Oh hell no...

I've never subscribed to facebook. But between it and Google, I'm sure they have a better idea of my finances than the IRS does. Presumably, the FBI, NSA, and similar organization have even more info.

Very scary.
 
kyleb said:
I've never subscribed to facebook. But between it and Google, I'm sure they have a better idea of my finances than the IRS does. Presumably, the FBI, NSA, and similar organization have even more info.

Very scary.
Click to expand...
The Feds don't give a rats hat about your data, unless you've been butt-dialing jihadists. The don't have the time or interest. Google, Facebook, etc., on the other hand, care deeply where you go, when you go, what you buy, what you read, who you know. . .etc.
 
Sundancer said:
The Feds don't give a rats hat about your data, unless you've been butt-dialing jihadists. The don't have the time or interest. Google, Facebook, etc., on the other hand, care deeply where you go, when you go, what you buy, what you read, who you know. . .etc.
Click to expand...

My guess is the Feds are storing the data somewhere. Probably through some offshore proxy so it is more deniable. If I become a person of interest, they will start looking at it.
 
kyleb said:
My guess is the Feds are storing the data somewhere. Probably through some offshore proxy so it is more deniable. If I become a person of interest, they will start looking at it.
Click to expand...

It was published in 2013 that NSA publicly stated at that time that all encrypted data they had any interest in, was being stored a minimum of five years, in hopes that a flaw in the encryption would be found. No distinction between foreign or domestic data.

Nobody in politics or the media said boo. The average Citizen never heard about it.

They didn’t build that massive data center in Utah on one of the largest cross-country fiber route for their amusement.

This is what they’ll admit to, in public. We all know that isn’t the entirety of the story. Too much money literally disappears into these places with no trace, for the public admitted mission to be all they’re doing.

This information along with other information offered back then, and numerous other announcements by security and privacy researchers, was the end of the most useful website on online and tech law analysis, Groklaw... a site started by a lady attorney who ran it for years.

She decided she could no longer have an online presence and perhaps accidentally entrap foreign or domestic information sources, since the known level of surveillance and retention being acknowledged in public was too risky.

As a lawyer with clients in tech, privacy, and encryption law, she had a responsibility to shut it down — so nobody would ever try to contact her about anything legal about online or tech law via the Internet, ever again.

This was around the time that both of the top rated and audited, fully-encrypted, offshore email providers also shut down, after being warned that their systems were either compromised or would be soon by the storage of the encrypted material direct from the US fiber taps.

Encrypting things is pretty much a myth of privacy or security at this point in history. Even if it’s secure today, it won’t be very long until it’s cracked by an entity with resources as massive as various US agencies have on black budgets. Principally NSA but we really don’t know who they share information with.

It’s basically a setup for major problems and nobody really has control over any of it anymore.

Example: There’s absolutely no way the politicians who think they’re getting away with something on their private emails or even private servers, are. They’re not. NSA knows what they’re up to. They have every phone call and every e-mail.

It takes a pretty amazingly moral leadership to not use that information to leverage politicians into providing larger black budgets.

And if anyone thinks they’re not doing that, they’re naive.

Anyone remember voting for the big data center in Utah and public discussion of costs? Hell no.

It feeds itself now. If anyone goes up against it, it knows their secrets that they don’t want exposed.

Tapping the Internet and storing encrypted traffic that can’t be read today for later viewing, is the way to build the ultimate blackmail machine.

Then you realize that it’s not just the data itself, but metadata is also extremely valuable. Just knowing Bob communicates with Mary and what time of day, is enough to start building a theory about why.
 
That Utah data center is like the Death Star.

240px-Death_star1.png
 
I wonder how many people would knowingly and willingly hand a criminal their house keys, car keys, wallets, and checkbooks; then feign surprise when they get ripped off.
 
I always get weird looks when I say this. But it should be illegal as hell for ANY business to disclose confidential information to anyone without express, clear consent of every party. And I take it to the nth degree, like banks reporting to credit agencies, etc. If Joe wants a relationship with Equifax then there should be an agreement between Joe and Equifax. Joe's bank shouldn't be able to hand over that info willy-nilly in a tit-for-tat agreement that benefits both the bank and Equifax...but maybe not Joe.

I've never considered myself a tin foil hat kind of guy. But when someone says things like this I notice a lot of eye rolls.
 
kyleb said:
My guess is the Feds are storing the data somewhere. Probably through some offshore proxy so it is more deniable. If I become a person of interest, they will start looking at it.
Click to expand...
The velocity and volume of data are too big, and no one in the Fed would keep their mouth shut about it for any length of time. . .it sounds good and spooky, but isn't realistic. There aren't enough people to look at the data about enough people, etc. AI and big data tools are still stone age. If you get slammed, it's going to be via Amazon or Google, or one of the big, flaky retail brick snd mortars. Unless, of course, you are butt-dialing jihadists. . .
 
Sundancer said:
The velocity and volume of data are too big, and no one in the Fed would keep their mouth shut about it for any length of time. . .
Click to expand...

They don’t keep their mouth shut about it. It’s public record that they’re storing data and has been since 2013.
 
Humans aren’t looking at that much data, they can’t. They just have algorithms that flag things that fit a pattern for a human to look at later.

Also while encryption may be breakable with enough effort it still takes a lot of resources. You have to be a pretty interesting target for them to bother trying.
 
I had a facebook for about two months back in 2008, then deleted it.

Turns out, you won't die.
 
Gerhardt said:
I always get weird looks when I say this. But it should be illegal as hell for ANY business to disclose confidential information to anyone without express, clear consent of every party.
Click to expand...

Isn't it express and clear consent that we grant our bank, our utility company, Facebook, etc, when we accept their terms and conditions? Even our benevolent POA has a clause that its "terms may be changed at any time without notice".

I agree with you that it should be illegal as you say, to disclose confidential information without consent. For the sake of the conversation, I'd even say it is illegal. But I would also say that legality is observed because we do accept the T&Cs every time we sign up for a social media service, open a bank account, apply for a credit card, sign on the paperwork at the ER, etc etc. In other words, the disclosure of information is done legally and with our consent.
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
Isn't it express and clear consent that we grant our bank, our utility company, Facebook, etc, when we accept their terms and conditions?
Click to expand...

Kind of. Not really.

Facebook, google, etc...private companies you don't HAVE to deal with. Put fb on your computer and you agree to their terms - IF their terms are explicitly stated. That hasn't always been the case.

But no, I opened my account with my bank at a time when nothing more was required that putting in a deposit. I signed no consent to anything and they still report my info to other entities.

But take it a step further. You MUST have a bank account, account w/ utility companies, insurers, etc. It should be illegal to force you to accept terms that are one-sided, like allowing them to share your info.
 
Those who are dumb enough to sign up on Fecesbook and pose to the whole world don't generally care about their personal information being data-mined and sold off. Ignorance is bliss.
Limiting your online exposure is a good way to avoid digital theft or identity theft/spoof.
Sure, give me a tin hat, I don't care. But google my real name and you won't find me. Heck, you don't know my real name. LOL

FB is evil. I've been saying it from the day it was conceived. I foresaw this development. Nobody believed me. They called me crazy and paranoid. ;)
 
BigBadLou said:
FB is evil. I've been saying it from the day it was conceived. I foresaw this development. Nobody believed me. They called me crazy and paranoid. ;)
Click to expand...

Mark Z. were born not too far apart. We're the same year at least, I forget how close exactly. Point is, I was in college when he started "TheFacebook". I was going over some of its history with the young whipper-snapper... err... intern in my office.

In the early days of Facebook, it was largely acknowledged by many (including me) that it was just going to steal your info and sell it. Plus in the early days it was easier to stalk people (especially when the membership was much smaller than it is now), so nicknames like "stalkerbook" came about. Many of us refused to join it, myself included. But ultimately most of us gave in and joined for the same reason: a pretty girl told us to or we thought that it would help us find a pretty girl to tell us to. Reverse male/female pronouns for the ladies. Keep in mind, in the early days Facebook was restricted to only people with a ".edu" eMail address. The whole point was for it to be only available to college students and was an "adult-free" social media site.

Of course that was never going to last, and so it expanded and eventually became open to anybody. As that's happened, the algorithms and data mining have gotten much more advanced, as has the data mining.

The problem many have problems with is figuring out how to correctly use and manage social media presence.
 
I have fb on only one computer, one I use for nothing except fb. Steal all you want, help yourself, I don't care because there is nothing else on that laptop and never has been. Link me w/ other people on fb, what do I care.

I hit the roof several years ago when my wife grabbed my cell and put the fb app on. (I've never ever EVER added an app to my phone for this very reason!) The next thing I know I'm getting calls on my cell from old friends, etc. who shouldn't have my cell number...which I give out only to my family and employer. So I get a few calls from friends and ask how they got my number and sure enough...fb... I was livid. They don't do that anymore, but it reinforced me to never ever EVER putting an app of any kind on my phone.

Because of that I can't deposit checks from home, etc. A whole host of handy apps out there that I just don't trust to put on my phone.

Some days I think I'm just being stupid about it, being paranoid. But most of the time I'm confident being cautious is the way to go.
 
Gerhardt said:
I have fb on only one computer, one I use for nothing except fb. Steal all you want, help yourself, I don't care because there is nothing else on that laptop and never has been. Link me w/ other people on fb, what do I care.

I hit the roof several years ago when my wife grabbed my cell and put the fb app on. (I've never ever EVER added an app to my phone for this very reason!) The next thing I know I'm getting calls on my cell from old friends, etc. who shouldn't have my cell number...which I give out only to my family and employer. So I get a few calls from friends and ask how they got my number and sure enough...fb... I was livid. They don't do that anymore, but it reinforced me to never ever EVER putting an app of any kind on my phone.

Because of that I can't deposit checks from home, etc. A whole host of handy apps out there that I just don't trust to put on my phone.

Some days I think I'm just being stupid about it, being paranoid. But most of the time I'm confident being cautious is the way to go.
Click to expand...

No I'm the same way you are, I don't think it's being paranoid. I do not trust iThingies because I am not in charge of the AV. I don't even know if you can buy Norton AV for your iPad or iPhone or run Malwarebytes scans and so on. I know how to put security on my PCs and hence they are the only things I will do banking on or shopping or most anything involving a password. I only let one of my emails go to my iPhone and that's the one that I send my boarding passes to, it's not my main one. I will NEVER let FaceBook onto my phone.
 
I just don't worry about it. The truth is even if you throw your smartphone away, delete every social media account, and cancel your internet service there's data I think most of us would be far more concerned about that anyone can get for a small fee. Not to mention the stuff you can find on most people with a simple google search.

I've always followed a simple rule, I don't put anything on the internet I'd be upset with the whole world seeing. Turn off the location services for apps that don't need it, run an adblocker, etc. Common sense stuff. At the end of the day though any dozen entities from your ISP to your hardware manufacturers to your operating system maker could have and probably have slipped in some monitoring. You would never know about until some techie happens to stumble apon it. Not to mention the tap a lot of people have good reason to suspect certain 3-letter agencies likely have on major internet backbones....

I guess the point is you can either shut yourself off and still not have any real privacy or just accept the fact that privacy as we used to know it is probably dead and participate in the digital age. The laws around this stuff are still evolving as are our societal expectations. Hard to say where it's all going but I expect it will change quite a bit about how we do things and relate to each other. It will be interesting to live through these times having been born early enough to know the world pre-internet.
 
cowman said:
I just don't worry about it. The truth is even if you throw your smartphone away, delete every social media account, and cancel your internet service there's data I think most of us would be far more concerned about that anyone can get for a small fee. Not to mention the stuff you can find on most people with a simple google search.

I've always followed a simple rule, I don't put anything on the internet I'd be upset with the whole world seeing. Turn off the location services for apps that don't need it, run an adblocker, etc. Common sense stuff. At the end of the day though any dozen entities from your ISP to your hardware manufacturers to your operating system maker could have and probably have slipped in some monitoring. You would never know about until some techie happens to stumble apon it. Not to mention the tap a lot of people have good reason to suspect certain 3-letter agencies likely have on major internet backbones....

I guess the point is you can either shut yourself off and still not have any real privacy or just accept the fact that privacy as we used to know it is probably dead and participate in the digital age. The laws around this stuff are still evolving as are our societal expectations. Hard to say where it's all going but I expect it will change quite a bit about how we do things and relate to each other. It will be interesting to live through these times having been born early enough to know the world pre-internet.
Click to expand...

Very insightful observations. I think you are right, technology is going to change how humans interact on personal and social levels so much we will probably evolve in completely diffferent ways than we would have otherwise. I too think about how amazing it is to be the generation that straddles these two very different worlds. We are a unique minority.
 
If you are concern about privacy, you should not use a credit card. I never had a FB account and never will .
 
I work as a bank Chief Compliance Officer. Years ago, when the privacy rules first required that banks must prepare a privacy policy statement and provide it to customers, I argued that our privacy statement should just be two short sentences: "There is no privacy. Get over it."
 
We traded away privacy many years ago. We traded it for a combination of convenience and the illusion of safety.
 
Gerhardt said:
But no, I opened my account with my bank at a time when nothing more was required that putting in a deposit. I signed no consent to anything and they still report my info to other entities.
Click to expand...

It's not always straightforward. When you opened an account, the terms may have been simple. But your bank reserved the right to change them without notice. Eventually, laws mandated that banks need to disclose changes in their terms and conditions to customers. That's why every so often, we receive notices printed on Bible-thin paper from our banks, telling us in 6pt fonts that they are updating their terms and conditions. Effective today, we own 1/2 of your liver, your right lung, and three of your good teeth.

In theory, if you don't like the terms you can take your business elsewhere. Free market and all that. In reality, good luck, right?

And then:

But take it a step further. You MUST have a bank account, account w/ utility companies, insurers, etc. It should be illegal to force you to accept terms that are one-sided, like allowing them to share your info.
Click to expand...

Again, in theory, you don't need a bank account. But for the 80% of the population in the US, that lives in urban (including suburban) areas, there is no way to live without a bank account. Well, there is, but it is extremely inconvenient.

Should there be regulation about what you call one-sided terms and conditions? This is a political question and goes along with whether or not the current political situation favors or not consumer-friendly legislation. I'll leave this here, as I am sure we all have an opinion on the matter of regulation, being practitioners of one of the most regulated activities in the world :)
 
spiderweb said:
I had a facebook for about two months back in 2008, then deleted it.

Turns out, you won't die.
Click to expand...
Open the account, then lock it down, and don't use it - just so your name doesn't get high-jacked . . .
 
GreatLakesFlying said:
It's not always straightforward. When you opened an account, the terms may have been simple. But your bank reserved the right to change them without notice. Eventually, laws mandated that banks need to disclose changes in their terms and conditions to customers. That's why every so often, we receive notices printed on Bible-thin paper from our banks, telling us in 6pt fonts that they are updating their terms and conditions. Effective today, we own 1/2 of your liver, your right lung, and three of your good teeth.

In theory, if you don't like the terms you can take your business elsewhere. Free market and all that. In reality, good luck, right?

And then:



Again, in theory, you don't need a bank account. But for the 80% of the population in the US, that lives in urban (including suburban) areas, there is no way to live without a bank account. Well, there is, but it is extremely inconvenient.

Should there be regulation about what you call one-sided terms and conditions? This is a political question and goes along with whether or not the current political situation favors or not consumer-friendly legislation. I'll leave this here, as I am sure we all have an opinion on the matter of regulation, being practitioners of one of the most regulated activities in the world :)
Click to expand...
Fed employees have t have a back account to get paid, and for reimbursements. No option - I think it went to court, and whatever level it reached, the judge(s) decide the feds can "presume a banking relationship". It can be easier to attach a bank account than to garnish wages, though, so it reduces protections a bit.
 
spiderweb said:
Too late. That, plus my name is too common. . . .
Click to expand...
I probably should have said your identity - as in, John Doe on Maple St, in Smallville, OH - likes bird watching and flying under bridges. ..
 
Sundancer said:
I probably should have said your identity - as in, John Doe on Maple St, in Smallville, OH - likes bird watching and flying under bridges. ..
Click to expand...
That's also too easy. Since I'm a professional musician, I've got a few websites and YouTube sites. About 10 minutes, unfortunately, and I could probably be faked. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top