US Protectionism
The destructive symbiosis between paranoid bureaucracy and commercial abuse of data is the biggest threat to digital society.
Approaches such as this is really about control with little or no legitimate needs.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-w...
The claim that that police needs to be able to do hidden surveillance and wiretapping need justification. There is little problem technically in what we can call visible requirements of specific surveillance and wiretapping (e.g. convicted criminals), all the problems occur because of requirements of backdoors that cannot be protected and gets systemically abused.
Why should out children not have the abolity to create peer-to-peer groups without centralised surveillance and commercial abuse of data? You can validate non-invasive that they belonging to the same group e.g. a school class and you can require e.g. two independant moderators. But why more?
Group audience:
Comments
Stephan, don't take me wrong,
Stephan, don't take me wrong, but that a bit far fetched.
Here is my comment at the CNET website:
Yeah this is a "REAL" problem that the FBI, CIA and all other agencies are drilling holes into Social Media where we all publicize what we have to say and think and where we spend an enormous amount of time that it is read by as many as possible people and where our word will be spread. Visualizing it, it may look like holding a jackhammer up into the air and drilling holes into the air :)
Come on guys - when do you ever get it. Publishers need those kind of headlines to survive and people like you to comment and share and help the publisher keep the lights on :)))
Well AxelS, I tend to agree
Well AxelS, I tend to agree with Engberg on this point that this is very relevant to the discussion here.
I am not saying that we should be paranoid, but look this as a signal to analyse and more specifically:
* Check the reality of these facts (indeed journalist may exaggerate the situation)
* Try to look at its possible implication for the future. (for instance are we going to a surveillance society)
* And if necessary, look if we should do something about this situation (in relation to the strategy).
A reference (food for thought):
Nine principles for assessing whether privacy is protected in a surveillance society
IDENTITY IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY
Volume 1, Number 1 (2008), 1-22
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w82t6476753v64m8/
The problem is not that FBI
The problem is not that FBI is looking into social media, but that social media is without seurity. Facebook and Google abuse data a lot more than FBi will ever do.
How cause this is different in a dicatortorship and structures such as these create the power structure for such, but Europe and US are not there yet even through far down the slippery slope.