Posted by: Clarinette | October 24, 2010

‘Feds see Facebook as a psychological crutch for the needy.’

Update 31/10/2010:

The Real Privacy Scandal On Social Networks: The Feds Are Spying On Their “Friends”

Knowing that Governments spy on you is not a big discovery in itself.
According to TechCrunch, in : ‘The Real Privacy Scandal On Social Networks: The Feds Are Spying On Their “Friends”
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) using their Freedom of Information right that obtained a memo revealing ‘that the Feds see Facebook as a psychological crutch for the needy.’

What is un-known is the criteria to benefit from such a close surveillance protection.

According to Jennifer Lynch, from EFF, “the memo makes no mention of what level of suspicion, if any, an agent must find before conducting such surveillance, leaving every applicant as a potential target.

How much credit to attribute to the founding of the UK insurance company Direct Line from a recent study that “people are more likely to be dishonest when chatting using technology, such as Twitter, than they would be face to face.

And yes we do have many facets and surveillance has a chilling effect on the freedom of Speech. See in NYT: ‘The Many Faces of You

The reverse is also true, feeling protected by the filter of the screen, users can be more ‘true’ online than in real life.

The online ‘disinhibition’ effect releases the social restrictions and inhibitions that would otherwise be present in normal face-to-face interactions.

Online tools, and I’m thinking here of the new Facebook groups, give you the false impression of evolving in private ‘sphere’ or even in ‘secret group’ encouraging more revelation where actually the privacy of the group only relies on how much EACH member of the group is careful of not introducing the weakest link.

We are all the Yin and the Yang; Contradictions, revealing the truth, or playing the multiple face, find their playground online. Once again, over-relying on digital personalities is erroneous.

More on the mistake of over-relying on technologies and ‘What the Internet Knows About You

Many ways of aggregating information exists. on this paper, ‘Find the Person Behind an Email Address‘ more demonstration on how information is re-collected.

Wendy M Grossman from the Guardian wrote a remarkable article ‘No, we don’t ‘understand’ surveillance reversal
The revival of a surveillance programme by the coalition makes its promises to safeguard personal privacy sound hollow’
In this credit crunch era, UK is spending £2bn for ‘interception modernisation programme’. Why? the plan is to ‘store all the nation’s telecommunications traffic data in a sort of giant shed where it can be sifted, mined and surveilled by law enforcement. ‘
Her first technical objection is the security of such centralised data base against cyberattacks. ‘a giant database on a national scale you create a single point of vulnerability.’
Apart from the civil liberties objection, notably warrantless wiretapping, the financial objection is probably the most objectively controversial.
In her own words: ‘Wiretapping and Encryption, which documents the concomitant growth of surveillance and telecommunications. What IMP (and the also-proposed installation of deep packet inspection equipment at ISPs) enables is not just wiretapping but very specifically warrantless wiretapping.



  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by clarinette and rachel oconnell, Christina Zaba. Christina Zaba said: RT @clarinette02: ‘Feds see Facebook as a psychological crutch for the needy.’ #privacy […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: