Government Admits Spying Via Facebook 240
Velcroman1 writes "Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg famously said that the age of privacy is over. And the government wants to ensure that, it seems. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's FOIA request has revealed government memos encouraging agents to befriend people on a variety of social networks, to take advantage of their readiness to share — and to spy on them. Thanks to this request, the government released a handful of documents, including a May 2008 memo detailing how social-networking sites are exploited by the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS), and one revealing how the DHS monitored social media during the Obama inauguration."
Anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a way for individuals to connect and organize in a way that many of them think is private. Ripe fruit for wandering government eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
...in a way that many of them think is private.
This is an anecdote that expired a few years ago. I do not believe that there are very many people at all that still believe this. Indeed, it's *ALL OVER* the news about how very little of people's "on-line" life is private.
Re:Anyone surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm referring to sending private messages between people, keeping their privacy settings locked down, etc.
Besides, there are people that still think Obama is a muslim hell-bent on destroying America. There are people that still believe in the big, invisible man. There are people who still judge by skin color, for fuck's sake. I'm sure there are people who still think their online life is private.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference here is that people deserve some modicum of privacy. Granted, putting things public is not the way to do it, but we need a better balance than gov't spying without a court order.
I also agree that the aforementioned people are also the kinds that make those crazy christian coalitions and get hellbent on assassinating the prez or other ridiculously insane ideas. The correlation of religion and violence is astounding within certain religions, and I mean christian and not necessarily muslim.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Euhm, quite frankly if you were tasked with keeping the president safe on that day ... wouldn't you do the same ?
All they "spied" upon was information published by the individuals, do you really have any sense of privacy of your facebook wall ? And of course, people had to ACCEPT this government "intrusion". It was 100% opt-in.
This is like people taking a shower and complaining they get wet. Completely nonsensical.
Besides, government spying on facebook ... who cares. If only the companies on facebook stoppe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
^^^This times a thousand. I'm fairly active on Facebook, but I still only post things that I wouldn't mind my mother or local police department hearing about.
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree...but reality, sadly, does not :(
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely. People think that facebook's customers are its users, that it's providing a service to "us". Nope, it provides a service to its advertisers, we are the resource which it offers them.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no clue who John Boehner is I don't follow political news.
Re: (Score:2)
...an obscene percentage of people had no idea who John Boehner is.
Isn't he the "Hell No!!!" dude from Autotune the News #6 [youtube.com]? (0:55).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprised, considering that when facebook was founded there were a flurry of rumors that it was partly funded by the NSA, that Zuckerberg himself was a federal employee, and all kinds of things relating to how if the government wanted to collect information on its citizens without really trying, that a nice big free social network was exactly the way to do it.
Who knows how much of it is true, but holy crap is the latter part right or what.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the NSA is worried about the lost grey kitty that wandered lost into my farmville farm, we're fucked anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's somewhat of a surprise for me: there's information on facebook that is of interest to them? Does this mean that terrorists are such idiots that they give clues as to their plans in their status updates? What is it about facebook that makes all people act stupid? I guess I'm not as surprised as if the FBI announced it had been active on hotornot.com, but TFA also mentions they monitor twitter? Yeah, that's surprising to me, since it implies at least a few criminals are so stupid, they tweet the
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean that terrorists are such idiots that they give clues as to their plans in their status updates?
The prisons are not full of geniuses.
What is it about facebook that makes all people act stupid?
Half of everyone has an IQ lower than 100 (and half higher, by definition). It's not Facebook's fault.
TFA also mentions they monitor twitter?
Yeah, why the fuck not?
Yeah, that's surprising to me, since it implies at least a few criminals are so stupid, they tweet their crimes before they do them
This surp
Re: (Score:2)
This surprises you? What about the converse where people tell the whole fucking world on FB and Twatter that they are ON VACATION FOR A WEEK NOBODY IS HOME PLEASE ROB ME.
That did surprise me when I first heard it, a few years ago.
I'm checking up on, er, colleagues to make sure they're not going to scoop us..."
If you're a reporter and you're NOT using FB, Twatter, and such, to look for leads on stories, you're behind the times and need to get with the program.
Good thing I'm not a reporter.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's somewhat of a surprise for me: there's information on facebook that is of interest to them? Does this mean that terrorists are such idiots that they give clues as to their plans in their status updates?
The cops sure think so: examine this story, where comedian Joe Lipari had half a dozen semi-automatic-wielding men-in-black beating on his door to arrest him under the terrorist act within an hour of him making a 'threatening' joke status update on Facebook. Terrorism criminal charges still pending.
people know it w/out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, not necessarily. Pure democracy is everyone getting exactly one equal vote. However, if you have a population which consists of more wolves than sheep, then of course they're going to win. Ironically, as real society is comprised of more sheep than wolves, and the sheep are still losing, then we can see we do not have a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Because, as sheep, they believe the wolf telling them that the other wolf wants to eat them.
Re:Anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy leads to mob rule no matter how carefully you plan it. A limited government using democracy leads to peace and prosperity. But the point is, the government has to be very limited to prevent abuses.
Take for instance gay marriage, if your neighbor is gay does that make you gay? If you are gay and your neighbor is straight does that make you less gay? The very idea of taking something that shouldn't be a government problem and making it into an issue in elections is simply the tyranny of the majority, and I don't think that meta-government or any other solution other than limited government would prevent these things because these issues are becoming more and more common.
There are a ton of rights that the government, and by extension the people, should have no say in your exercise of them. The freedom of your own body, to do whatever you wish to it without harming others is a basic right. The right to free expression is a basic right. The right to own property, to engage in business, and to be entitled to the fruit of your labors are all basic rights too. These things should have no government involvement and by extension democracy should not violate them.
Democracy, metagovernment, etc. is only worthwhile when the government is limited, that is the key point. The key point isn't that we live in a democracy, the key point is that we were/are under a limited government.
Re:Anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
There needs to be clear limits to what the government can and can't do, and no matter how many people agree with allowing the government to increase power, they can't.
Plus, consensus leads to groupthink and a decline of rationality. No one wants to be the person to speak out against a plan, and a consensus can never be accurately formed with secret ballot so you have all the pitfalls of large groups of people.
Also, consensus is too vague, either you still have the majority against the minority pitfall of plain old democracy, or you put veto power in a few individuals. While its easy to say "we've got 70 yes votes and 10 no votes" and make decisions that way, it is a lot harder to do that with a consensus. For example, if out of 100 people, you have 95 supporters and 5 dissenters who are vocal, what happens? On one hand, you have only a 5% of the people who are against it, but at the same time you have 95% of people who are supporting it. Can you really say consensus has been reached? It also allows for people to sell their vote more effectively, if there was really only one dissenter, who bought 4 people's votes, in an ordinary election it would be too expensive and too obvious to buy everyone's vote, but in a consensus it is easier.
If rather than have a consensus for a vote, you had simply limited government so the scope of government involving that issue was eliminated, you'd have less elections and less problems.
Consensus voting isn't exactly a bad thing, but first and foremost the government needs to be limited as to not ever encroach on the rights of others, even if it is 1,000 to one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, a large part of our government was designed to be slow and laborious... passing laws was not something to be done easily (until someone wised up and made Senators a majority vote opposed to a State elected official ... but this is only one example)
It's only getting worse. The populous "demands" immediate action from the government, so they get lenient to new laws and let the officials push the line. How many officials are elected on the whole "change" idea. (And no, this was not limited to Obam
Nothing New Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who was on Kuro5hin in 2002 knew the Secret Service was keeping an eye on it. I'm sure they watch /. as well.
Agent Provocateur (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure they watch /. as well.
Do you think they have an agent provocateur on /. as well? Assuming they do, it might be interesting to hold a Slashdot Poll on who we think it is.
Re:Agent Provocateur (Score:5, Funny)
You seem to be trying to direct suspicion away from yourself....
Re:Agent Provocateur (Score:4, Funny)
You mean its not Timothy? He seems to be able to provoke a lot of reaction around here...
Re:Agent Provocateur (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's me.
Or am I lying?
Or am I hoping that you'll think I'm lying so that you won't know it's really me.
Or is this whole site just a front for a huge government spy ring, and you, srussia, are the only non-government poster?
Re: (Score:2)
I think he is the only one. All of these other posters were at our staff meeting yesterday.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Hemos.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Assuming they do, it might be interesting to hold a Slashdot Poll on who we think it is.
I'd say John Katz the guy that wrote all those horrid articles about "the post 9/11 world". Probably he wanted to flush out the subversives so they could be HUNTED by the FBI/CIA/etc.
If you commented on one of his articles and got modded up, best avoid the Middle East unless you're really a terrorist. In which case you've got some information to give the local government's interrogators to make them stop.
Re:Agent Provocateur (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
ha, not ONLY there are agents here watching, they are also actively commenting, moderating, trying to create a narrative.
I know it's very 'black helicopterish' of me to say that, however here is my reasoning for it.
Every time I talk about economy in terms that I understand, I explain it from my libertarian point of view, which relies on Austrian school of thinking about economics.
It does NOT MATTER how well mannered, how non-confrontational my comments are.
Regardless of any merit in them, almost without a s
Re: (Score:2)
I frequent several gun boards, and there are ATF, FBI, and DHS agents active in the forums - both openly, and I assume covertly.
In all fairness... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In all fairness... (Score:4, Insightful)
I was thinking much the same thing... What we're actually seeing here isn't spying, but a form of undercover work.
The moral of the story is the same as always: If you wouldn't want your mother to know, don't post it online.
Undercover work is spying, is violating privacy. (Score:5, Interesting)
I was thinking much the same thing... What we're actually seeing here isn't spying, but a form of undercover work.
Privacy is a function of sharing information with a limited set of people. You may want your wife to see you naked, but that doesn't mean you want everybody walking by your house to look in your bathroom window. You may want to share that embarrassing problem with your doctor, but that doesn't mean you want it in the newspaper. You may want your credit counselor to know about all your bad debt, but that doesn't mean you talk about it at the company picnic. You may want your friends to know where you're going to be this weekend, but that doesn't mean you want government workers to keep an eye on your movements.
What is spying if not one entity trying to obtain information that the counterparty does not want shared with it? What is undercover work if not planting spies to obtain such information?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You may want your wife to see you naked, but that doesn't mean you want everybody walking by your house to look in your bathroom window.
You also don't invite your neighbors over while you're walking by the window naked. If you are friending someone you don't know on facebook, you are basically inviting them to sit in the room and watch while you sleep with your wife.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you post a picture of yourself in a public space, you are seriously increasing your circle of privacy.
Getting information someone has kept private is spying. Gathering information from several public places is undercover work.
Re: (Score:2)
Well seeing as my Mother isn't a government agent and is more likely to be a political dissident than I am I would find a slightly different slogan in this instance.
Re: (Score:2)
With the typically sharing-by-default policies that Facebook seems to be constantly dropping on people's accounts, I don't see why they're even bothering to friend people anymore, honestly.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> Sharing information under the false pretense of being your friend
Perhaps you are confused at the concept of "friend".
Random stranger sending a "friend" request on facebook = not a friend. Just using the word does not make them one, any more than me using the word "millionaire" makes me one of those, or that Nigerian prince really being a prince just because they call themselves one.
There's no false pretence here. It's a total stranger, and someone freely gave them access to personal information. Don
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pretty blurry line, and a key part of "information that a person doesn't want others to have" is who those "others" are. Presumably, there's information that people give out on Facebook etc. that they want their friends to have, but not someone at DHS trolling for points to use against them. Now, you can argue that these people are idiots, that they shouldn't "friend" people so readily, that they shouldn't trust FB's (complete lack of) security, etc. -- and all that is true, but a spy who takes adv
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, "the age of privacy is over" if like an idiot you share information you don't want public with the public. Funny thing that.
Although in the interests of full disclosure, I don't even have a Facebook account. If somebody wants to tell me about their life, we can have a nice low-tech conversation. I don't get all the latest juice on everyone I conceivably know, but I get a lot of good face-to-face time.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how pretending to be somebody else in order to obtain information could be misconstrued as "spying".
Phillip.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't actually "spying" if the person is willingly sharing information, or has information posted that everyone can read. "Spying" is getting information that a person doesn't want others to have.
This seems to be unconstitutional. On one hand, we have the First Amendment, on the other hand there is the Fourth Amendment. Now... if terrorists or criminals are publicly posting their exploits, well that is different. But initiating investigations based entirely on Constitutionally protected opinion or association is certainly a violation, and such investigations, once they get beyond what is public, in turn, violate the Fourth.
Re: (Score:2)
On /., it's spying even if you knowingly and voluntary give them the data.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No since you, the user, didn't care enough to find out who this "friend" was and because of that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy from a stranger you invited into your circle of confidence. If you want privacy, keep things private by not sharing them, which you already do by putting them on a server not under your control. The onus to keep something private is completely on you up to the point where the law is actually broken and you can't possible be able to maintain your privacy.
If a govern
Oh, please God. noooo!!!! (Score:2)
Next they'll be reading billboards, magazines and, well, every other place where people post information for others to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
right. and they would have to put effort into getting information against a person's wishes. but they can freely ask whatever questions they want. the court order is for compelling the release of that information, or the forcible search for such information, etc.
it's a request (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see any issue with this as long as they are requesting access and not being fraudulent about their request. If Joe Governmentworker sends you a friend request, and you accept it, you are giving him permission to view your data. If you don't know him, then you shouldn't accept the friend request.
Now if they are using fake profiles and false information to do this, then I see an issue, but as long as they are legitimate accounts, I don't see a problem with it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if they are using fake profiles and false information to do this, then I see an issue, but as long as they are legitimate accounts, I don't see a problem with it at all.
While I generally agree, you shouldn't accept a friend request if you're not entirely sure you know the person requesting it. This is basically the equivalent of phishing, and whether it’s the US gov't or some royal family member in Ethiopia looking for $1,000 dollars, you should always check where the request is coming from.
Re: (Score:2)
And if Jane FBI agent comes knocking on your door and says she's an Avon lady, and you let her in, she can search your premise while your getting coffee for her because you assumed she was friendly?!
Re: (Score:2)
I actually believe that is legal. They couldn't go checking the drawers, but if there's a bong on your coffee table, they can use it as evidence.
i don't understand the shock here (Score:5, Insightful)
the practice of law enforcement is an actual valid endeavour. what is going on here is less east german secret police tracking innocent civilians, and more plain old gum shoe police work against actual criminals
and really, to get right down to it: you don't have any protection from what you put out on the web being revealed. this includes old friends from high school, potential employers, spamvertisers... and the government. so if you don't want it revealed or shared, DON'T PUT IT ON THE WEB. why does this amazingly obvious fact escape people?
it just seems kind of insane to me that people want to share stuff in public on an open medium, and then act shocked and dismayed that someone MIGHT ACTUALLY SEE IT. its some sort of human pscyhological blind spot: for some unknown reason, people trust the web with really personal details, when the web is about the exact opposite of the kind of place you want to put those personal details. its as if people don't actually understand that the internet is the most searchable, most wide open medium invented by mankind, but we treat it as if it is our private diary stashed under our bed. why is that? what is the source of this glaring psychological defect so many of us share about the nature of the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure datamining qualifies as gumshoe work, but I agree with the rest of your sentiment. If you don't want the world to see it, don't put it online. That said, if you're doing something illegal and making videos of it, please go ahead and put it online -- and don't forget to provide your mobile number for those temporary passwords!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm always amused by the mouthbreathers who take video of themselves committing some crime and post it on Youtube. Then they're shocked, SHOCKED, when the cops see it and they get arrested.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
what is going on here is less east german secret police tracking innocent civilians, and more plain old gum shoe police work against actual criminals
RTFA. They're tracking enormous numbers of people, with no probable cause to believe these people are committing any crimes ... unless you consider "potentially having political affiliations the government doesn't like" to be probable cause, of course. It's a fishing expedition, something which US law has traditionally frowned upon but which is very characteristic of governments like the old East German one. It's perfectly true that people should be more careful about what information they post online.
do police cruise the streets of your town? (Score:5, Interesting)
the policeman drives up and down the street, looks at cars, looks at people walking on the street, looking at residences...
is that a fishing expedition in your mind? of course not
but that's what you are calling a "fishing expedition" on the internet. you have this bizarre idea that information freely and openly and publicly published is somehow immune to public viewing of it by the government, by advertisers, by people you don't want to reconnect with. it's not just you, it's some sort of mass delusion, some sort of cognitive disconnect about the nature of the internet. people treat it as if it is their private keepsake box in their closet, when the internet is about the exact opposite of such a concept. you expect shock, dismay and disgust, that the police would look at something "private" when it isn't even remotely private. the problem is not the police. the problem is people who have this cognitive disconnect about the nature of the internet like you are demonstrating
do you understand (Score:2)
that you have no expectation of privacy when you stand naked in the middle of times square screaming the secrets of your sex life?
then you understand why posting your private life on the MOST PUBLIC MEDIUM INVENTED BY MANKIND is not just a legal no-starter, but really is a completely logically incoherent concept
Re: (Score:2)
The east german police secret police tracked innocent civilians AND did plain old gum shoe police work against actual criminals.
Why do you think that if an organization does one thing it means they can't or will not in the future do the other?
Re:i don't understand the shock here (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not so much that people misunderstand the internet, it's that they misunderstand computers and automation and what all that is capable of.
It's because everyone else assumes that the massive amount of information put on the internet makes their little tidbit just another drop in the ocean, and that in order for people to find it they have to be actively looking for it, and no one would look for it if they didn't know it already existed.
For example: My mother. She knows the Ballet has a phone number, but she doesn't know what it is. She'll go use the internet to look it up. Now the effort is there, she finds it, it makes sense.
But no one knows she would have vacation photos from 1995, so how are they possibly going to find them without searching them? They see the internet as the kind of place where everything can sit, and only the people you want to find stuff will be able to find it because they will be the only ones looking for it. Phone number? Yeah put it on your facebook because only your friends will see your Facebook. That's the kind of mentality there is. They think no one they don't know will bother looking at their facebook. And they figure it's better to have that accessibility to your friends and loved ones and it outweighs the "off chance" that someone you don't want to grab that information will find it.
The missing piece of the puzzle is that they don't seem to know that people can set up scripts to run through facebook profiles, and grab all the data it can, store it, analyze it, and be used by a variety of people in many different forms. From police work to advertising to far more malicious intents.
Everyone just thinks "It can't or won't happen to me" - you know like drunk driving or World of Warcraft.
well said (Score:2)
the average joe just don't think like a computer scientist. a computer programmer can look at the internet and see a giant dataset ready to be be algorithmed to death. an IT guy, right before he or she hits the "Submit" button, can visualize the web spider that will arrive 10 minutes later, heuristically puree and flambee those words and pictures into an intelligent hierarchy, and offer it up for consumption to anyone typing search terms into a search engine 10 minutes later. the average joe just doesn't th
Re: (Score:2)
against actual criminals
Nope. This sort of thing is perfectly legitimate, but we all know the vast majority of it isn't aimed at actual criminals, but merely people who happen to have been brought to the attention of the Organs of the State (as the Soviets used to call them.)
It's still perfectly legitimate police work, but like all police work it necessarily casts a wider net than criminals, which is why the presumption of innocence is such an important habit of mind.
Re: (Score:2)
what is the source of this glaring psychological defect so many of us share about the nature of the internet?
Narcissism.
Re: (Score:2)
the practice of law enforcement is an actual valid endeavour
Only when the laws are valid. Which in many cases they aren't.
Legalizing something just makes it legal, not moral, not right, not correct, etc.
against actual criminals
But there is no evidence that they are against actual criminals though.
There is so little oversight when it comes to the police and the military we don't -know- as taxpayers what all they do.
More Spying vs. More Sharing (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm actually not very worried (Score:2)
..as I naively thought that the rule about writing down stuff whenever one wants the world to know it, is already a common knowledge. Those refusing to understand full potential of writing should take datamining courses.
Not the only ones by far. (Score:3, Informative)
I work for a bank, and as I'm sure you might guess, our Accounts Control folks (they are the people who repo delinquent property) use Facebook, Twitter, and others all the time to find where people are and where to find the delinquent property. It's incredibly effective.
After the Patriot Act was passed... (Score:4, Interesting)
Facebook just makes it easier.
So, Slashdot...what information are you divulging to our government overlords?
Basically.... (Score:2)
Government: Hey, can we spy on you?
You: Sure, friend request accepted.
If you're being spyed on, its pretty much your fault. Its like giving the police access to your home and saying "Hey, come in whenever you want."
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Schmoe: Hi I want to be your Facebook Friend!
You: Oh, sure, did we meet at that huge party?
Joe Schmoe: Yup!
With no indication that the request came from the government. I wouldn't be surprised if the process had been automated -- if the only time a live person was involved was when the target sent a message asking for details about the friend request.
YRO? Wrong. (Score:3, Funny)
You have a Facebook message: (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Robert S. Mueller, III has just invited you to TerroristVille. How about sending him a free gift in return?
Suspects (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We all are suspects these days. It sucks and we should do something about it.
Queue vision of a tween boy sitting sullenly behind his computer, sucking a lollipop and pouting.
Let the encryption begin (Score:2)
Can somebody please program an add-on that encrypts messages, pictures and text on facebook?
E.g. like the blowfish add-on that exist for IRC programs, that makes text unreadable for people without the correct key.
Re:Let the encryption begin (Score:4, Insightful)
Can somebody please program an add-on that encrypts messages, pictures and text on facebook? E.g. like the blowfish add-on that exist for IRC programs, that makes text unreadable for people without the correct key.
A key that you give out to your friends?
Re:Let the encryption begin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Analogy of the Day award goes to Ickleberry!
(Hey, we should make that a real Slashdot feature. You just click on a post to nominate it into a voting system, that could be a box on the right of the homepage, winner gets an achievement)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What would be (Score:4, Interesting)
Really interesting would be if someone managed to compile statistics on what the success rate for such fishing expeditions is, so that the public could see what an efficient use of public funds and time such methods provide.
When will people get their heads around the fact that the law-breaker always has the initiative? The only way you can successfully prevent all crimes is to chain everyone to a wall and gag them. All of this "prevention" necessarily comes at the cost of individual freedom and privacy. However as a side effect it produces data and situations that can easily be exploited by corrupt law enforcement officers and/or politicians. Western society is traveling down a very dangerous road, and most people seem oblivious to that fact.
Re: (Score:2)
to prevent horrific events, rather than wading through the aftermath.
Except the horrific events don't get prevented either. Life itself is a pretty horrific event, considering we all die at the end. Plus if you live long enough, your reward (apart from a shell of a body) is getting to watch everyone else die.
Funny, I live in the third world and despite the inefficiency of the police, the thugs that kill you if you take too long handing over your car keys or your w
Slashdot not on the list... (Score:2)
Wrong focus (Score:2)
Are the rest of you going to listen finally? (Score:2)
An opportunity... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Facebook is that most people do not feel that what they are sharing on Facebook really needs to be private -- after all, they are sharing things that their circle of friends already knows. The difference is that, where previously the government would have actually had to put effort i
Re:ctrl-C, ctrl-V news (Score:5, Insightful)
It's straight from the Reuters news wire for christ's sake, widely considered one of the less biased news sources around. I would have hoped that people on Slashdot were intelligent enough to spot bias when they see it, rather than just deciding anything connected in any with with Fox is automatically wrong and anyone speaking against Fox News is automatically right. Clearly, I was incorrect, there are at least 3 people (the author of this comment plus 2 mods) who will argue that an article is wrong because Fox News reposts it.