Macworld Forums

Macworld Forums: FBI seeks social media monitoring tool - Macworld Forums

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

FBI seeks social media monitoring tool

#1 User is offline   Macworld 

  • Story Poster
  • Group: MW Bot
  • Posts: 34,402
  • Joined: 30-November 07

Posted 14 February 2012 - 07:46 AM

Post your comments for FBI seeks social media monitoring tool here
0

#2 User is offline   nmpike 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 691
  • Joined: 13-February 04

  Posted 14 February 2012 - 08:51 AM

We need this.... especially with Iran... if you post on a public site, the FBI has every right to read it.

People who don't want them reading this stuff to protect our freedom are probably doing something they shouldn't.
-2

#3 User is offline   joebot 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 12-April 07

  Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:10 AM

Generally I agree, but I think the concerns being raised are legitimate. Power expands to fill the space granted to it, so it behooves us to grant that space very, very carefully.
0

#4 User is offline   msealey 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 02-September 04

  Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:12 AM

As long as the state and élite (aka the 1%) can know and control everything that everyone thinks - particularly when it doesn't accord with their make-money, wage-war agenda; and particularly when views are expressed questioning its right to know and control - we'll all be all right.
--
Mark Sealey <www.markworks.com>
0

#5 User is offline   bastion 

  • Power User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9,272
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:41 AM

View Postnmpike, on 14 February 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

We need this.... especially with Iran... if you post on a public site, the FBI has every right to read it.

People who don't want them reading this stuff to protect our freedom are probably doing something they shouldn't.


Weird to experience such strongly opposing views to such a short post.

We need this: Need may be a bit strong, but it's clearly a valuable tool for reasons laid out in the article.
especially with Iran: Complete non-sequitur.
if you post on a public site, the FBI has every right to read it.: Totally agree. If you're broadcasting something you can't complain about who's receiving it.
People who don't want them reading this stuff to protect our freedom are probably doing something they shouldn't.: This argument *never* holds water. It's just a rhetorical tool to shout down those of opposing viewpoints. Completely spurious. Bonus points for the "protect our freedom" silliness.
0

#6 User is offline   bastion 

  • Power User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9,272
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:44 AM

View Postjoebot, on 14 February 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Generally I agree, but I think the concerns being raised are legitimate. Power expands to fill the space granted to it, so it behooves us to grant that space very, very carefully.


The problem is that the space is granted by the simple fact of posting to public forums. There's no expansion of power implied here. It's just a statement that they're looking for an effective means to mine freely available data.
0

#7 User is offline   Success 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 158
  • Joined: 20-January 09

Posted 14 February 2012 - 10:40 AM

View Postnmpike, on 14 February 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

We need this.... especially with Iran... if you post on a public site, the FBI has every right to read it.

People who don't want them reading this stuff to protect our freedom are probably doing something they shouldn't.


We need this, especially with the Eff Bee Eye. I suggest cop-cams, a camera in the cap or other clothing of every law enforcement officer. After all, they've nothing to fear if they're doing nothing wrong.
0

#8 User is offline   nmpike 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 691
  • Joined: 13-February 04

Posted 14 February 2012 - 11:46 AM

View PostSuccess, on 14 February 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:


We need this, especially with the Eff Bee Eye. I suggest cop-cams, a camera in the cap or other clothing of every law enforcement officer. After all, they've nothing to fear if they're doing nothing wrong.


I agree on this too... if the cops had cameras it could prove they are doing things right (or wrong!)...

I get so sick and tired of hearing "Yet another cop shooting in Albuquerque" on the news... "yet another..."

These guys go in to the worst parts of town and have people trying to kill them. If you're high on meth and charge someone with a gun or knife, the officer needs to protect themselves...

But if they shot someone for no good reason, then they should get the just punishment...

Despite what "most people" think, the government isn't "out to get them"... I think it has issues, just like everything, but if the FBI walked in my house right now and tore everything apart I would be ticked... but they wouldn't find anything...

For them to come in and want to do that probably means I'm up to something I shouldn't be.

I've NEVER heard of the FBI, or any other police force in the US picking a random guy off the street and giving him a "roto-rooter".

Unfortunately we live in a world people where people hate us.. a world where a select group of 5 people can put together a nuke and kill millions.. or mutate the avian flu virus and wipe out an entire country...

Sorry, I'll let them look at whatever they want of mine, and I don't mind them doing it to others... because I'd much rather get ransacked and live, than have privacy and watch people die in the masses.

The constitution was written when most people were good... look at the state of things today...
0

#9 User is offline   bastion 

  • Power User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9,272
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 14 February 2012 - 01:20 PM

View Postnmpike, on 14 February 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

For them to come in and want to do that probably means I'm up to something I shouldn't be.


Probably, but not necessarily, and that's where the problem comes in. Sometimes what you're doing is perfectly fine but someone thinks it's against the law. Sometimes they just think it *should be* against the law. And sometimes they simply make a mistake. It wasn't a federal matter, but a few years ago my mother ended up in criminal court because someone decided she hadn't done enough to make a discarded refrigerator safe. Understand: She was aware of the law, had acted in the spirit of the law and had gone beyond what was required by the law. She even spent time explaining to my young daughter at the time exactly *why* she was doing what she was doing. But she ended up in court, losing time and pay, because she apparently she hadn't gone far *enough* beyond what the law said she had to do. If you believe that laws are enforced correctly and uniformly, you're incredibly naive. If you believe being falsely targetted is nothing more than a passing inconvenience you're seriously underestimating the potential for mental trauma, physical injury and death when law enforcement screws up.

My wife recently started a small hydroponics garden. A small collection of kitchen herbs. I am, in all sincerity, quite nervous about the likelihood that her web searches for information on hydroponics have gotten us onto a watch list.

Want some fun social media notions that have popped up recently: Market adoption in the developed world of social media as a category is now so pervasive that non-participation is not merely odd but viewed as outright suspicious. That's right: the most plausible reason for not having a Facebook or Google+ account in 2012 is that you've got something to hide. What if you do have an account but aren't exactly a social butterfly? In a couple of recent incidents of school violence, the fact that the perpetrators were not "active enough" on Facebook is now being taken as a missed but legitimate "warning sign" of their anti-social tendencies.

Quote

I've NEVER heard of the FBI, or any other police force in the US picking a random guy off the street and giving him a "roto-rooter".


A couple of weeks ago in Massachusetts the FBI chainsawed their way into a private residence during a no-knock drug bust and entered with guns drawn. On a woman and her toddler who had nothing at all to do with the mission. Wrong address. Darned shame. But imagine if she had reacted defensively instead of frozen in panic. Think she'd still be alive? Past events - because this is nothing like the first time a no-knock raid in the wee hours of the morning has targetted the wrong place and sometimes people have defended themselves from these unknown "intruders" - suggest not.

Quote

The constitution was written when most people were good...


Seriously? You really think people en masse were better-behaved then than now? The primary reason we have proportionately more lawbreakers now is that we've got more laws to break.

This post has been edited by bastion: 14 February 2012 - 01:49 PM

0

#10 User is offline   Eric72 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 369
  • Joined: 01-October 09

  Posted 14 February 2012 - 01:32 PM

Ya...it's called TIMELINE. lol
0

#11 User is offline   JDW 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 500
  • Joined: 31-August 04

  Posted 14 February 2012 - 02:19 PM

Since when is FaceBook "public"? Does anyone posting here actually use FaceBook? If so, you know you can't even see my FaceBook page unless you have a FaceBook account. That alone means it is not totally "open to public view." But even after you get yourself a FaceBook account, can you see all my posts? No! Only those that I deliberately set to "Public." But the vast majority of my posts are set to my private group of registered FaceBook friends. That is not public. My words there are not unlike a diary, which the Feds have no business reading, no matter what I say.
0

#12 User is offline   bastion 

  • Power User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9,272
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 14 February 2012 - 03:04 PM

View PostJDW, on 14 February 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Since when is FaceBook "public"? Does anyone posting here actually use FaceBook? If so, you know you can't even see my FaceBook page unless you have a FaceBook account.


Completely, utterly, without exception, 100% and in all other ways false. Perhaps that was true when you got your Facebook account - I really have no idea if it ever was - but it's not true *today* and has not been true for years.
0

#13 User is offline   JDW 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 500
  • Joined: 31-August 04

Posted 14 February 2012 - 04:38 PM

View Postbastion, on 14 February 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Completely, utterly, without exception, 100% and in all other ways false. Perhaps that was true when you got your Facebook account - I really have no idea if it ever was - but it's not true *today* and has not been true for years.

Please give me specific examples. Please know that I ask for such with an open mind.

But for now, I really don't see what you are talking about. I've logged out of FaceBook and then used another computer, which I normally do not access FaceBook from (and hence it has no browser cache data for my FaceBook account). And I cannot view much of anything! So if you are suggesting there is a secret back-door to unlock my FaceBook account, I am all ears to hear it. Even so, "most people" don't know about that back door. If they did, I have little doubt I would have been hacked by now.

My understand is that most people get in trouble when they deal with FaceBook apps, which is why I avoid them like the plague.
0

#14 User is offline   bastion 

  • Power User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9,272
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:11 PM

View PostJDW, on 14 February 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

View Postbastion, on 14 February 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Completely, utterly, without exception, 100% and in all other ways false. Perhaps that was true when you got your Facebook account - I really have no idea if it ever was - but it's not true *today* and has not been true for years.

Please give me specific examples. Please know that I ask for such with an open mind.

But for now, I really don't see what you are talking about. I've logged out of FaceBook and then used another computer, which I normally do not access FaceBook from (and hence it has no browser cache data for my FaceBook account). And I cannot view much of anything! So if you are suggesting there is a secret back-door to unlock my FaceBook account, I am all ears to hear it. Even so, "most people" don't know about that back door. If they did, I have little doubt I would have been hacked by now.


As I have no idea what your Facebook account name is, I can't speak definitively about your account. But the question Since when is FaceBook "public?" connotes to me that you believe it is the reliable case that peoples' Facebook postings are private. This is not true. Thus - again since I don't know which account is yours - I don't "know I can't even see your FaceBook page unless I have a FaceBook account." I do not have a Facebook account. Never did. Never expect to. Yet I can see random peoples' Facebook pages with no difficulty. There is, in short, much content on Facebook that is public. No secret. No backdoor. Just a lot of stuff that's out there for random perusal.
0

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users