FBI Wants to Invest in Social Media Surveillance Tool

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by Minimalist, Jul 15, 2019.

  1. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    11,662
    Location:
    Here
    https://hotforsecurity.bitdefender....-in-social-media-surveillance-tool-21407.html
     
  2. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,834
    Hey, gotta protect us from terrists. And protect the children. Unless they're terrists.
     
  3. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,137
    Well here we go again, beating the same old same old same old drum - ad nauseum. Since the critical mass is asleep while they live, it's unsurprising that this long standing perennial excuse keeps gaining traction.
     
  4. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    6,118
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    That is logical request, to find misbehaving people, law enforcements need clues, if they possess a tool revealing those clues, they have to use it.
    The real question isn't to allow it or not, it is on who and how it will be used.
     
  5. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,834
    It'll be used on anyone who is sloppy enough to get it used on them.
     
  6. kls490

    kls490 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2015
    Posts:
    57
    Location:
    Mid Atlantic Region (USA)
    And, who will watch the Watchers?

    This is just another "tool" that will no doubt be perverted into something with adverse consequences for law-abiding persons......all in the name of 'security for the masses'.
     
  7. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    6,118
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    If heavy surveillance of the masses prevent one person to die from fanatics of all sorts, it worth it, even if some "deviations" are made on the way; and those who say otherwise should express their points in person with the families of the terrorism's victims.

    i would applause the installation of 100 cameras around my neighborhood if it allows my girlfriend to walk home safely without being harassed by some gangs youngsters.
     
  8. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,834
    The problem is that many of the "watchers" are "fanatics". More so, or more less, depending where you are. And/or, who you are.
     
  9. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    6,118
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    if you consider your law enforcements or state security agencies as terrorists or fanatics, then it is time for you to move to another country :p
     
  10. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,834
    Yeah, well, I rather feel that way about all countries, more or less.
     
  11. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,979
    @ Umbra

    You are well meaning, but Very naive. The system in All countries are Not there to really protect us. It's been that way for a VERY long time. Even before the internet.
     
  12. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,137
    Umbra, I don't doubt at all there's a need to rein in "misbehaving people" but you need to realize there's more to this than falling into the false dichotomy trap such as being polarized in one of 2 camps. A good start would be understanding whats going on when the word terrorism has broadened it's meaning to include anyone who has a furrowed brow. If you cant/won't get beyond this point, then you're a prime example of the type of person the PTB favor above all.
     
  13. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    6,118
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    I know that, the people in power are just there to fulfill their egocentric ambitions, because power = privileges and easy money, citizen safety is their marketing speeches only. it is why i don't even care about privacy, you never had it in the first place.


    @Reality I'm a French citizen and our country has been the one most hit by religious fanatics, so I understand very well how it get to that point, I saw the "will be terrorist" youngsters getting pushed away from society, no job opportunities, targeted by law enforcements, etc... So they have such hate for the country they live in that they find purpose and family by terrorist recruiters.

    But this is still an issue and if you have tools to prevent potential tragedies it is a duty to use them.

    Don't think I'm naive, I'm very far from it but I don't tell fantasies, I'm logic and practical. If you can achieve security and peace, by sacrificing a little of privacy, why not?
    People do it all the time for their job, what the difference here?
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2019
  14. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,137
    But the trouble is it's not sacrificing a little privacy is it? "If heavy surveillance of the masses ..." Umbra, your words not mine.

    You're right about the ego centrics, but it's no reason to trade your privacy because of these despots at the top. If you're logical, then know that these people defy logic. Not caring for privacy means losing part of what makes us human. You can take from that what you will, but that principle is still a core value no matter where you reside on the planet.
     
  15. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    6,118
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    Yep I don't mind thousands of CCTVs on the streets because I don't steal, housebreak, carjack, assault people, etc...



    Even if you care what could you do? Nothing much... Datas is knowledge, knowledge is power... All govs crave for it, it is why intel agencies are made for...
    Privacy is insubstantial, you can't measure it, you can protest and even get some laws passed but at the end they will just hide it to you...
    You want personal privacy, use tools at your disposition, because it is too late to go back and set limitations to govs.
     
  16. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,137
    Well then, its not just a "little privacy " is it, we're back to "heavy surveillance".

    Just because you can't measure it (privacy), like many other things of value, doesn't mean you throw it out and don't care for it. That means you're playing right into the hands of those who have their fair share of real criminals within their ranks. The reason I come to Wilders is mainly, as you say, use tools at your disposal to protect privacy. So granted, you might not be able to do much at the top level, but at an individual level, you can and every bit is worth fighting for as it goes deeper than just what they can try and take from you.
     
  17. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    6,118
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    Heavy surveillance can be done without being too intrusive about your personal privacy
     
  18. mirimir

    mirimir Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2011
    Posts:
    8,834
    But here's the thing. The article is about the FBI. And the FBI enforces laws that are morally indefensible.

    And it's far worse in many other countries.

    So arguably the ratio of actual terrorists and professional criminals getting caught to ~harmless people getting pwned is small. Especially because actual terrorists and professional criminals typically have better OPSEC. So is it worth harming thousands of people to save maybe dozens of terrorism victims? And it's not just about ~harmless people who get pwned. There's also the broader impacts of pervasive fear and repression.
     
  19. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    6,118
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    Let me rephrase it:

    Is it worth collecting datas on millions people to prevent your kid from being killed by a bombing attack (that will happen but not enough intel to know where unless using the said tool) ?

    I bet you will say yes.
     
  20. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    11,662
    Location:
    Here
    Following this logic governments should put cameras everywhere. They should put it inside everyone's car and also have an option to stop the engine. That way terrorists could be stopped from driving into a group of people.
    They should also put one in everyone's home so they could prevent domestic violence and other illegal activity happening behind 4 walls.

    Most people would probably support this if they believed that this would protect their loved ones from any harm. But the question remains: how much liberty are we prepared to give up to improve our security (or our sense of security).
    And usually when someone want to limit people's liberty they'll usually say it's in the name of security. That way it's more likely to be accepted by people.
     
  21. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    6,118
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    @Minimalist you totally got it, what will you sacrifice to protect those you love?

    Personally I don't mind a thousands cams on the streets with hundreds of patrolling cops/military everywhere.
    You will surely a huge drop of urban criminality.

    About raming cars, not difficult to implement a anticollision system that block the wheels if a humanoid form is detected by some kind of sensors.

    What happens in your house is your business, until someone call the cops.

    It is why such monitoring tools are necessary so law enforcement have enough solid Intel to request a judge the authorization to break in a house and stop illegal activities.

    You can't have real security/safety without privacy intrusion.

    Now people you decide:

    1- have serious privacy (basically restricting law enforcements to gather intel in efficient way) at the risk of letting criminals behave in total impunity.

    2- let the law enforcements a bit more freedom to catch criminals at the expense of your online communications being analyzed.
    Note that you risk nothing if you do nothing wrong...
    Remember, law enforcement monitoring isn't the same as a pervert neighbor spying on you.

    Personally I chose n°2
     
  22. Stefan Froberg

    Stefan Froberg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2014
    Posts:
    646
    That depends hugely on what country you happen to live.

    Try telling that to millions of Uyghurs living in China, that they have nothing to worry about.
    They are being constantly surveillanced 24/7 by authorities there because
    the Chinese goverment think they are all terrorists and treats them as such (a la so called "re-education" camps)

    Their real crime? Being an ethnic minority in a
    country mostly populated by Han people.
     
  23. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    11,662
    Location:
    Here
    But why stop here? Wouldn't a camera in each house improve security? Why shouldn't they be allowed in your house without a warrant but they should be allowed to access all your private data in digital form sometimes even without warrant? Why judges don't give warrants to break into thousands of houses when looking for criminals but they do it for data from thousands of people?
    Following this logic, more data (less privacy) will give us more security. So should we seek a "zero privacy" goal? Will we then be as safe as possible?
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2019
  24. Reality

    Reality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Posts:
    1,137
    No umbra, "Heavy surveillance" and "without being too intrusive" are diametrically opposed. You cant have both.

    Your motives may be noble but, it doesn't matter how much you try and get every last gun out society, you're always going miss the one that got away. You're never going to engineer society to the degree that everyone moves around in a protected bubble. The fact is no matter where you live on earth, theres risks everywhere, indoors and outdoors. You're never going to stamp out the risk of your loved one being on the recieving end of some dastardly act. This is a fact of life. There's many a "false peace" but if you want real peace you won't find it having govts rule absolutely.

    Again, forfeit your privacy because the powers that be say they're going to protect you is for the most part a bunch of lies. What this is all about is control. It is not beyond reasonable then, to realize many events have been engineered to encourage people to give up their freedoms, choices and privacy.
     
  25. Umbra

    Umbra Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Posts:
    6,118
    Location:
    Europe then Asia
    Because you need to weight the ratio intrusion/safety to satisfy the masse's sensibilities, especially in "democratic" countries.

    Be sure that in non-democracies (like the one I live in right now) , law enforcement don't need any authorizations to break in your home and interestingly, in those countries, there is almost no bombing or terrorists, school massacres, or fanatics.

    Too much freedom endanger freedom.

    @Reality of course you can't have total safety, must be dumb to expect that, but a "corrupt" government that can assure safety to its citizens is still better than letting people rules by themselves, you will have Chaos like the far west or middle age.

    Any wannabe leadership crave control and dominance, it is human nature, even the religious one preaching virtues didn't hesitate to massacre and torture to ensure control.

    You can't eradicate abuse of power. Just pick the less dangerous one.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2019
Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.