Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Patented Making NSA Data Handoffs Easier

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the can-make-a-fortune-on-the-infringement-suits dept.

Facebook 137

theodp writes "In June, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg blasted 'outrageous press reports' about the PRISM surveillance program, denying that Facebook was ever 'part of any program to give the U.S. or any other government direct access to our servers.' What Zuckerberg didn't mention, and what the press overlooked, is that the USPTO granted Facebook a patent in May for its Automated Writ Response System. Like the NSA-enabling systems described by the NY Times on the same day Zuckerberg cried foul, the patent covers technical methods to more efficiently share the personal data of users with law enforcement agencies (LEAs) in response to lawful government requests via APIs and secured portals installed at company-controlled locations. 'While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal requirement,' the Times noted, 'making it easier for the government to get the information is not, which is why Twitter could decline to do so.'"

cancel ×

137 comments

What an asshole (5, Insightful)

Enter the Shoggoth (1362079) | about 8 months ago | (#45410855)

'nuf said

At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg ... (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 8 months ago | (#45410863)

... and I am glad I never waste any of my time in fb

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (5, Interesting)

Enter the Shoggoth (1362079) | about 8 months ago | (#45410885)

... and I am glad I never waste any of my time in fb

Indeed - the ony thing more amazing than people putting personal shit up on a public website is people putting personal shit up on a public website that's owned and run by a known sociopath.

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411229)

... and I am glad I never waste any of my time in fb

Indeed - the ony thing more amazing than people putting personal shit up on a public website is people putting personal shit up on a public website that's owned and run by a known sociopath.

What I find amazing is that people who have such privacy problems with a voluntary service where you yourself fully control what information you choose to share, if any, don't have it with the omnipresent involuntary data mining Google do (not only through increasingly linking and aggregating increasingly personal information across all their services, but through all the embedded Google scripts in 3rd party sites out there).

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (2)

somersault (912633) | about 8 months ago | (#45411287)

Don't worry, you'll never make them realise that they're not the lead character in a conspiracy thriller. Sure there are "conspiracies" (though not exactly very surprising ones given the contents of the PATRIOT act), but most people are boring as hell. Even the ones that think they're interesting.

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (5, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | about 8 months ago | (#45411299)

What I find amazing is that people who have such privacy problems with a voluntary service where you yourself fully control what information you choose to share,

If only it were that simple. Even if you choose not to share any information, your friends can tag you in photos, letting Big Brother know you were in a certain place at a certain time with certain people. Even if you don't use your real name, Facebook has ways of figuring out who you are by picking up on a single slip-up and asking your friends "Is this user's real name X"? Facebook even creates "ghost profiles" for people who don't even sign up for an account, so without you ever giving consent, any interaction you have with those who do have account is logged. The site is a privacy nightmare.

Re: At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411323)

You choose you lose. If you put any data on a third-party owned and run system, "private" or not it is your choice.

Re: At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg (4, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | about 8 months ago | (#45411405)

Try reading my post again. Facebook gathers information about you based on what other people say, even if you choose not to share any information.

Re: At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45413085)

He did read your post, idiot -

"Even if you choose not to share any information, your friends can tag you in photos..."

Your ~friends~ posted photos of you and your ~friends~ tagged you in photos....your ~friends~ are the ones who are ignoring any wished to privacy you may have. If your ~friends~ take photos of you, those photos belong to your ~friends~ not you.

Your problem is your ~friends~, not FB. Dumbass.

Re: At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45413103)

Try reading the argument, you illiterate asshole.

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 8 months ago | (#45411493)

The site is a privacy nightmare.

It was a privacy nightmare in the early days. Now it's a privacy bad acid trip.

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (2)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 8 months ago | (#45411645)

i agree totally...and the irony is that the vast majority of users want MORE of this sort of thing on FB, not less!

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411337)

What I find amazing is that people who have such privacy problems with a voluntary service where you yourself fully control what information you choose to share, if any, don't have it with the omnipresent involuntary data mining Google do (not only through increasingly linking and aggregating increasingly personal information across all their services, but through all the embedded Google scripts in 3rd party sites out there).

Lucky ffffacebook doesn't put code on most websites tracking where you go and combining that data with what's mined from loyalty schemes run by pharmacists. Oh wait....

Well, at least ffffacebook has an actual business model not inflated speculation. Oh crap....

What do you mean it isn't one or the other thing? Cognitive dissonance? What the fuck!

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (2)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 8 months ago | (#45411395)

lucky there's ghostery available that stops such tracking.

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (2)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 8 months ago | (#45413215)

lucky there's ghostery available that stops such tracking.

IIRC ghostery was acquired by a marketing firm, which should make you at least question the product.

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45412913)

What I find amazing is that people who have such privacy problems with a voluntary service where you yourself fully control what information you choose to share, if any, don't have it with the omnipresent involuntary data mining Google do (not only through increasingly linking and aggregating increasingly personal information across all their services, but through all the embedded Google scripts in 3rd party sites out there).

Lucky ffffacebook doesn't put code on most websites tracking where you go and combining that data with what's mined from loyalty schemes run by pharmacists. Oh wait....

Well, at least ffffacebook has an actual business model not inflated speculation. Oh crap....

What do you mean it isn't one or the other thing? Cognitive dissonance? What the fuck!

The cognitive dissonance is that ggggogle is any better than facebook as a privacy nightmare. It's the shiny object redirection effect, when many nerds personally like their products better than facebook.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10435501/Google-pilot-programme-tracks-shoppers-everywhere-they-go.html [telegraph.co.uk]

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 8 months ago | (#45411475)

What's that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of all these Like buttons trying to track me from every webpage in existence, even resorting to plain-HTML tracking if all else fails. GA stops working if you disable JS.

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (5, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about 8 months ago | (#45410903)

... and I am glad I never waste any of my time in fb

Don't worry -- at least half a dozen of your friends are working hard to make sure you are not forgotten (posting and tagging fotos, marking "I know this person from..." questions, etc.)

Solution (1)

aepervius (535155) | about 8 months ago | (#45412773)

Don't worry -- at least half a dozen of your friends are working hard to make sure you are not forgotten (posting and tagging fotos, marking "I know this person from..." questions, etc.)

Solution : don't have friend ;).

Re:Solution (3, Funny)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 8 months ago | (#45413243)

Don't worry -- at least half a dozen of your friends are working hard to make sure you are not forgotten (posting and tagging fotos, marking "I know this person from..." questions, etc.)

Solution : don't have friend ;).

Faraway cage?

This is the subject, not the comment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45410969)

At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg

This is a surprise to you... ?!

To me, yes, it was ,,, (3, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 8 months ago | (#45411013)

At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg

This is a surprise to you... ?!

Yes, to me, it was

I have heard of the name of Mark Zuckerberg, I know that kid got brains

But I was not aware that he is such a pathetic liar

Now, at least I, and many others, know

And this also teaches me a lesson --- never assume anything --- I was assuming that a brainy fella like Mark Zuckerberg would appreciate the value of liberty

How wrong I was !

Last, but not least, I need to thank Edward Snowden for starting the ball rolling ... If not for Mr. Snowden, we wouldn't have known so much --- NSA / PRISM / and the latest episode ... Mark Zuckerberg

Re:To me, yes, it was ,,, (1)

rvw (755107) | about 8 months ago | (#45411091)

Last, but not least, I need to thank Edward Snowden for starting the ball rolling ... If not for Mr. Snowden, we wouldn't have known so much --- NSA / PRISM / and the latest episode ... Mark Zuckerberg

Yeah this!

Re: To me, yes, it was ,,, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411215)

Zuckerberg believes strongly in privacy and liberty, just not yours.

Re:To me, yes, it was ,,, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411369)

I have heard of the name of Mark Zuckerberg, I know that kid got brains

But I was not aware that he is such a pathetic liar

If the movie "The Social Network" is even 50% accurate in its portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg, then you'd understand the extent of his pathetic liar behaviour. As for FaceBook you cannot absolutely control personal privacy.

Re:To me, yes, it was ,,, (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 8 months ago | (#45411459)

Well, it took me a while to find any link [huffingtonpost.com] at all, but you apparently missed the fact that Schmuckerberg claims that privacy is no longer a social norm. He testified before either Congress or the Senate, I can't remember which, to tell them exactly that. Did the guy sell out every American? Absolutely. But hey, he's rich, so that is what really matters. I really wish someone would post a shitload of private information about this idiot including a video of him masturbating, because by his own claim, he is fine with that.

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45410983)

Yeah. Before this, no one knew that Mark Zuckerberg was a liar and not to be trusted. I'm sure glad this happened so we could finally see him for what he really is.

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (5, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 8 months ago | (#45411047)

At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg ...

We've known the real him for a while now:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don't know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks.

http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45413153)

Standard attitude to the goyim.

Re:At least now we know the real Mark Zuckerberg . (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | about 8 months ago | (#45411285)

... and I am glad I never waste any of my time in fb

It doesn't matter. Whatever alternate channel you are using to communicate electronically with friends and family in lieu of Facebook (e-mail, telephone calls, XMPP...), the NSA is vacuuming up that information too. (Sure, for a handful of tech savvy friends you can convince them to use PGP, but that probably flags you as more suspicious, and only the message content is hidden, not who is writing to who.)

Re:What an asshole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411151)

There's a reason for the term "Zuckerpunched" after all...

Re:What an asshole (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about 8 months ago | (#45411351)

Can't you see he's fighting for our freedoms? That patent is just the start, there are plenty more in the works. Eventually, they'll cover every way of handing the government information, and no one else will be able to do it. It's genius.

Re:What an asshole (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 8 months ago | (#45411409)

I think you're being too lenient toward him..
in the future, everyone will still have to hand the government information, only now Fuckerberg will demand a licence payment each time.

Re:What an asshole (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 8 months ago | (#45411429)

nah, this is great - patent all the methods for complying with illegal NSA spying to make sure that other companies can't do the same. It's an effective attack limiter to only one company per valid attack.

I'm pretending the NSA won't illegally coerce the companies into illegally violating the patents for the illegal surveillance they're coercing the companies into doing. Oh, sorry, that's the FBI, isn't it?

Re:What an asshole (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 8 months ago | (#45411469)

Let's not forget, this is the same guy who signed up for Google+ the day it launched and then closed his account because he "didn't want Google tracking him" or something like that.

He mocks the stupidity of the Average Joe right in front of their faces and they never catch on.

Yest another reason (2)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 8 months ago | (#45410865)

to avoid F***book.

Re:Yest another reason (1)

clickety6 (141178) | about 8 months ago | (#45411445)

to avoid F***book.

FISABook?

Re:Yest another reason (1)

cffrost (885375) | about 8 months ago | (#45411551)

to avoid F***book.

I haven't heard that one... Farcebook, Facecrook... Fuck(erberg's)book, obfuscated with self-censorship?

Mark Fuckerberg's scheme is to collect billions of dollars worth of marks' PII, then pimp it all out to his customers (NSA, FBI, FSB, corporate propagandists, your worst enemy, etc.). The mark's cut of the money made from selling his or her PII amounts to some zero dollars and cents per year, plus inundation with targeted corporate propaganda meant to manipulate the mark's decisions/habits/behaviors, and the creation of opportunities for security/privacy/identity exploitations. Maybe I'm just totally bananas, but this arrangement strikes me as a sucker deal. Hence, I consider "Facecrook" to be the scheme's most fitting name.

I don't need any reason not to be a mark for Fuckerberg and his Facecrook — I can't conceive a reason to become one in the first place. The only I can think up for this scheme is to sign up one's enemies.

Legitimate FISA request (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45410871)

legitimate FISA request

By their very nature they fail to be legitimate in my eyes.

Re:Legitimate FISA request (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 8 months ago | (#45411055)

There's also an interesting meaning of the word 'legal' of which I was previously unaware as being remotely legitimate.

Ok this just in (5, Informative)

Nov8tr (2007392) | about 8 months ago | (#45410909)

If Mark Zuckerberg isn't Satan, he is at least a close relative.

Re:Ok this just in (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 8 months ago | (#45411059)

He's the bastard son. As if Satan has any other kind.

Re:Ok this just in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45413227)

^^^^^ FAN BOY ^^^^^

Re:Ok this just in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45413329)

You do realize that what you're saying would in all likelihood make him an angel? Surely you don' t mean that!

Doesn't matter - FB has entered a death spiral (5, Interesting)

korbulon (2792438) | about 8 months ago | (#45410915)

As go the teenagers, so goes the industry.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/10/teenagers-messenger-apps-facebook-exodus [theguardian.com]

With all this social networking shit, perception is key: once FB is no longer consider cool or the "in-thing", it's fucked. Like Myspace fucked.

Re:Doesn't matter - FB has entered a death spiral (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411001)

Except Facebook is/was actually useful so the death spiral won't be so fast. It'll be a generation or two instead of...wait, whoever used myspace to begin with?

Re:Doesn't matter - FB has entered a death spiral (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411361)

Except Facebook is/was actually useful so the death spiral won't be so fast. It'll be a generation or two instead of...wait, whoever used myspace to begin with?

Useful to who? Besides rampant attention whores without real friends, people incapable of extracting their noses from the person in fronts arserhole, people who believe anyone who doesn't have a fffacebook page must worship at the evil Google Altar, and, "intelligence" agencies.

Oh there's a problem all right... (apologies to Bill Hicks).

Re:Doesn't matter - FB has entered a death spiral (1)

TheHonch (1390893) | about 8 months ago | (#45411839)

Tila Tequila!

Re:Doesn't matter - FB has entered a death spiral (1)

rvw (755107) | about 8 months ago | (#45411111)

As go the teenagers, so goes the industry.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/10/teenagers-messenger-apps-facebook-exodus [theguardian.com]

With all this social networking shit, perception is key: once FB is no longer consider cool or the "in-thing", it's fucked. Like Myspace fucked.

Unless the "old" people (30-50) really don't care about what those kids do, as long as they have a means of keeping in touch with the rest of the family. And if they do, the kids will complain, but will stay as well, although not as active.

Re:Doesn't matter - FB has entered a death spiral (2)

peragrin (659227) | about 8 months ago | (#45411179)

the trick is only active accounts generate ad revenue. without people Facebook has nothing to sell(you) to its customers(ad companies)

Re:Doesn't matter - FB has entered a death spiral (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about 8 months ago | (#45411195)

The problem that Facebook faces is that much of its current stock price critically hinges on the belief that it is a "growth" stock. Look at some of the numbers ( http://www.thestreet.com/story/12043406/1/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-facebook.html [thestreet.com] ):

The stock is ridiculously priced at 208 times trailing earnings, 48 times 2014 consensus earnings estimates, more than 10 times book value, and 18 times revenue.

Once investors realize that FB is no longer growing - especially that young eyeballs and thumbs have moved elsewhere - they will also realize that it will never live up to its (admittedly unrealistic) future earnings estimates. At which point the stock price will plummet.

That being said, I slightly retract my previous statement: FB won't die out completely, it will merely linger.

Re:Doesn't matter - FB has entered a death spiral (0)

somersault (912633) | about 8 months ago | (#45411377)

The Facebook Messenger app is much better than WhatsApp IMO.. it allows you to continue conversations uninterrupted either on your PC or mobile, plus it's free. Not sure why people get so interested in it. One person I knew said her phone had "free international texts" - which sounded like a pretty awesome deal - but then I found out she just meant using WhatsApp. Wtf?

But but but.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45410917)

Maybe they patented it so that nobody would use it?

Re:But but but.. (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 8 months ago | (#45410941)

Maybe they patented it so that nobody would use it?

They patented it to EXTORT MONEY FROM OTHERS !!

Automated means unsupervised (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45410929)

If it's automated, it means there's no way a person checked the warrant before giving access.

So whether its legal or not is moot, since Facebook are *trusting* the LEA's claim that its legal, regardless of whether it actually is.

I wonder if Microsoft provides a backdoor portal to Windows PCs? I bet they get far more demands, and they probably would automate it too. I know that telephone companies made telephone tapping automated. A law enforcement officer simply taps something on a screen and can tap any US phone from his desk anywhere in the country. That has the same problem, nobody checks that the court issued warrants limits are complied with, because nobody ever reads it.

Re:Automated means unsupervised (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411163)

If it's automated, it means there's no way a person checked the warrant before giving access.

Rather large assumption there, but I'll go with it, given the history.

So whether its legal or not is moot, since Facebook are *trusting* the LEA's claim that its legal, regardless of whether it actually is.

Facebook is in no position to determine what is legal or not, unless they want to present an expert on Constitutional law. Zuckerberg is far from that, so don't even know why anyone asked the puppet-in-charge.

I wonder if Microsoft provides a backdoor portal to Windows PCs? I bet they get far more demands, and they probably would automate it too.

Uh, probably? They "probably" had to automate it, or budget for an additional 20 personnel to handle the requests.

I know that telephone companies made telephone tapping automated. A law enforcement officer simply taps something on a screen and can tap any US phone from his desk anywhere in the country. That has the same problem, nobody checks that the court issued warrants limits are complied with, because nobody ever reads it.

Nobody ever reads it because it's not their responsibility to.

Yes, you heard that right. Consider if you were to be pulled over for speeding. You knew for a fact you were not. You would still have to A) hire a lawyer, B) take a day off from work to show up to court, and C) hope you can defend yourself in the eyes of the judge who's going to believe his cop far easier than you.

Now, let's just assume you somehow win, and achieve "justice".

Forcing someone to defend themselves at three times the cost of the original fine. Call that extortion or corruption. Either way, it's fucking wrong. And it also plays part as to why no one gives a fuck about the rules. It's not their job to give a shit. You're the one who's going to be on trial defending yourself whether they fuck up or not, not them. Ever.

Re:Automated means unsupervised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411421)

"Facebook is in no position to determine what is legal or not,"

Rubbish, they have a legal department like any other company. What they've eliminated is the legal check they should be doing. Substituting a button saying "do you have a warrant or similar legal paper? Yes/No" is not the same as checking their warrant.

"Nobody ever reads it because it's not their responsibility to."

Rubbish, they receive a warrant, they're supposed to read it before handing over the data and only handing over the data according to the warrant. The problem with the telco's is they got immunity. So now they think, "so what if its not a legal warrant", "so what if they spied on politicians or press when the warrant said Adbul the terrorist.... we get off free anyone, so we don't care".

*That's* the problem here, nobody pushes back with these automated system, because the penalty they face for handing over customer data without legal authority is nill. So the court never reviews how the warrant matched the surveillance and the warrant is therefore just a piece of paper that could say anything because nobody ever reads them.

Re:Automated means unsupervised (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 8 months ago | (#45413451)

Or more likely, the warrant is checked ..... against a list of "superwarrants" that were fought in the FISA court and lost. Any API request that cites that warrant has to be processed so automating it, though it looks bad, doesn't really change anything.

It's official (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45410937)

Facebook is evil.

Re:It's official (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45410985)

Slowpoke is that you?

Re:It's official (1)

TrueRecord (1101681) | about 8 months ago | (#45411005)

I think all global social networks are evil because they give the information to the selected few. So much of the sensitive information in the hands of the selected few is risky and can give a lot of trouble, maybe even tragedies up to the end of the civilization.

Re:It's official (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411393)

I miss the days when Usenet ruled the Internet. Web forums are terrible and /. has descended into the bowels of Hades over the past decade.

Slashdot Poll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45410971)

I'd rather be spied on by ...

o Slashdot Poll

Misleading title (4, Interesting)

Zouden (232738) | about 8 months ago | (#45410999)

Cooperating with the NSA to give unrestricted access to private data (aka PRISM) is completely different to complying with subpoenas. Facebook got a patent on the latter, but not the former as the headline suggests.

If you have a problem with FB giving over your data in response to legal requests then take it up with the agencies making the requests, because Facebook don't get a choice in the matter.

Re:Misleading title (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 8 months ago | (#45411101)

My thoughts exactly. NSA is not a law enforcement agency, and PRISM has nothing to do with requesting data on individual users.

Re:Misleading title (4, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#45411117)

If Facebook is getting so many writs for personal data that it has to automate the process, and the senders are creating so many that they need access via an API so they can send them programatically, I don't think you're talking about subpoenas in any more than the strictest technical sense.

Re:Misleading title (2, Interesting)

catfood (40112) | about 8 months ago | (#45412743)

It's like those robo-signed foreclosures: the whole purpose of having a legal instrument is for some individual person to be responsible for saying essentially, "Yup, I checked this all out and it's legit." If you're processing these subpoenae automatically, and the input is overzealous or just wrong, then what?

Re:Misleading title (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 8 months ago | (#45411125)

If the system is automated, how does the FB API knows there's a valid subpoena behind the request?

Re:Misleading title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45413353)

Facebook's choice here is to NOT use a real person that gives a shit about checking our government's BULLSHIT (If you don't think our government needs checking, there's no hope for you). An automated "here you go" is incapable of being anything but the fastest means to get rid of those that aren't actually paying for the data. They'd rather spend their time on data transfers that are profitable. Wake up sheepie. This isn't about compliance or privacy. This is just FB being exclusively about money.

This is good news for other services (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 8 months ago | (#45411009)

Yes, we'd love to be more cooperative, but I'm afraid that we don't have the patent rights ....

Re:This is good news for other services (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411449)

I know you're aimed for "funny", but actually, this IS really a win-win. Eighter the government has to accept that non-facebook-providers now really have an argument, why they can't offer an API like facebook, or they have to admit that the patent-system is fucked up and has to be fixed...

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45412797)

The government isn't a single entity. The NSA still demands your data no matter what the other laws say, and the courts will still rule against your patent infringement. If the NSA asks you for an API, they're telling you to either shut down now or pay the settlement later.

Boo hoo - that's the price you pay for "free" security. If you don't like it, open up shop overseas or on the dark web.

Good thing it is patented (2)

GuB-42 (2483988) | about 8 months ago | (#45411011)

Hey, Facebook, make sure that no one else can use these techniques. That's your duty as a patent holder.

Where have you put your brain ? (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 8 months ago | (#45411029)

Hey, Facebook, make sure that no one else can use these techniques. That's your duty as a patent holder.

Excuse me, but where have you put your brain ?

Just in case you've missed it, please allow me to re-post the first sentence of TFA ...

"In June, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg blasted 'outrageous press reports' about the PRISM surveillance program ....

Re:Good thing it is patented (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 8 months ago | (#45411201)

Well, that's wrong. You see, the Government reserves the right to option any patent for their use.

They wouldn't get to prevent anyone from using the patent even if they wanted to. Instead, when the NSA compels other companies to infringe related patent, Facebook gets to charge the zuckers license fees.

Re:Good thing it is patented (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45413595)

Hey, Facebook, make sure that no one else can use these techniques. That's your duty as a patent holder.

Nope. Their duty is to maximize profits. If they can maximize profits by licensing that patent to other companies, then they have a duty to do so.

I have prior art .... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411017)

Sorry Facebook, I have prior art on the "automated writ response system", which I wrote 30 years ago:

10 PRINT "Fuck off"
20 GOTO 10

Re:I have prior art .... (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 8 months ago | (#45411317)

Sorry Facebook, I have prior art on the "automated writ response system", which I wrote 30 years ago:

10 PRINT "Fuck off"
20 GOTO 10

15 GOTO FederalPrison
REN

Re:I have prior art .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411425)

REM Commodore BASIC
REM How to go to prison in never be heard from again.
REM
REM Message
10 PRINT "NSA: Obama is a Clansman. Cheney had sex with slaves. Obama and Cheney (really) are familially related."
REM Abduction
15 GOTO FederalPrison
REM Silence
20 GOTO 10

RUN

FTFY :-)

Preferred NSA butt buddy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411143)

Failbook and Zuckerberg make me sick.

The more things change the more they stay the same (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 8 months ago | (#45411185)

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.

TFA is just evidence of SNAFU: Situation Normal, All Fucked Up.

Join Facebook, OMG join already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411233)

So when facebook was just a little more than a glorified picture sharing service everyone + dog was telling me to get on it...as if I was missing some special sauce...

Like so many others I said that like MySpace facebook too will pass into obscurity.

  IF facebook do not diversity and move away from this social networking shit model they'll die, just like MySpace.

Personally I don't plan on ever joining facebook. If I had something of content to show people I care about, I will. Facebook does nothing for me and people are begining to wake up that it does nothing for them as well.

Facebook and the CIA (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411371)

That's not very surprising, Facebook's strong ties to the CIA are well-known. In its early days companies very close to the CIA invested heavily into Facebook and some people likewise close to teh CIA are - or at least were, last time I looked - on Facebook's board of directors.

Smart move! Go Facebook! (0)

Theovon (109752) | about 8 months ago | (#45411381)

I’m serious. This prevents other companies from making it easy on the NSA. Facebook will never make any royalties from it, and they’ll likely never implement the whole system. I love it. It’s like the GPL: Using one kind of law (IP) against another.

Suprise, suprise. (2)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 8 months ago | (#45411391)

Zuckerberg is a lying piece of shit, news at 11.

Re:Suprise, suprise. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45412921)

Zuckerberg is a lying piece of shit, news at 11.

Fuckerberg is an executive protecting his investments. Nothing more.

Corporate America 101. Not even newsworthy anymore. Not like the 99% need to be reminded who the fucktards-in-charge are.

Makes business sense (1)

andy1307 (656570) | about 8 months ago | (#45411483)

making it easier for the government to get the information is not

If you have no choice but to hand over the data, wouldn't it make more sense to automate the process and save your own people some time and frustration?

It's patented - does this mean we cannot use it? (1)

rvw (755107) | about 8 months ago | (#45411569)

Facebook has made it easier. I hope they made the patent broad. Of course we don't want to end up in lawsuits, so we cannot use any of the technology - right? So in effect the rest of us has to make it harder!

Re:It's patented - does this mean we cannot use it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45411751)

He should charge per use.... One million dollars!

What about Google? (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 8 months ago | (#45411767)

Google told the same 'they don't have direct access to our servers' lie, come on people let's start seeing some vulgar rants directed at the "Do No Evil" gang. To be fair it isn't a lie, they didn't have direct access. Instead Google/FB just set it up so they could get anything they wanted without having 'direct' access.

Stupidest patent -ever- (1)

redelm (54142) | about 8 months ago | (#45411927)

In the surprisingly fierce competition for stupid patents, this one has a leg up on other candidates:

The patent has costs for filing and much larger but nebulous costs for customer relations.

The patent cannot be expected to bring in any revenue. Other who might licence the patent have no incentive to do so since they can bill the NSA for compliance costs. The NSA could direct these others to use the patent, which as an entity of the USGovt it can use royalty-free and so to subcontractors.

Many patents are vain and inane. This one is stupid and destroys shareholder value.

My patent ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#45412141)

... is to extent FB's interface for law enforcement agencies to reply to all requests with a string "Guru Meditation" and a randomly generated number appended.

Not really news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45412275)

I recall reading that Facebook had provided a special interface just for the convenience of law enforcement years ago. It was in one of the typical think-of-the-children media reports.

Zuckerfuck is a douchebag ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45412959)

Mark Zuckerberg is one of the biggest douchebags going right now.

He obsessively protects his privacy, while undermining everyone else's.

I believe we owe it as a public service to make absolutely everything about this asshole public -- his address, his phone number, his bank accounts, the addresses of his family.

This man needs to be kicked in the nuts every time he goes out into the world.

Useless fucking asshole.

How is this a patent? (1)

mea2214 (935585) | about 8 months ago | (#45413527)

This looks like any standard user interface to a database and basic computer architecture. I suspect the devil is in the details as to what kind of data blobs are defined in a "request" and what data blobs get returned to a user. As far as I can tell, this patent covers all data blob implementations. How can this be a patent?

It's all about the cost savings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45413569)

'While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal requirement,' the Times noted, 'making it easier for the government to get the information is not,

But making it easier for the NSA also makes it cheaper for Facebook to perform its legal compliance functions -- thus increasing Facebook's profits.

Capitalism demands that Facebook maximize its profits at the expense of everything else. Therefore, Facebook MUST pursue such cost-savings -- unless there is demonstrable evidence that those actions will result in a net loss.

...which is why Twitter could decline to do so. (1)

grep -v '.*' * (780312) | about 8 months ago | (#45413907)

Nice company you've got there -- it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it.


And it even fits in 140 chars!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...