Facebook and the CIA

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby Penguin » Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:14 pm

Still, that doesn't change the fact that Facebook's Terms of Service — the long legal document all users must agree to before they can sign up — grants the company "an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or ... (ii) enable a user to Post."

Hundreds of thousands of Facebook users read that scary passage for the first time after the consumer-interest blog Consumerist.com lit up a sleepy holiday weekend on Sunday evening with a posting entitled "Facebook's New Terms Of Service: 'We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever.'"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494804,00.html


Thats what I meant.
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby marmot » Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:50 am

Thiel's philosophical mentor is one René Girard of Stanford University, proponent of a theory of human behaviour called mimetic desire. Girard reckons that people are essentially sheep-like and will copy one another without much reflection.

Girard is one of my favorite theorists!

You know my mother sent me a link to some pictures or something she posted on her facebook. I couldn't even look at it without having to set up an account---which, of course, I DIDN'T.
marmot
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:35 am

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/18/ ... index.html

"CNN and other media outlets report that Facebook reverted their TOS update and went back to using the previous one. "The site posted a brief message on users' home pages that said it was returning to its previous "Terms of Use" policy "while we resolve the issues that people have raised." Facebook's controversial changes to its Terms of Service, previously commented on Slashdot, included a mention that (users) may remove (their) User Content from the Site at any time. ... However, (they) acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of (their) User Content", triggering a massive uproar from users and privacy groups."
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby KarmaMatters » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:19 pm

professorpan wrote:I also find Facebook useful in keeping in touch with people I might not otherwise. That's what I appreciate most about it, and it is unique in that sense, which has driven its explosive growth.

And no one I know would even contemplate clicking on an ad, no matter how targeted (how many of you have ever clicked on a google ad? Probably not many). So I don't buy that it's a grand marketing scheme that will dictate or modify my consumption habits. Facebook is what you make it, if you choose to participate, and no one is pointing a gun at anyone and forcing them to sign up.

As for the "salt lick" idea, well, I have no qualms about discussing my political opinions and activities publicly, so I really don't care if the government knows I frequent DailyKos, DU, or this forum.


I agree with the Professor, Facebook is highly useful for keeping in touch with people you might not otherwise have direct physical contact with. I have especially enjoyed connecting with people from all over the U.S. that I lost touch with. Its been fun and enriching to share with other humans parts of my life and that of my family.

About the advertising aspect of this......Facebook of course wants to monetize their efforts and have an impact on your social behavior and purchasing habits. They want to analyze every click and comment you make in order to better serve their sponsors. Anybody who does not believe this is horribly ignorant. Read this article for a bit more info:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/16/technol ... k.fortune/

And who the hell gives a shit, frankly, if Facebook makes money off our profiles and postings? I don't give a fuck. As a matter of fact, more power to them. I wish I had come up with the idea and had publishers that I worked with that had the balls to fund the efforts of Zuckerberg and others. Facebook provides you a free service, take it as it is or don't use it. Start you own social network if you want, hell there are dozens of applications and web hosts that allow you to create your own network with your own terms of service.

About Google ads, Pan you're right, a lot of people don't click on Google's ads, but MILLIONS do and it makes Google billions of $$$$$. The model works, is solid and here to stay. Advertising is what pays the bills for almost all publishers. Those others have fund raisers on a regular basis and beg you to donate.

If you're worried about the gov't seeing your data, its too fucking late. They can tap into whatever they want, email, SMS on your mobile, your instant chats, everything is fair game under the lovely piece of fascist work called the Patriot Act. What you could do, and have fun, is fuck with Facebook and any other service by posting all kinds of crazy shit on their site. Make up stuff, post nutty pix and refer to all sorts of stuff about yourself that is outrageously nuts or untrue. At a certain point your profile will just be considered nutters or wacked, irrelevant. Again, if you don't want to be tracked at all, FALL OFF THE GRID AND STAY OFF THE GRID, FOREVER. If you want to be real clever though you learn how to blend in and go unoticed.

Its doubtful the CIA is involved with Facebook, other than they probably study it as a social behavior tool, just like marketers do everyday that try to monetize Facebook. The CIA doesn't need to build this shit, they can let the free market build cool stuff and then take advantage of it by scraping, indexing and cross referencing just like the advertising world does.

I'm constantly amazed at the ill-informed comments people make about the media, the Internet and the gov't. I love reading the threads on this bbs, but the gov't is not deploying Mockingbird operations in every major media outlet. They don't need to, the media (at least newspapers) are too lazy to dig up stuff themselves so they accept whatever garbage is tossed onto the AP wire. Most don't know that many stories are created overseas and then regurgitated back into our U.S. news diet. Its pathetic, they are lazy, underpaid, overworked etc....with some exceptions.......Clever marketing and work by silent foundations also lay the way for much propaganda, but, I digress.

My two cents.....

Peace to all of your fellow rigorous peoples.
KarmaMatters
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 8:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby stickdog99 » Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:17 pm

KarmaMatters wrote:
professorpan wrote:I also find Facebook useful in keeping in touch with people I might not otherwise. That's what I appreciate most about it, and it is unique in that sense, which has driven its explosive growth.

And no one I know would even contemplate clicking on an ad, no matter how targeted (how many of you have ever clicked on a google ad? Probably not many). So I don't buy that it's a grand marketing scheme that will dictate or modify my consumption habits. Facebook is what you make it, if you choose to participate, and no one is pointing a gun at anyone and forcing them to sign up.

As for the "salt lick" idea, well, I have no qualms about discussing my political opinions and activities publicly, so I really don't care if the government knows I frequent DailyKos, DU, or this forum.


I agree with the Professor, Facebook is highly useful for keeping in touch with people you might not otherwise have direct physical contact with. I have especially enjoyed connecting with people from all over the U.S. that I lost touch with. Its been fun and enriching to share with other humans parts of my life and that of my family.

About the advertising aspect of this......Facebook of course wants to monetize their efforts and have an impact on your social behavior and purchasing habits. They want to analyze every click and comment you make in order to better serve their sponsors. Anybody who does not believe this is horribly ignorant. Read this article for a bit more info:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/16/technol ... k.fortune/

And who the hell gives a shit, frankly, if Facebook makes money off our profiles and postings? I don't give a fuck. As a matter of fact, more power to them. I wish I had come up with the idea and had publishers that I worked with that had the balls to fund the efforts of Zuckerberg and others. Facebook provides you a free service, take it as it is or don't use it. Start you own social network if you want, hell there are dozens of applications and web hosts that allow you to create your own network with your own terms of service.

About Google ads, Pan you're right, a lot of people don't click on Google's ads, but MILLIONS do and it makes Google billions of $$$$$. The model works, is solid and here to stay. Advertising is what pays the bills for almost all publishers. Those others have fund raisers on a regular basis and beg you to donate.

If you're worried about the gov't seeing your data, its too fucking late. They can tap into whatever they want, email, SMS on your mobile, your instant chats, everything is fair game under the lovely piece of fascist work called the Patriot Act. What you could do, and have fun, is fuck with Facebook and any other service by posting all kinds of crazy shit on their site. Make up stuff, post nutty pix and refer to all sorts of stuff about yourself that is outrageously nuts or untrue. At a certain point your profile will just be considered nutters or wacked, irrelevant. Again, if you don't want to be tracked at all, FALL OFF THE GRID AND STAY OFF THE GRID, FOREVER. If you want to be real clever though you learn how to blend in and go unoticed.

Its doubtful the CIA is involved with Facebook, other than they probably study it as a social behavior tool, just like marketers do everyday that try to monetize Facebook. The CIA doesn't need to build this shit, they can let the free market build cool stuff and then take advantage of it by scraping, indexing and cross referencing just like the advertising world does.

I'm constantly amazed at the ill-informed comments people make about the media, the Internet and the gov't. I love reading the threads on this bbs, but the gov't is not deploying Mockingbird operations in every major media outlet. They don't need to, the media (at least newspapers) are too lazy to dig up stuff themselves so they accept whatever garbage is tossed onto the AP wire. Most don't know that many stories are created overseas and then regurgitated back into our U.S. news diet. Its pathetic, they are lazy, underpaid, overworked etc....with some exceptions.......Clever marketing and work by silent foundations also lay the way for much propaganda, but, I digress.

My two cents.....

Peace to all of your fellow rigorous peoples.


Again, what could possibly be more destructive in the long term battle of individual autonomy vs. centralized power than a single site that everybody (and everybody's private information) just has to be on in order to enjoy social popularity?

Competitors cannot simply start their own social network to compete any more than a new, better OS can compete with Microsoft. Have you ever heard of positive feedback?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6599
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:20 pm

Yea. Thats a very important point.
They have an almost monopoly on social information gathering of that sort. And (some) people have noticed how good Microsofts monopoly has been for software development and especially security and scam artists.
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MinM » Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:53 pm

Facebook Warns Ex-Employees Not To Talk To Moviemakers
By Nicholas Carlson
March 31, 2009: 07:00 AM ET


(alleyinsider.com) -- Former Facebook employees tell us the company sent out letters warning them not to talk to "West Wing" creator Aaron Sorkin, who -- his publicist tells us -- is still working on a movie about the social network's founding.

A Facebook spokesperson confirmed the news, telling us Facebook sent the letters, but not in reaction to any one specific project.

We're sure most companies would rather its old employees not talk to muckracking Hollywood screenwriters, so we're not surprised to hear about the letters.

Still, we do hope Aaron gets his movie made. We've been to Facebook's headquarters and there is plenty of room for the walking and talking and interrupting that makes Sorkin's movies work.

With Facebook's many cofounders, controversial origins, and various legal battles, we're sure its founding story would make a good movie -- especially if reports are true that it's based on Ben Mezerich's gleefully fictious account of a bad boy Mark Zuckerberg.

Gawker landed excerpts of that book last year, and you should read the part when the fictional versions of Mark and cofounder Eduardo Saverin dine on Koala:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/siliconalley/big-tech/
Image
http://gawker.com/392575/tell+all-book- ... o-get-laid
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MinM » Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:14 pm

More social-networking angst on the internets lately:

Facebook gets caught in Golan Heights dispute - CNN.com
Image
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2009/09/ ... ystem.html
"Dan Brown?" I hear you saying. "But whole books have been written about all the errors in The DaVinci Code." I could have written such a volume myself. But for reasons we shall discuss anon, the following passage from The Lost Symbol deserves your attention:

“…Following 9/11, the government was intercepting and crunching enormous data fields -- civilian e-mail, cell phone, fax, text, Web sites -- sniffing for keywords associated with terrorist communications. So I wrote a piece of software that let them process their data field in a second way . . . pulling from it an additional intelligence product.” She smiled. “Essentially, my software let them take America’s temperature.”

“I’m sorry?”

Trish laughed. “Yeah, sounds crazy, I know. What I mean is that it quantified the nation’s emotional state. It offered a kind of cosmic consciousness barometer, if you will.” Trish explained how, using a data field of the nation’s communications, one could assess the nation’s mood based on the “occurrence density” of certain keywords and emotional indicators in the data field. Happier times had happier language, and stressful times vice-versa. In the event, for example, of a terrorist attack, the government could use data fields to measure the shift in America’s psyche and better advise the president on the emotional impact of the event.

“Fascinating,” Katherine said, stroking her chin. “So essentially you’re examining a population of individuals ...as if it were a single organism.”

“Exactly. A metasystem. A single entity defined by the sum of its parts. The human body, for example, consists of millions of individual cells, each with different attributes and different purposes, but it functions as a single entity.”

Katherine nodded enthusiastically. “Like a flock of birds or a school of fish moving as one. We call it convergence or entanglement.”

Trish sensed her famous guest was starting to see the potential of metasystem programming in her own field of Noetics. “My software,” Trish explained, “was designed to help government agencies better evaluate and respond appropriately to wide-scale crises -- pandemic diseases, national tragedies, terrorism, that sort of thing.” She paused. “Of course, there’s always the potential that it could be used in other directions...perhaps to take a snapshot of the national mind-set and predict the outcome of a national election or the direction the stock market will move at the opening bell.”


Again: I know very well that Dan Brown has, in the past, expressed some rather unsupportable ideas about gnosticism, occultism, archeology, tarot, art history and ecclesiastical history. I laughed out loud when he revealed that he didn't know the difference between a scroll and codex. Nevertheless, I am inclined to suspect that he has sources who understand some of the odder things the government has been up to.

His first and best thriller, Digital Fortress, offers a description of the NSA's inner workings -- a description which presaged material later made public by Russell Tice and others. (This blog has discussed Tice on several past occasions; see here.) How Brown made these contacts is no secret; he explains the process in a 1998 interview. I would not be entirely surprised to discover that Tice was one of his informants.

My bottom line is this: I think that there are those within the intelligence community who take an interest in the "national temperature," just as the novel states. Social networking sites may function as a gauge. On such sites, average citizens spew forth an endless volcano of private data, the vast majority of which is piffle. But even piffle can deliver important sociological insights, if viewed en masse and from a sufficient distance.

For a lower-tech illustration of my point, think back to the scene in Watchmen (the graphic novel, not the film) in which Ozymandias makes stock market decisions while watching a bank of thirty television monitors relaying video streams from around the world...

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2009/09/os-and-dc.html

Will The Military Friend Facebook Anytime Soon? : NPR

***
rigorousintuition.ca :: View topic - Facebook = CIA

rigorousintuition.ca :: View topic - The Facebook backlash starts here...

rigorousintuition.ca :: View topic - National Cyber Range Building Attack Tools

rigorousintuition.ca :: View topic - Play "Six Degrees of Hank Paulson"!
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)


Postby MinM » Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:06 pm

Obama Facebook Poll: "Should Obama Be Killed?" Pulled From Site, Secret Service Investigate -
Image

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/2 ... 01860.html

via

http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2009/ ... ma-be.html
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3288
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Facebook and the CIA

Postby elfismiles » Fri Dec 12, 2014 5:47 pm

Inside the Collapse of The New Republic
By Ryan Lizza

Last Friday morning, Chris Hughes, the owner of The New Republic, and Guy Vidra, the magazine’s C.E.O., presided over a meeting at the publication’s Penn Quarter offices in Washington, D.C. It had been a busy twenty-four hours: a day earlier, Hughes had forced out the magazine’s editor, Franklin Foer, and Vidra had announced that the hundred-year-old opinion magazine, which was founded to “bring sufficient enlightenment to the problems of the nation,” would be reduced from twenty to ten issues a year and would move to New York, where it would be reinvented as a “vertically integrated digital-media company.” Minutes before the Friday meeting began, most of the magazine’s writers and editors had resigned in protest.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... w-republic


https://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=site ... epublic%22

nomo » 17 Jan 2008 17:30 wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook

With friends like these ...

by Tom Hodgkinson
<snip>
As its spokesman Chris Hughes says: "It's embedded itself to an extent where it's hard to get rid of."

All of the above would have been enough to make me reject Facebook for ever. But there are more reasons to hate it. Many more.

Facebook is a well-funded project, and the people behind the funding, a group of Silicon Valley venture capitalists, have a clearly thought out ideology that they are hoping to spread around the world. Facebook is one manifestation of this ideology. Like PayPal before it, it is a social experiment, an expression of a particular kind of neoconservative libertarianism. On Facebook, you can be free to be who you want to be, as long as you don't mind being bombarded by adverts for the world's biggest brands. As with PayPal, national boundaries are a thing of the past.

Although the project was initially conceived by media cover star Mark Zuckerberg, the real face behind Facebook is the 40-year-old Silicon Valley venture capitalist and futurist philosopher Peter Thiel. There are only three board members on Facebook, and they are Thiel, Zuckerberg and a third investor called Jim Breyer from a venture capital firm called Accel Partners (more on him later). Thiel invested $500,000 in Facebook when Harvard students Zuckerberg, Chris Hughes and Dustin Moskowitz went to meet him in San Francisco in June 2004, soon after they had launched the site. Thiel now reportedly owns 7% of Facebook, which, at Facebook's current valuation of $15bn, would be worth more than $1bn. There is much debate on who exactly were the original co-founders of Facebook, but whoever they were, Zuckerberg is the only one left on the board, although Hughes and Moskowitz still work for the company.
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 170 guests