Editorial – Twitter Tapping – NYTimes.com

December 16, 2009

The government is increasingly monitoring Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites for tax delinquents, copyright infringers and political protesters. A public interest group has filed a lawsuit to learn more about this monitoring, in the hope of starting a national discussion and modifying privacy laws as necessary for the online era.

Times Topics: Twitter | Facebook | Privacy

Law enforcement is not saying a lot about its social surveillance, but examples keep coming to light. The Wall Street Journal reported this summer that state revenue agents have been searching for tax scofflaws by mining information on MySpace and Facebook. In October, the F.B.I. searched the New York home of a man suspected of helping coordinate protests at the Group of 20 meeting in Pittsburgh by sending out messages over Twitter.

In some cases, the government appears to be engaged in deception. The Boston Globe recently quoted a Massachusetts district attorney as saying that some police officers were going undercover on Facebook as part of their investigations.

Wired magazine reported last month that In-Q-Tel, an investment arm of the Central Intelligence Agency, has put money into Visible Technologies, a software company that crawls across blogs, online forums, and open networks like Twitter and YouTube to monitor what is being said.

This month the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law sued the Department of Defense, the C.I.A. and other federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act to learn more about their use of social networking sites.

The suit seeks to uncover what guidelines these agencies have about this activity, including information about whether agents are permitted to use fake identities or to engage in subterfuge, such as tricking people into accepting Facebook friend requests.

Privacy law was largely created in the pre-Internet age, and new rules are needed to keep up with the ways people communicate today. Much of what occurs online, like blog posting, is intended to be an open declaration to the world, and law enforcement is within its rights to read and act on what is written. Other kinds of communication, particularly in a closed network, may come with an expectation of privacy. If government agents are joining social networks under false pretenses to spy without a court order, for example, that might be crossing a line.

A national conversation about social networking and other forms of online privacy is long overdue. The first step toward having it is for the public to know more about what is currently being done. Making the federal government answer these reasonable Freedom of Information Act requests would be a good start.

this is the transparent government that Obama promised to bring us? get back to fighting terrorism already and stop looking for political dessent!

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon’s posterous


Bride of the Disabled Profile

October 14, 2009

Live with the JIDF #Ep. 14 Talking about the risk people pose to themselves and the content they create on Facebook.

September 30, 2009

How and why Facebook targets right wingers and Jewish activists, etc. – Original Air Date: 9/29/2009 8:00 PM


Arbitrary Tolerance from Brian Cuban

July 27, 2009

Brian Cuban never really defined why he would allow the ISNA into dialog and reject theJIDF. he only attempted to pull rank by claiming that JIDF is one person. wrong: this blog is associated with @theJIDF. unfortunately Brian Cuban Turned Off the Commenting.


facebook connect was working before. now it doesn’t

July 21, 2009

what is with the collective punishing?

July 20, 2009

facebook won’t let me post to walls. what is strange is many of my friends have the same problem. these things must go in groups. what is with the collective punishing? they must look at the problem as a group issue. I know I was attempting to get people to join my blognetworks when it tripped the alarm. I think the system becomes vulnerable to alarm when your friends are also highly active. who knows? I do know I was using facebook for like 48 hours straight when it happened, but I was not spamming. I give reference urls to where I find information in all comments. it would seem that facebook is punishing for giving credit to my quotes? I’m not sure what their beef is. the other thing is they say they warn you. the warning and the disabling of a feature do not go in stages. it happens all at once. is this going on with anyone else? if yes come to my blog post to comment. facebook can’t punish you for posting here… or at least I think so.


facebook goes Chomsky

June 30, 2009

it is bizarre that some of these facebook employees see no correlation between a page for some hate group and what happened this week in Washington at the Holocaust Museum and no correlation between the employees of facebook, their opinions and how facebook follows their own terms

Holocaust denial has not disqualified Abbas from getting Obama’s first phone call from the White House. Why then must Von Brunn stay in prison, instead of being invited to the Oval Office? It couldn’t be because Von Brunn hates Jews or tried to kill them. Von Brunn is an amateur compared to Abbas. the slippery slope is slippery only because it’s mud slide wants to be contained by haters. It all leads right to the top

this won’t get traffic. if it did facebook would follow their own policy and ban hate speech. if any of this caught the attention of advertisers, facebook would be out of business.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean -neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’ — Lewis Carroll

if the person who quoted Chomsky had read anything about Chomsky they would know there isn’t anything systematic about language according to the axioms of Chomsky. Language doesn’t have meaning through systematic method. you can’t prove or disprove semiotics. it is simply understood. to be so obtuse and dry as to pretend that meaning is a mathematical science because you quote Chomsky is an immediate sign of bias. I have asked facebook to be true to free speech for years now. Now I am humbly asking them to at least to be socially responsible with their supposed “discretion”. the fact that they are neither and are in conflict with their own terms is a good argument for AntiTrust laws to be used. I disagree with the expansive mindset of facebook, but the argument is that they are supposedly creating a better environment for communication. enabling hate speech is in conflict with their own arguments. I happen to disagree with their claim that they can censor, but now it seems even their censorship is random and hate based. we would love for facebook to have free speech! what we have instead is populism. facebook caters to the tyranny of the mob. that isn’t freedom. What has happened is Holocaust denial has become hip enough that facebook is allowing it. In the same respect nudity has become culturally taboo in a majority of circles and therefor facebook censors it. In the same respect Jewish Conservative groups go down all the time. for crying out loud! how is this free speech? if facebook wants to enact a policy of free speech I would support it, but if they are not then it is the users interest to influence facebook into responsible behavior.


Chomsky’s Ravenous Bugblatter Beast

June 14, 2009

if the person who quoted Chomsky had read anything about Chomsky they would know there isn’t anything systematic about language according to the axioms of Chomsky. Language doesn’t have meaning through systematic method. you can’t prove or disprove semiotics. it is simply understood. to be so obtuse and dry as to pretend that meaning is a mathematical science because you quote Chomsky is an immediate sign of bias. I have asked facebook to be true to free speech for years now. Now I am humbly asking them to at least to be socially responsible with their supposed “discretion”. the fact that they are neither and are in conflict with their own terms is a good argument for AntiTrust laws to be used. I disagree with the expansive mindset of facebook, but the argument is that they are supposedly creating a better environment for communication. enabling hate speech is in conflict with their own arguments. I happen to disagree with their claim that they can censor, but now it seems even their censorship is random and hate based. we would love for facebook to have free speech! what we have instead is populism. facebook caters to the tyranny of the mob. that isn’t freedom. What has happened is Holocaust denial has become hip enough that facebook is allowing it. In the same respect nudity has become culturally taboo in a majority of circles and therefor facebook censors it. In the same respect Jewish Conservative groups go down all the time. for crying out loud! how is this free speech? if facebook wants to enact a policy of free speech I would support it, but if they are not then it is the users interest to influence facebook into responsible behavior.

story continues here
http://simonstudiotheatre.blogspot.com/2009/06/facebook-goes-chomsky.html


Boycott facebook

June 12, 2009

facebook wall post block

November 22, 2008
I seem to have a wall post block on facebook tonight

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.