Leave Facebook if you don't want to be snooped on, warns EU

[TheIrishman]

Leave Facebook if you don't want to be snooped on, warns EU

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/26/leave-facebook-snooped-on-warns-eu-safe-harbour-privacy-us

<< The European Commission has warned EU citizens that they should close their Facebook accounts if they want to keep information private from US security services, finding that current Safe Harbour legislation does not protect citizen's data. The comments were made by EC attorney Bernhard Schima in a case brought by privacy campaigner Maximilian Schrems, looking at whether the data of EU citizens should be considered safe if sent to the US in a post-Snowden revelation landscape.

"You might consider closing your Facebook account, if you have one", Schima told attorney general Yves Bot in a hearing of the case at the European court of justice in Luxembourg. When asked directly, the commission could not confirm to the court that the Safe Harbour rules provide adequate protection of EU citizens' data as it currently stands. >>

[chmod755]

Seriously? I'd rather give my personal details to Facebook than The Guardian. Who thought it was a good idea to publish this story? The Guardian is one of the most irresponsible news outlets when it comes to dealing personal information.

[networthsigns]

Seriously? I'd rather give my personal details to Facebook than The Guardian. Who thought it was a good idea to publish this story? The Guardian is one of the most irresponsible news outlets when it comes to dealing personal information.

Good luck with that what you would rather do

Facebook where do i start, the moment you sign up you are just a extra $50 for them for marketing purposes nothing else, then you go and put your favorite 'family' pictures on there (guess what?) they no longer belong to you they are now property of facebooks hidden agenda. When you write a update/status the moment you publish thats right it no longer belongs to you.

Never needed this article you just need to read the terms of service lol

[pedrog]

Never had a Facebook account...

Seriously? I'd rather give my personal details to Facebook than The Guardian. Who thought it was a good idea to publish this story? The Guardian is one of the most irresponsible news outlets when it comes to dealing personal information.

You don't have to choose between those two, you can not use Facebook and you can not give any information to the Guardian...

[chmod755]

Facebook where do i start, the moment you sign up you are a extra $50 for them for marketing purposes nothing else, then you go and put your favorite 'family' pictures on there (guess what?) they no longer belong to you they are now property of facebooks hidden agenda. When you write a update/status the moment you publish thats right it no longer belongs to you.

Never needed this article you just need to read the terms of service lol

Hidden agenda? It's just part of the deal: you're getting access to Facebook, but they're using your information.

You don't have to choose between those two, you can not use Facebook and you can not give any information to the Guardian...

I know, but it's ironic that this article was published on The Guardian.

[pedrog]

Facebook where do i start, the moment you sign up you are a extra $50 for them for marketing purposes nothing else, then you go and put your favorite 'family' pictures on there (guess what?) they no longer belong to you they are now property of facebooks hidden agenda. When you write a update/status the moment you publish thats right it no longer belongs to you.

Never needed this article you just need to read the terms of service lol

Hidden agenda? It's just part of the deal: you're getting access to Facebook, but they're using your information.

You don't have to choose between those two, you can not use Facebook and you can not give any information to the Guardian...

I know, but it's ironic that this article was published on The Guardian.

Nothing ironic about it, The Guardian was one of the news outlets involved in the initial publication of the Snowden leaks...

[saddampbuh]

its run by a jew, what did you expect?

[jaysabi]

Seriously? I'd rather give my personal details to Facebook than The Guardian. Who thought it was a good idea to publish this story? The Guardian is one of the most irresponsible news outlets when it comes to dealing personal information.

Good luck with that what you would rather do

Facebook where do i start, the moment you sign up you are just a extra $50 for them for marketing purposes nothing else, then you go and put your favorite 'family' pictures on there (guess what?) they no longer belong to you they are now property of facebooks hidden agenda. When you write a update/status the moment you publish thats right it no longer belongs to you.

Never needed this article you just need to read the terms of service lol

Did you even understand the point of the article? It's not about what Facebook does with your information. It's implicit that when you put your stuff on Facebook, you consent to Facebook having access to that information. That's the trade off, that's in the TOS, that part is obvious. The point of the article is that EU safe harbor laws do not protect EU citizens from the prying eyes of the US spying agencies. You may not consent to sharing your information with the NSA, but EU laws can not protect you because the NSA is not bound by them. The point of the article is that the only way you can protect your information from the NSA is not to put it on Facebook.

[chmod755]

Nothing ironic about it, The Guardian was one of the news outlets involved in the initial publication of the Snowden leaks...

Are you really defending the actions of this guy? He worked for the NSA and sold their intel to the media / Russia instead of changing the way the NSA is gathering information as an employee...

[jaysabi]

Nothing ironic about it, The Guardian was one of the news outlets involved in the initial publication of the Snowden leaks...

Are you really defending the actions of this guy? He worked for the NSA and sold their intel to the media / Russia instead of changing the way the NSA is gathering information as an employee...

You think one analyst can change the way the entire NSA operates? Snowden is a national hero for blowing the whistle. It's the only thing that could have changed anything. Without him, the NSA would still be operating in total secrecy, and who knows what else they'd be getting away with. It's only the public disclosure that has forced them into any kind of oversight at all.

[pedrog]

Nothing ironic about it, The Guardian was one of the news outlets involved in the initial publication of the Snowden leaks...

Are you really defending the actions of this guy? He worked for the NSA and sold their intel to the media / Russia instead of changing the way the NSA is gathering information as an employee...

You think one analyst can change the way the entire NSA operates? Snowden is a national hero for blowing the whistle. It's the only thing that could have changed anything. Without him, the NSA would still be operating in total secrecy, and who knows what else they'd be getting away with. It's only the public disclosure that has forced them into any kind of oversight at all.

He is an international hero.

[criptix]

Nothing ironic about it, The Guardian was one of the news outlets involved in the initial publication of the Snowden leaks...

Are you really defending the actions of this guy? He worked for the NSA and sold their intel to the media / Russia instead of changing the way the NSA is gathering information as an employee...

do you really think what you just wrote?

ladies and gentleman i think i found our first nsa agent on bitcointalk.org  

[s1lverbox]

Nothing ironic about it, The Guardian was one of the news outlets involved in the initial publication of the Snowden leaks...

Are you really defending the actions of this guy? He worked for the NSA and sold their intel to the media / Russia instead of changing the way the NSA is gathering information as an employee...

U not serious about that what u wrote.
Let me think....Someone is spying on me and this is right? but when insider spying on NSA that's no good and the guy should be jailed?
What u think USA would do to him because he published bad boy uncle sam at work if he got caught?

[freedomno1]

Well facebook is notorious for data prying already
So this is not something out of the blue the bigger question is how to connect with other people over social media when everyone and their grandma is still on facebook, without a good alternative

[jaysabi]

Well facebook is notorious for data prying already
So this is not something out of the blue the bigger question is how to connect with other people over social media when everyone and their grandma is still on facebook, without a good alternative

Facebook doesn't have access to any information you don't give it. It's perfectly avoidable. I think all social media companies, that are free to use, are going to deal in information as an asset. They're businesses, and if you're not paying them, they have to sell something to someone else to operate. That happens to be your information to advertisers in most cases. Any alternative to the free model will require people to pay for the service in exchange for not selling or tracking your data while you use it. I think people will prefer the free model, which is why there is no pay-to-use alternative that will approach Facebook's ubiquity. People just need to know that it still comes at a cost.

[galbros]

Just another great example of if you are not paying for something, you are the product not the customer. 

I think it's great that the EU take privacy so seriously.

[freedomno1]

Well facebook is notorious for data prying already
So this is not something out of the blue the bigger question is how to connect with other people over social media when everyone and their grandma is still on facebook, without a good alternative

Facebook doesn't have access to any information you don't give it. It's perfectly avoidable. I think all social media companies, that are free to use, are going to deal in information as an asset. They're businesses, and if you're not paying them, they have to sell something to someone else to operate. That happens to be your information to advertisers in most cases. Any alternative to the free model will require people to pay for the service in exchange for not selling or tracking your data while you use it. I think people will prefer the free model, which is why there is no pay-to-use alternative that will approach Facebook's ubiquity. People just need to know that it still comes at a cost.

The question is can you develop a digital property that solves the problem of privacy and information storage for personal user accounts in a way that can be used like money, in other terms developing a solution to this problem could exist in cryptography outside of a centralized network such a as facebook as we know it today.

There is enough computer power to utilize the digital space in a way that one can contribute to a network for social purposes but its only in the last few years that we have began harnessing networks of computers which we use for mining at present.
 
In this way it is fair to say that someday in the future it will be possible to build it possibly an ethereum protocol app that connects and maintains social accounts using ether as a credit.

Social capstones, like mathematical ones that combine different elements such as bitcoin may be the next step into an ecosystem, in that way it is possible to build another step into a decentralized social network while keeping scarcity in a social network using information.

As you said though for now we must digress while avoiding a Facebook account is certainly doable, maintaining the social relations while retaining all your privacy privileges remains a challenge, for now at least social media companies will have free reign on this information until viable alternative systems can develop to gain sufficient traction to branch out from a central ecosystem.

[chmod755]

Just another great example of if you are not paying for something, you are the product not the customer.  

I think it's great that the EU take privacy so seriously.

Most internet services are like that. I guess the internet would be quite expensive to use if you had to pay for every service.

in other terms developing a solution to this problem could exist in cryptography outside of a centralized network such a as facebook as we know it today.

Technically you could do that, but nobody is going to use it (remember diaspora?), because centralized services do have a budget for marketing, support in case anything goes wrong and a user friendly interface.

[Aggressor66]

Shouldn't that be 'Leave Facebook If You've Got A Life, Warns EU"...?
Here's another reason: Stop displaying yourself to the world and simultaneously demanding privacy.

[TECSHARE]

Facebook doesn't have access to any information you don't give it. It's perfectly avoidable.

Actually Facebook collects data in the background processes of your computer even when you aren't signed in. You agree to this in the TOS.

Why did anyone sign up for Total Information Awareness book anyway?