Bitcoin Forum

https://medium.com/elixxir/why-mark-zuckerberg-wants-no-privacy-why-he-wrote-his-letter-and-why-it-wont-help-him-c020e434ce36

According to a recent open letter on privacy, Mark Zuckerberg wants us to believehe can combine WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Instagram platforms with “end-to-end” encryption to create the ultimate privacy-protecting platform.

thoughts? what does this mean for society?

safeguarding privacy will cost him money, he will need expert and will have to fight a race with hackers, so he just doesnt want to fight it.

thats all

It means he is a liar.

Someone needs to replace his doing.... it's about damn time. Show us what true data protection is and honor humanity not money

what you mean liar ? why can you say he is a liar ? do you have a reason sir ?

It is always the best to read the terms and agreement before entering any platform to avoid these kinds of questions and to be aware of everything. Facebook and any social media platforms generate revenue from marketing, not spying. I'm very sure that you are familiar with the thing called KYC/AML.

There's a big difference between Marketing and Spying. But yes, we are so much free to stop using facebook and delete our accounts to avoid questioning them. I find the crypto startup guy as an envy tech person who couldn't accept that Mark Zuckerberg made facebook
as one of the best social media of all time.

Facefuck = Lifelog = DARPA

Not after Spying became a necessary and profitable tool for Marketing.

New technology emerged and new system are now available. Facebook/ Google etal are now using new technology that does not exist and unheard of when I accepted their TOS.

Aren't they are supposed to send me TOS every year, telling me how much processing power they have acquired and how much they are tracking my movements.

It's pretty simple. Why in the world would you want to protect such a person?

Facebook is the biggest spy in the world and it has almost the details of every person in this world except new born babies but still they know that from others post.

SO it is not surprise that he never want us to be in privacy.

Zuckerberg either wants more money, or more control, or more power, or his life has been threatened by others who have much greater power than he, that if he doesn't toe the line, they will make him suffer.

8)

That's pretty much totally correct.

There's zero reason to believe anything they say.

Just look at their history of data leaks and losses.

Then look at the things they have told us that turned out to totally not be true.

Sure, post it again. Some things really should be repeated over and over.

Then they get totally boring. Like Facebook.

Whatapp is still owned by Facebook as far as I know,so still the story repeats again with facebook,whatapp and instagram.

Obviously it is all about metadata.
He admits that Facebook will still collect and store your data, of course only for "security" reasons.
That metadata will be accessible for Facebook, so it is just more of the same old, same old.
Collect meta, pack it and sell with huge profit to third party. Classic deception.

It is very difficult to comprehend when we realise the amount of our private information that has been put out there simply because we want to make use of popular social platforms outlets like Facebook and WhatsApp. There is more to be done to ensure users are fully protected from any form of abuse so far as their private life is concerned.

It's a bit like asking the pedophiles to report on the children?

oh ok i understand now. I thought only the data of famous people who were sold was bought and sold. but is there anyone who wants to buy data from people who are not famous like many Facebook users?

Most likely it will be the advertising companies. Those who serve profiled ads, need actual data on peoples online behaviour, in order to match products and services to users and maximise sell profits and advertising exposure.
I suspect it can also be various three letter government agencies, non-governmental organization (NGO) and as it is free market, anyone who's ready to pay. Data is the new oil, who owns it has power.   

He might be planning to combine everything and come up with a blockchain platform but for them to talk about privacy is just a joke when they were collecting user password and stored in plain text format, so that is how they go about user privacy and storing sensitive data. It means nothing for the society, people who are addicted to social media platforms, they will be using it even if it is insecure.

Security and privacy is based on your ability to give out information on a need to know basis.

There is only one point of view in which Zuck has a need to know your info.

In his own mind.

Does this mean that it's privacy is at risk?
Because he needs more money and Authority.

Oh, he's lying. Do you know why Zuckerberg wanted all of those platforms to be combined? It is because he wanted to grab bigger profit in which he can steal more data from users. Your personal information is valuable but this Zuckerberg does not care of it. All he cares is his profits. He sell those personal info to gain money.

Hey you’re completely misled if you’re going to believe that combing those three platforms will be beneficial for us, it’s not going to be. In my personal opinion when he combines all three he gets to study how we type what products are we discussing, and we will be shown more targeted ads. I feel this shall completely violate our privacy, and I feel the only option is to delete those three apps and live happily.

All of these little bits of data about every aspect of our lives can be combined to make a VERY accurate psychological and logistic profile of each of us. This information can then be fed into large scale simulations that can scale from the global down the the individual granular level. They can make small changes to this simulation to see statistically likely outcomes and tweak their methodology until they get the results they want. This is why they have been hoovering up every tiny little piece of info about everyone they can like mad. Every bit more they can add increases the predictive accuracy. This isn't sci-fi, this has been happening for some time. Also combined with AI, you can see how this leads us down a very dark path very quickly...

This is not about targeted ads.

It's about world dominion.

I was thinking that too!!! Did some resarch on https://nakamotoinstitute.org/literature/ and David Chaum is actually mentioned a few times in these papers

this is a hot topic I keep seeing. social media and blockchain and what that means for the general public and our privacy. I don't think the big players are planning to shift to a decentralized system but rather just put our data on the blockchain

this article made a lot of sense to me in the why behind these actions


https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/why-are-social-network-juggernauts-facebook-and-twitter-moving-towards-blockchain-technology/

Encryption seems great for security and may if it's creates a peer-2-peer link, but given their disregard for privacy and data custody, we'll have to see. 

I think only once there is a truly large scale demand and adoption of privacy focused or rather data custody focused tech, will we see big tech really adapt. 

But privacy will be monetized. 

We really need large scale privacy focused tech and there are definitely a few key players that are doing the work. All of these true cypherpunks are making huge strides in taking the internet back into our hands. Whether it be Satoshi or David Chaum mentioned in the article

Insuring that user privacy is respected by the likes of Facebook would require inspection and surveillance of their operations, unless....

Data from you to your friends, transiting through them... was encrypted by a method unbreakable by them, not of their making or control.

AND...

Your very identity, from the point of logging on their system to exiting it, was concealed.

Our hardware is compromised, so encryption is meaningless, to some extent yes even on air-gapped systems. Also with Facefuck you never actually exit their system. The same goes for Googlag as well as others.

Your first point, from the premise does not the conclusion follow. Who may have hardware access is one of many perps, and they do not share.

Your second and third may be true, but that only illustrates that my point is valid.

Yet for example if I create the circumstances, as a test...where Anon X attempts to enter FF, and exit, repeatedly...and FF rejects or blocks him...

Maybe I should clarify, encryption is not enough to stop access. It might raise the barrier of entry, but there is still a back door that is available for anyone to use if sufficiently informed, that is the problem with back doors "only for the good guys". As far as the point you are trying to make with your analogy, I do not follow.

Don't believe for a second that when you delete your Facebook account they also delete your stored information.  They keep all the information they can, doesn't make a difference if you delete your accounts.  I also suggest avoiding google entirely if possible, they are just as bad as facebook. 

Let's assume that those on this forum are quite knowledgable about encryption. That's fair. So this is a decent place to discuss the subject.

I'm willing to post a simple encrypted message, and to the first that breaks it, ....1 bitcoin.

Must pay 0.001 BTC in advance entry fee and notice they will try.

All out in the open and public.

If you read here you will see why in the end the encryption won't stop surveillance.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5126073.0

While I wouldn't go as far as to say it requires a state level actor to access, it certainly requires advanced technical skills. That said, a lot of individuals and groups are more than capable.

Frankly, my offer stops the argument that "encryption isn't enough."

I'll leave it open until 4-15-19.

No, it doesn't, but have fun with that.

Yes, it does, and my point's been made. Encryption is enough.

While I wouldn't go as far as to say it requires a state level actor to access, it certainly requires advanced technical skills. That said, a lot of individuals and groups are more than capable.

I've posed a reward that is 100% unwinnable. But any are welcome to try and win > $4000 at current rates. 1 BTC to decode a message.

This is a near-cryptography forum, you can't bullshit people on this subject here. Well, er, you can't bullshit some of us.

You might want to double check on that, because over the past few years I have seen several vulnerabilities come to light which allow the bypassing of local encryption. These vulnerabilities are 100% real, but you enjoy your comfortable lies if you want.

I'm fairly well aware of several, and have suspicions about numerous others.

However, my offer of a reward is firm. For any and all takers.

I think it is very risky, but taking into account that it is Mark Zuckerberg it will be very easy for him to do so, he has the best programmers in the world, he has the money to carry it out, I think he can achieve it, in fact, he has always been a pioneer in terms of social networks.

In addition, everything that represents progress in my case I support, because everything must be routed there, in innovation and be more advanced. Besides, as he is, I imagine that he will supervise each code himself.

So then there would be no privacy with his "end-to-end" encryption, for which the promise was privacy.

And Mark Zuckerberg's promises are worth something are they?

No.

Security through encryption is mathematical.

It is not based on "promises."

Realistically, security through encryption cannot be something that might change with every update that a FF sends down to a person's device.

security through encryption must be personal.

Then we can take about how an individual might plug into something like FF, through layered anonymizers if he chose. But it is not possible to consider FF providing the encryption.

That's madness.
 

I was just reading today that he is going to announce how the news feed is created that seems like a load of BS

i think, he doesn't want to feel anything like privacy, because he knows but After his open letter on privacy, is Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg serious about privacy issues surrounding users of the social network.

Does he have to start fingering your butthole while you sleep before you see the pattern here people?

https://boingboing.net/2019/04/03/facebook-caught-asking-for-new.html

Does anyone else find it crazy that David Chaum actually reached out to Mark Zuck to help with privacy for FB? Granted I doubt they will take on anyone who is a pretty prominent figure in both cryptography and privacy. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-03/zuckd-again-millions-facebook-records-found-amazon-cloud-servers

It doesn't fail, does it lol

Zuckd again by Failbook? And the lies by the lying liars march on.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/beyond-sketchy-facebook-demanding-some-new-users-email-passwords

Just two weeks after admitting it stored hundreds of millions of its users’ own passwords insecurely, Facebook is demanding some users fork over the password for their outside email account as the price of admission to the social network.

Facebook users are being interrupted by an interstitial demanding they provide the password for the email account they gave to Facebook when signing up. “To continue using Facebook, you’ll need to confirm your email,” the message demands. “Since you signed up with [email address], you can do that automatically …”

A form below the message asked for the users’ “email password.”

“That’s beyond sketchy,” security consultant Jake Williams told the Daily Beast. “They should not be taking your password or handling your password in the background. If that’s what’s required to sign up with Facebook, you’re better off not being on Facebook.”

In a statement emailed to The Daily Beast after this story published, Facebook reiterated its claim it doesn’t store the email passwords.

I've bolded an example of the sort of assertion made that's not to be believed.

It doesn't store your passwords, just all of your contacts without permission. https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-asks-new-users-email-passwords-2019-4?r=US&IR=T

After I downloaded a flashlight app and it wanted access to my contacts, I stopped believing all of these clowns.

The rule.

They assure us we can trust them.

===> We can't trust them.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/innovation/why-does-a-torch-app-need-to-access-my-contacts-list-1.3082618

https://youtu.be/NjlSNzSt4uI

waiting for that Dbook to come out aka decentralized facebook

You mean they got caught storing the contacts without permission, so they had to admit to that, but they have not been caught storing the passwords, so they have not admitted to storing them?

In my opinion, this is only a natural phenomenon from humans, which is a mistake.

In a post on his Facebook page, Zuckerberg announced, "the future of communication will focus on data protection services, so people will be more confident and feel safe, because messages and content will no longer be stored forever".

I feel much safer, knowing that billions of years in the future, when our Sun has became a red giant star, whose diameter is beyond the orbit of the Earth, and the Earth has burned to a cinder, that our data will no longer be stored.

It will NOT BE STORED FOREVER.

Trick words, and phrases designed to lull you into complacency, are what you have here.

He had a lead cryptographer reach out to him and still didn't take the offer. Idk how safe I feel putting my trust into someone who doesn't even register data protection

Real question. does mark even know what cryptography is?

Zuckerberg is not the evil genius you think he is. He is just the pawn jew they put in for public appearances.

It possible and Facebook WhatsApp and Instagram can operate within the privacy policy after the media giant Facebook is on the way with it plans to created it own Facebook tokens mark have realize the potential of decentralization and the blockchain in he is now ready to tap into it.

Really the only question here is what can be proven.

Can you prove Zuck is following reasonable privacy policy?

If not, you must assume the worst opposite.

There is no trust or belief in this.

The only way proof is possible is through an open encryption standard.

You can still capture data even if they use 'end to end encryption' thats what David Chaum is trying to tell people is that through keeping metadata private that is true privacy with his new platform ellixxir

Even if all the software is perfect, the hardware itself is full of back doors.

Seriously, FB is being marketed as a privacy watchdog now?  ;D


Even without snooping, the amount of data they can legitimately look into and aggregate gives them so much insight into our patterns. It's not about Facebook but a grocery chain but I remember reading a book (I believe the title is Numerati) where a father complained that they started receiving pamphlets for baby care products but then later sent the store an apology letter. It turns out their algorithm correctly predicted the daughter is pregnant - even before she found out! Just imagine how much more data FB have access to.

This is how they continue to operate. People refuse to acknowledge how much power they give these companies because it is too terrifying to even look at objectively, so they choose to ignore it and go back to their Facefucks, Twatters, and Googlags feeding them more and more as they bury their heads in the sand.

How can you say that Mark Zuckerberg wont like privacy?

Data protection should always be implemented. However, it is really hard to let a person keep it if you don't trust them. Mark Zuckerberg is a great person, a simple one but we won't even know who are the people he is with today. Even though the CEO is the best one to trust, we also have to mind the people behind his operations.

Mark Zuckerberg's founded company Facebook has made a critical decision yesterday with nominating Peggy Alford to join their board. Peggy has deep experience in many areas related to commerce and will also be a person who could solve this privacy issue. Facebook became the largest social media platform globally and the government is looking for something that they can see as a loophole to find a vulnerable spot and attack.

There is no need to say things like this, for which there is no basis.

We are discussing a subject, the direction of which indicates directly that he is a very evil person.

Face it.

Who says this lame story pushed by a Fuckbook lawyer paid to protect Fuckbook should be believe for one microsecond?

This is the kind of BS that has to be instantly DISBELIEVED.

I think everything is a game of words that are beautiful to never be fulfilled, I think it is a hoax and that everything is part of a plan where the main thing is to decipher the anonymity in which many people exercise their full right to do so. I do not think that initiative will go very far and if it is fulfilled I think some will no longer use these networks. I think that nothing is safe, today everything is very easy to decipher if you have the right computer tools, everything is traceable, except for those who know the art of disappearance without a trace on the web.

Downloading My Private Google Data, this is what I found

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLjht9uJWgw

If the product is free, you likely are the product. If only it's all innocuous as Target sending you a coupon for a crib coz they predicted through you buying pattern that you likely are pregnant. But it's not, as that Cambridge Analytica scandal has shown.

We can try to give them the middle finger by switching platforms but at this point they've already become large enough to buy up or outright destroy competing startups. And they already have our data anyway.

Couldn't have said it better "if the product is free, you're likely the product'

There is no cause for hopelessness.

As an example, suppose you dl an app to your phone, it wants you to set up an account using your facebook (or google) login before it activates.

You would be giving your FB info to some totally unknown small company. Regardless of how evil FB is, this is still a step not to take.

Many, many examples like this exist.

I share the same mentality. I am not naive enough to think they will not get my information, because no matter what I do I have friends, family, or associates who use those products and feed them my personal details without my permission or knowledge regardless of all their little subplatforms. The way I see it I can at least not submit my consent to these groups and make sure they get slightly less detailed information while at least knowing personally I never willingly went along with their systems.

Why would Mark cares? It is all about numbers and in fact he is just following the footsteps of google. You should have to be more careful with dealing in google services. If the social media platform earns from marketing we don't know how google thinks towards it's data.

Google data are more beneficial to spying.

So don't use chrome, and use duckgogo instead of google.

Don't hand out "Google ID" to any apps that ask for it.

Again, this isn't just a manageable problem but it's extremely important to manage it.

I still use  chrome it's more convenient ,isn't it? As you have said tho we should have to be more careful.  What I usually do is to not provide my personal info or an "ALIAS". But when it comes to having a personal email I don't have choice but to atleast give my full name.

It is so hard to managed especially when you are going to need those for work related.

No.


I don't think a person's exact name or part of it should ever be the email. If a company did require that then you can misspell or abbreviate a part of it in a way you never do personally. Then at least you can tell where incoming spam bought or stole its info.

The days of being proud and excited to own MarySmith@xyz.com are long gone....

Google Employees Demand Management Respect Their Prejudices Against Conservatives and Climate Skeptics

When Google announced an external advisory board for AI projects last week, the company framed the decision as a step forward in accountability. Last year, the company had announced a set of principles for how to build AI tools, and this board, the company suggested, was the next step toward a more transparent Google.

…

But some members of the new board drew immediate scrutiny, especially Kay Coles James, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation. On social media, some characterized the decision as an attempt to cater to conservatives at the expense of true expertise in the field. By Saturday, one AI expert who was invited to the board had dropped out, vaguely noting that it may not be “the right forum” for the work.

Privately, several Google employees were also livid about the decision to include James, according to sources familiar with the discussions. On internal message boards, employees described James as “intolerant” and the Heritage Foundation as “amazingly wrong” in their policies on topics like climate change, immigration, and, particularly, on issues of LGBTQ equality. A person with James’ views, the employees said, “doesn’t deserve a Google-legitimized platform, and certainly doesn’t belong in any conversation about how Google tech should be applied to the world.”

…

By the end of the day on Tuesday, more than 1,600 Google employees had endorsed the petition, organizers said. Google did not respond to a request for comment.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/04/google-employees-demand-management-respect-their-prejudices-against-conservatives-and-climate-skeptics/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-18/facebook-quietly-notifies-public-millions-instagram-users-had-passwords-exposed

The Facebook source said the investigation so far indicates between 200 million and 600 million Facebook users may have had their account passwords stored in plain text and searchable by more than 20,000 Facebook employees. The source said Facebook is still trying to determine how many passwords were exposed and for how long, but so far the inquiry has uncovered archives with plain text user passwords dating back to 2012.


What's not explicitly stated is the simple fact that if passwords were stored in plain text, and if they were accessible to 20,000 employees, there was a reason. Because it's extremely easy, and an option in most programs that enable login, to store an encrypted hash. In that case the user's login works, but the employees cannot access it or the account it references.

Seriously, this is 1990s level stupid.

You can do misspell your name in your email if you are the one making it. I don't personally know how things works in your place but in my place usually if we got a job ("officebased") or even some "remotebased". They are the one responsible for creating your own email and yes having marysmith@company still existing in the industry. They even put all your details on your google or microsoft account.

That is a world I am not in....

It means that there is no perfect. The ultimate privacy protecting platform is impossible and it will cost a lot of money for him. He will not pay a lot of money just for that. There are many hackers in the internet and Mark don't want to fight them so he did not wants privacy.

Then you are lucky, hopefully I can also make a living in which  I don't have to follow their rules anymore. When it comes to facebook tho, we can freely create other identity that we can use for our safety.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/04/19/federal-investigation-facebook-could-hold-mark-zuckerberg-accountable-privacy-sources-say/

On Thursday, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) said the company’s top executive “wasn’t just aware of Facebook’s invasion of consumer privacy, he signed off on it and publicly downplayed legitimate concerns.”

“Holding Mark Zuckerberg and other top Facebook executives personally at fault and liable for further wrongdoing would send a powerful message to business leaders across the country: You will pay a hefty price for skirting the law and deceiving consumers,” Blumenthal said.

But in fact these sorts of slaps-on-the-wrist occur after the fact, and do not help you or I.

Easier said than done and combining all these platforms might be a bad idea because users might not like this which means lost revenue, a drop in users and possibly more legal work to be done to protect user data.

Mark Zuckerberg is a parasite. He has all the money and means to run a socially conscious network, yet is more interested in padding his bank balance even further. Social networks really are bad for your mind, especially with all the secret tests, psychological experiments and personal information leaks that have been discovered over time.

He was originally a CIA agent, they helped him promote the project, he was conceived as a platform for tracking people . Just like Apple, he did not invent anything in the garage, just so they legalized the product stolen in Russia and that would hide the fact that it is a surveillance device came up with the story of the garage and the inventor

I've started my own privacy on facebook removing my surname. Ok you can put a fake name and it'll work anyway, but if you're using your real name and want remove surname (that normally it's not possible) you can do it, with a language setting trick

it's all dreams, which cannot be fulfilled. in this growing digital age where we are nearly done with the supercomputers, I do not think Facebook or any other encryption is secured. our current technology can not face the future challenges its just good till like 15-20years (if not monitored) but hackers are also growing and they have a community way larger then Mark Zuckerberg's Team of expertise. I am sure they can beat their security someday.

I very much doubt he is a CIA agent but do I think he works with the CIA? Yes.

Wake up, people. Operations like Google and FB may own operations like the CIA, or be angling to.

After the recent breaches in Facebook and the data that hackers have stolen, I don't believe that Zuckerberg is capable of protecting our privacy.
And I also think that he indeed doesn't want the full privacy because if that happens then he will probably lose data from the users and he wouldn't be able to "feed" his AI algorithms with userdata.

Well, let's consider this for a minute.

Let's say that we want the secrets of FB. We will keep their secrets secret - their algorithms and business strategies and their calculated lies and misinformation. We tell them, "you can trust us."

We won't get them.

But they want ours.

I think his promise of keeping metadata private is just BS. I would trust a cryptographer and privacy advocate over Mark.

What we need is a blockchain based messaging app.

These guys https://bizzpro.co (https://bizzpro.co) have something promising but we still need to see if they can deliver the full thing before Facebook launches its own token.

Just IMHO but for most people shouldn't really care about those hacks until hackers are able to get your private messages (which did not happened as I know). Most of the other data may only be used for different kinds of online advertisment and worth really nothing.

We already got Telegram and everything seems to be fine with it.
At the current stage Facebook became an unusable piece of shit that can only be used as a newsfeed. There is no point in trying to make a better messenger.
Also, their own coin would be the same centralized garbage. After reading this thread do you really believe that they may do something related with an increased privacy?

We use telegram extensively and no facebook.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/cia-secretly-owned-swiss-company-encrypted-over-120-countries-communications

When the question is data, and someone "promises something" the promise is not to be believed.

Evidence, and proof is required.

This is pretty basic.

Allow your politicians to be bought, this is always going to be the case.  Zuckerburg is pure scum.

Mark always seems to have some hidden agenda. Anyone in the cyber security field knows nothing is truly secured unless using OTP (which is pretty much impossible).