??!

Reason? Because a lot of the support for the laws while they were under debate demanded those loopholes. But they weren't going to abuse them. Really. Honest! They'll be removed as soon as the law is passed. We promise!

Re:or, OR... (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685927)

I'm going to quote an old post [slashdot.org] from the "DMCA Abuse Widespread" [slashdot.org] article:

Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying . They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

Of course they don't have the intention (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684661)

It'll just happen naturally!

Law doesn't give a shit about intentions (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684731)

Law doesn't give a shit about intentions - unless it's an explicit clause.

Yeah ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39684755)

... it is not intention that we are bitching about, but the capacity.

I feel so much better (1)

kbdd (823155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684759)

Yeah, I feel so much better knowing that Facebook (replace with your favorite government agency) has no intention to misuse a stupid law for profit or advantage.

"Don't be evil." (1)

hessian (467078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684785)

These corporations start out with good intentions.

Then they realize the stockholders don't care. Their employees don't care. What everyone wants is the bottom line, which can be expressed as a certain amount of progress to financial independence.

We value financial independence because that means we can escape this neurotic society and its neurotic people and go do something fun for a change. Most people won't admit it but they hate their jobs and the people around them because they're inconsistent, nervous, full of doubt, greedy and aggressive.

This is why retirement is prized. You are no longer forced to deal with other people's dysfunction.

And retirement is why we prize the bottom line. We don't care about the ethics. Just get us out of here. And so "Don't be evil" becomes "Don't be unprofitable."

And like all true evils, it's nobody's fault.

Re:"Don't be evil." (1)

Intrinsic (74189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685779)

That's almost true, but not quite. We have nobody to blame but our selves. Everybody has the ability to create a life free from the bullshit of corporatism. Two things come to mind: 1. Learning to conquer fear by undoing domestication in your own life though self-reflection which creates clarity of mind. 2. handling power responsibly by recognizing the destructive tenancies of self-importance. Once you overcome the enemies these enemies you are able to generate wealth though your own creativity, and you wont sabotage it.

That is immensely reassuring (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684819)

I certainly feel at ease when Facebook promises not to do unethical but legal things, since their track record on not doing unethical and questionably legal things is already awesome.

err? (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#39684967)

We have no intention of abusing CISPA = We have every intention to claim any abuse has been unintentional?

For the record... (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685125)

Facebook is offended that you would even suggest that they would have any intention of abusing CISPA. They are really, really hurt that you would think such a thing about them.

Further, they have released a statement saying that they are trying really really hard, and do you have any idea how it makes them feel when you don't trust them? Perhaps you have some trust issues which are preventing you and them from becoming closer, and until you deal with those this relationship cannot get to the next level, which is making social networking more user-friendly! It's always all about you, isn't it? Your privacy. Your rights. You, you, you. How do you think Facebook feels? Do you ever care about them for one minute?

Re:How do you think Facebook feels? (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 2 years ago | (#39692571)

"Leave Facebook Alone!"

really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39685167)

ok so assuming that facebook is telling the truth (their not but lets pretend)
that 1 website down, come back and tell me when you get the other 366,848,492 websites say so as well AND all sign civil agreements making them liable if they do share it. then MAYBE ill consider that POS bills like this might see the light of day.

so how soon till we break out tech consumer sledgehammer and let Washington know (again) DONT FUCK WITH OUR INTERNET!

ive all ready called my reps, but somehow i dont think my voice alone will cut it,
but then then again elections are coming up........................

one more reason to leave facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39685173)

one more reason to leave facebook
google+ is a good alternative.

I have no intentions either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39685213)

I have no intentions to assault others.
I have no intentions to kill others.
I have no intentions to download movies from the internet.
I have no intentions to hack other people's PCs.
I have no intentions to rob a bank.
I have no intentions to scare people to death by walking down the street naked.

This does not mean, of course, that any of the above could not happen.. I just don't currently have an intention to do any of the above.

Except possibly the last, but even then that depends on the amount of alcohol in my bloodstream.

Old lesson... (1)

DaneM (810927) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685239)

I hope we've learned a few things over the last several decades about just how much we can trust the word of a business, when it may, at some point, decide that it's more profitable to break some promises. I doubt we've learned thoroughly enough, but here's hoping...

For the greater good (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685329)

Fuck facebook.

makes it possible for companies to share user information with the U.S. government (and vice versa) if the parties believe it is needed for the greater cyber security good.

WHERE IS THE OVERSIGHT??? And don't tell me the FISA court is involved because we all know that dumbass bush pretty much left the door wide open to bypass the court at will. Lord knows that I'm not important enough for the government to be interested but people will use this information to make decisions about you without your input. So essentially it's a license to discriminate will with no real oversight. God this country is sliding down hill so fast.

Yahoo! sues Facebook, Facebook sues Yahoo!, CISPA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39685359)

I personally think they are supporting CISPA because of their current imbroglio with Yahoo! et al. Before that, they were pro net-neutrality. Now? No so much... The lawyers have taken over!

We have no intentions of doing it (1)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685383)

But we'll still end up doing it.

The lower the barriers to privacy, the more $ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39685565)

Facebook makes $ in inverse proportion to privacy barriers.

Anything which adjusts privacy expectations downward ins in Facebook's best interest. Ditto Google and all the other companies in this business.

I'll be voted down, but... (0)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685633)

I agree with Facebook on this one, as well as Oracle and host of others.

The way I read the legislation, it's intended to provide something akin to whistle-blower protection. If an ISP finds a user doing something illegal and reports them to police, they're protected from prosecution for turning over the evidence and/or laying the charges. It also explains why the provider participation is voluntary -- some providers like Facebook have people monitoring for abuse and illegal activity, but not all do, and by making it voluntary, the government and law enforcement can't force ISPs to start doing such policing.

This legislation does not set me off like SOPA did. It still needs some work and some loopholes need to be closed, but it's not an obvious ploy backed by the *AA like SOPA was.

Unlike private individuals who file complaints or charges, when a company does it, someone will sue, just on the off chance of a payout. This legislation explicitly makes such lawsuits null and void, enabling the providers to report on abusive and illegal users without fear of being stuck with a multi-year lawsuit as a result.

Note that the legislation doesn't make it very clear whether such evidence collected without a warrant can be used in a court case, or if it can only be used as evidence for obtaining a warrant. Hopefully it's the latter, because that's the one loophole I really, really don't like: the idea of providers doing the policing without oversight in an attempt to do an end-run around protections against unwarranted search and seizure.

Another loophole that needs to be clarified is that the report and charges could ONLY be filed with American authorities against American citizens and/or people/businesses operating on American soil. If this is another attempt to subjugate the world to US law, it needs to be shit-canned.

P.S. (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39685673)

I took so long to post a comment on this thread because there was a lot of reading and digging to do before I was willing to comment. I've been burned by too many inflammatory "news" articles that paint their own spin on things and present the facts in an extremely biased way. I don't like being led by the nose; I'd rather be informed by the news, do my own digging, and reach my own conclusions.

Which is more revealing, Facebook or Slashdot? (2)

Time_Ngler (564671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39686169)

Isn't the Slashdot comment system a huge potential data mine for spying and profiling people as well? I mean with Facebook, you get to see things such as a persons favorite artists, their friends, whether they like mountain dew or not, etc. With the people actively logging in, commenting, moderating and meta-moderating in slashdot, you get to see their whole idealogy and opinion of various government and political ideas. Which of these two things would governments be more interested in?

Re:Which is more revealing, Facebook or Slashdot? (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 2 years ago | (#39687413)

Slashdot doesn't require people to sign on with real names. Also Slashdot and Facebook have very different goals. Slashdot is a news site that gives us a place to share our bullshit opinions, which in turn attracts people here to read bullshit and leave behind some of their own. Facebook is there to suck information out of users and to present this in a consolidated form, with lines drawn between all aspects of a personal life. What's the point in profiling MysteriousPreacher? Without some way of tracing it back to a person or other alter egos, what's there to gain?

Re:Which is more revealing, Facebook or Slashdot? (1)

Time_Ngler (564671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39687743)

Also Slashdot and Facebook have very different goals. Slashdot is a news site that gives us a place to share our bullshit opinions, which in turn attracts people here to read bullshit and leave behind some of their own. Facebook is there to suck information out of users and to present this in a consolidated form, with lines drawn between all aspects of a personal life.

Regardless of the goals, Slashdot has a lot more political and idealogical data on its users than Facebook, which would be a much greater indicator of who should be treated as suspicious persons. Heck, just being a member of a mostly liberal and fringe site like Slashdot is probably more reason for the government to place you in the "suspicious person" file than most anything you'd find on Facebook. Then you could go deeper down and look at comments made by someone, who's modding who, and who's reading what story, and you'd get quite an interesting psychological profile on someone.

What's the point in profiling MysteriousPreacher? Without some way of tracing it back to a person or other alter egos, what's there to gain?

I bet most users aren't hiding their IP address in any way when connecting to Slashdot and would be traceable. Even if you are using a proxy, all it takes in one time where you slip up and connect without it, and you're now traceable.

I'm not saying it's impossible to post on Slashdot and hide your identity, but I just think that most people aren't doing this, or there would be far more discussion about Tor and the like than there is now. It's just weird how so many people here spout anti-government and corporation rants, while, I'm assuming, not taking any steps to hide their identity, and then go on to espouse the dangers of liking LOLcat videos on Facebook for fear of the very same powers-that-be tracking and profiling them.

sorry I've been out of touch I've been INUNDATED (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39686315)

Hey yo sorry I haven't been reading my inbox I've been inundated with some personal my grandmother or her pet died and a lot of schoolwork shit has been going on. Anyway, the Harvad Connection is ALMOST FINISHED!! In no way should any off my non-responses be construed as an intention to not perform as agreed. I'm the good guy here.

a few years later.

We have absolutely no intention to abuse CISPA, this is not what it looks like.

Hahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39686775)

Going to laugh my ass off when your beloved Google announces their support.

The road to hell... (1)

qeveren (318805) | more than 2 years ago | (#39686939)

is paved in "no intentions".

Project for Anonymous wannabees? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39688719)

If this is true, then a group of anonymous (hacker) wannabes should spam every project on the site (botting as needed) until they reverse the policy.

Guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39689013)

I'll tell you what --I'll go buy a gun, but I won't shoot anyone, especially politicians or CEO's, with it. Sound fair?

deal with the devil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39690947)

I've wondered, and marveled, at Facebook's dominance in the social media niche. One could chalk it up to Zuckerberg's business brilliance, but that seems less likely than him selling out to the feds (or whatever agents of control that you subscribe to).

The following conversation is complete speculation:

Man in suit: Mr Zuckerberg, how would you like to become filthy rich and control all of social media?

Zuck: Hell ya!

Man in suit: Good. Sign these papers and the pieces will be put in place.

Zuck: First-born son, check. Wait, you guys will have access to any and all user data without warrants?

Man in suit: Sign the papers.

Zuck: What the hell, I'm going there anyway...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>