DNI Office Asks Why People Trust Facebook More Than the Government 273
Daniel_Stuckey writes "General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Robert S. Litt explained that our expectation of privacy isn't legally recognized by the Supreme Court once we've offered it to a third party. Thus, sifting through third party data doesn't qualify 'on a constitutional level' as invasive to our personal privacy. This he brought to an interesting point about volunteered personal data, and social media habits. Our willingness to give our information to companies and social networking websites is baffling to the ODNI. 'Why is it that people are willing to expose large quantities of information to private parties but don't want the Government to have the same information?,' he asked."
Easy answer (Score:4, Informative)
Because Facebook can't come after you will full force of arms, put you in jail, and otherwise make your life miserable or unlivable by misusing your information.
It's about who's in control of what's shared. (Score:4, Informative)
When I share something on facebook, it's voluntary.
When you snoop on me confiding something privately to a close friend or family member, it's not voluntary.
Why would that be hard to understand?
prison (Score:4, Informative)
Why? A few reasons: (Score:4, Informative)
2. You can sue facebook without fear of being turned down due to "national security".
Better question... (Score:5, Informative)
Why does Litt flat out lie? Smith v Maryland, which this claim is based on, does NOT say that. The ruling was based on an expectation of privacy assumed when one voluntarily gives information to a third party. It does not address an expectation of privacy explicitly and contractually promised (e.g. a "privacy policy"), nor does it cover information not offered voluntarily (e.g. incoming caller ID, location information, etc.).
Even more significantly, ignoring the legalities, spying on your citizens is simply the wrong thing to do. Litt, and other defenders of these surveillance programs are confusing ethics and law. The US Government seems not to care what the local laws are when criticizing rights violations in other countries, but use the law to defend rights violations at home.
it's published data. (Score:4, Informative)
Really? Huh. Strangely, I was going to guess the easier answer was "OMG I CAN GET VIRTUAL SHINIES FOR MY FAKE FARM OMG OMG". Oh, well. I guess I'm just underestimating Facebook users, and they're all actively making every decision they make on that website specifically to stick it to The Man (for a very restricted, convenient definition of "the man")!
is the data given away for the virtual shinies any good anyhow? in the context of nsa spying it's very different. stuff you share.. I mean PUBLISH on facebook is stuff you CHOOSE TO PUBLISH. I would imagine there would be a pretty big outcry if facebook started selling your private messaging on facebook and if facebook installed sw on your computer to spy all your mailing activities then facebook execs would be facing jail..
what are they going to do with your cat pictures that you wanted intentionally to publish on teh internets anyways? and with the information that you play a public social game of farming chickens and are publicly showing your support for legalization? if your facebook likes were private then the reason for doing facebook likes goes away. the point of clicking like is to show publicly that you "like" that thing.
if the government were doing public polls, heck, then they might be also getting information people want to give to them.
Does that still work, though? (Score:5, Informative)
A government must be limited in its powers at a constitutional level, because you never know who will be running the show in the future. Limits on things they can legally do that no-one else can are necessary, but they need to be beyond the power of the administration of the day to change without further consent or the protections are meaningless.
For the rest, in theory normal laws should suffice. The government itself should legislate to ensure that, for example, businesses must respect privacy to a reasonable extent, because telling a health insurance company that you've been having lots of discussions with people who have cancer lately could potentially have serious consequences too.
The catch here is that when politicians and lawyers are involved, the distinction between government and non-government authority and restrictions can get blurred, so I am increasingly of the view that basic rights must be protected at a constitutional level against anyone who might infringe them unjustly.
None of it matters anyway if your judicial system declines to enforce the law, of course, but at least this removes any ambiguity regarding whether those fundamental rights are legally protected.
Re:Neither (Score:4, Informative)
I find this attitude short-sighted and sad. You can influence your government. It's hard work -- you have to get involved, and stay involved -- but the government is ultimately beholden to the will of the people.
Awww. Come here and let me hug you. You're too sweet!!!
We can vote, but governments are run by money and corporations.