Facebook Says It Has 'No Intention' To Abuse CISPA 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."
Because, Lord knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
...you can trust Facebook when it comes to privacy!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
If I could mod TFS or TFA, they would definitely get a "+1 Funny"...
"We Won't Abuse CISPA" (Score:4, Interesting)
"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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
...intentions ain't worth nothing in law.
Unless you 'intend' to commit murder. Then intention is everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because, Lord knows... (Score:5, Funny)
"Facebook, invading your privacy since 2004".
- Mark Douchebagberg
Re:Because, Lord knows... (Score:4, Interesting)
How is it "invading" someone's privacy when they willingly give away their personal information to you?
Re:Because, Lord knows... (Score:5, Informative)
Facebook was found to be tracking users even those without an account across websites with the button. Yes, very "willingly giving away" /s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Because, Lord knows... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
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 NoScrip
Re: (Score:1)
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 priva
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 d
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
How is it "invading" someone's privacy when they willingly give away their personal information to you?
Uh, in the same way the government looking over your shoulder to see how you vote is, even though you've turned up to do so of your own volition in broad daylight. Jesus, what a dumb question.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to boycott Facebook then. Oh, wait, they're like Sony -- impossible to boycott them even more than I already do. Bummer.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, yeah, yeah .... (Score:3, Funny)
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 .... (Score:5, Funny)
Man, you do some weird shit with Facebook...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So, shouldn't they OPPOSE CISPA? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, then..... (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Greater good, my ass (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
... 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 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
NDAA (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
I believe Facebook (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
> 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: (Score:1)
Corporations have no "word" (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 cou
Testicles in a vise (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
... at any moment.
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
Trust (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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" (Score:2)
The abuser rarely think they are abusing. Their victims rarely agree.
or, OR... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
I'm going to quote an old post [slashdot.org] from the "DMCA Abuse Widespread" [slashdot.org] article:
Law doesn't give a shit about intentions (Score:2)
Law doesn't give a shit about intentions - unless it's an explicit clause.
I feel so much better (Score:1)
"Don't be evil." (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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 won
That is immensely reassuring (Score:2)
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? (Score:3)
We have no intention of abusing CISPA = We have every intention to claim any abuse has been unintentional?
For the record... (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
"Leave Facebook Alone!"
Old lesson... (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
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.
We have no intentions of doing it (Score:2)
I'll be voted down, but... (Score:1)
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, an
P.S. (Score:2)
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? (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
The road to hell... (Score:2)
is paved in "no intentions".
If its not there, it can't be abused or explited (Score:1)