Why Are People More Scared of Facebook Violating Their Privacy than Washington?

This morning, Matt Welch took note of the Senate’s bipartisan effort to stop amendments to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that would make the domestic surveillance program more transparent and require compliance with the Fourth Amendment.  (To follow up on Welch’s notes this morning, Sen. Ron Wyden’s amendment was indeed defeated and the act was reauthorized unchanged in a 73-23 vote.)

The traditional media response to the reauthorization battle has been remarkably nonexistent. As I was managing my shift updating Reason 24/7 yesterday afternoon I was learning the outcomes of the votes not from the Associated Press or anything that popped up on my Google newsfeed, but from tweets from the likes of Adam Serwer of Mother Jones or Julian Sanchez of Cato.

There’s currently nothing on the New York Times web site about the votes (either yesterday’s or today’s). The Associated Press wrote a story about the House’s vote in September but nothing yet from yesterday or today. The Washington Post did post a story this morning. A Google news search will land hits with mostly tech or web-based media outlets. (Update: Matt Apuzzo of the Associated Press e-mailed me to let me know they had indeed published some stories prior to the vote. I was unable to find them yesterday but have no reason to doubt him. Their report on the final vote is here.)

Compare the lack of response to the way people react to privacy breaches connected to Facebook or Twitter. Media outlet after media outlet carried reports about a private picture of Randi Zuckerberg, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s sister, accidentally being made public somehow through social media channels. And how many of your Facebook friends posted that silly, pointless “privacy notice” on their walls?

The easy response is to blame the media for not keeping the public informed. And while Congress’ and the Obama Administration’s palpable disdain for both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments should horrify all Americans, it should be fairly clear by now that maybe it doesn’t for large swaths of people. Media outlets are responding to their respective markets. Those who are covering FISA are doing so because their readers have expressed an interest.

The degradation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is an academic or theoretical matter for so many people and often lacks a strong human narrative to draw public outrage. Indeed, the very secrecy behind the application of federal domestic wiretapping has made it impossible to introduce a human narrative. We do not even know how many Americans have been spied on due to these rules (which was what Wyden’s amendment was trying to fix). Like our foreign drone strikes and indefinite detention laws, the public’s distance from the actual rights violations (and government-fueled fears of acts of terrorism) is a useful barrier for the state to get away with expanding its authority beyond the Constitution’s limitations without significant voter pushback.

Whereas, just about everybody’s on Facebook. Facebook’s privacy systems affect them directly every day, and they see it. So Americans are furious that Instagram might sell their photos, while shrugging at what the federal government might do with the exact same data.

This grasp of managing outrage is what makes our government’s lack of transparency so insidious. Even though the government has admitted that it has violated the Fourth Amendment at least once in its warrantless wiretapping, the outrage is limited to privacy and civil liberties circles precisely because the secrecy keeps the public from even knowing what these violations actually mean.

Reason Associate Editor Mike Riggs thoroughly documented the Obama Administration’s failure to live up to his promise to make the federal government more transparent in our December issue. Read it here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sloopyinca||

    The traditional media response to the reauthorization battle has been remarkably nonexistent.

    In their defense, it would have taken valuable time away from their campaign to end 2A Rights for Americans that don't wear a government-issued uniform.

  • Hollywood||

    According to the AP, one of the key measures of the bill is to "Bar the government from targeting individuals unless there is a reasonable belief they are not in the United States."

    My question is, does this essentially authorize the govt to monitor individuals who may be using an IP-masking program, like Tor, since it gives the appearance that the data is being routed from outside the country?

  • ||

    "... the domestic surveillance program more transparent and require compliance with the Fourth Amendment. ....... the act was reauthorized unchanged in a 73-23 vote.)"

    So basically the federal govt is committing criminal acts and 73 senators committed acts of treason. Got it.

  • sloopyinca||

    Why do you want the terrorists to win, Suthenboy?

  • Ska||

    More access to falafel?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Duh-doy. Facebook is a corporation out for profit at all cost, whereas the government has benevolent intent.

  • mr simple||

    Also, you only have to worry about the government if you're a terrorist; who knows what could happen if those pics from that pool party got out.

  • Hyperion||

    you only have to worry about the government if you're a terrorist

    So basically, anyone who doesn't: have more than 7 days of food in their house, work in the private sector, own property, operate a small business for profit, vote GOP, register with a 3rd political party, or post on anarchist sites like Reason, don't have anything to worry about?

  • Hyperion||

    Damnit, I forgot:

    Own a gun, become a member of the NRA...

    I am sure I am still forgetting a few dozen things...

  • mr simple||

    and good folks from the DEA to the SPLC are working to expand that definition everyday.

  • Jerryskids||

    I'm pretty sure if you *don't* own a gun, have more than 7 days of food in your house, work in the private sector, own property, operate a small business for profit, vote GOP, register with a 3rd political party, or post on anarchist sites like Reason,it makes you look suspiciously like you are trying to hide something.

    People who don't act suspiciously are the ones the government are most suspicious of.

  • nicole||

    This grasp of managing outrage is what makes our government’s lack of transparency so insidious. Even though the government has admitted that it has violated the Fourth Amendment at least once in its warrantless wiretapping, the outrage is limited to privacy and civil liberties circles precisely because the secrecy keeps the public from even knowing what these violations actually mean.

    And this is why I always opt for the airport patdown.

  • sloopyinca||

    I do the same. And when they ask me if I'd like a private screening, I tell them I want it done as publicly as possible and I even offer to remove my shirt and pants. They always say "that won't be necessary," to which I reply "it hasn't stopped you from going this far."

  • Citizen Nothing||

    "Like"

  • ||

    I can't figure out why anyone would want the private screening. So they can be even more invasive and no one will know?

  • nicole||

    If you're lucky enough to get a resolution patdown, you get the private screening whether you want it or not. In a room with a sign prohibiting recording.

  • ||

    Fun fact: there are also signs prohibiting recording (and even mere USE of cell phones) in Canadian border holding pens. Bonus humiliation is when they say you're not allowed to use the restroom until you've been "cleared" and then 40 minutes later you see the confused foreigners plead with the thugs to let their frail, veiled grannies and cute kids use the bathroom and they begrudgingly allow it. Merry fucking Christmas.

  • Timon 19||

    Not allowed to use cell phones in the US until you clear Customs. That's AFTER you've collected your checked baggage, which often takes a good long while.

  • ||

    The 4th Amendment was written before the terrorists attacked us. We must trade some liberty to be safe. This is the POST 9/11 world.

  • A Serious Man||

    Those who would trade security for liberty deserve neither and I will make sure they lose both.--Barack Obama

  • ||

    I do too, nicole. And on that note, what do you think our friends at Jezebel have to say about the TSA? (HINT: There is a lot of gov't apologia for people who say they take bodily autonomy seriously.)

  • Hyperion||

    bodily autonomy

    Bodily autonomy is for baby killin, it ain't no good for nothin else...

  • nicole||

    Morons. Greyhound and Amtrak will not save you.

  • ||

    And the number of people saying "well... their jobs ARE really boring, so I guess you can't blame them"? The point, they are missing it.

  • nicole||

    How are they always even bigger fuckfaces than I can imagine?

    So someone in a locked room is making fun of you to someone else in a locked room, and they will never meet you or see you or know anything about you. Who cares? This happens with clothes on too, all the time. If a tree falls in the forest, who the hell cares?

    So I guess the Jezebel commentariat now has no problem with creepshots, right?

  • nicole||

    Yeah, I'm self-conscious, but if I don't have to interact with them or be confronted with it, I can put it out of my mind pretty easily.

    So, in other words, exactly the thesis of this blogpost. We are so fucking doomed.

  • nicole||

    "with patdowns you risk being judged to your face"

    This is truly sad.

  • Tonio||

    Good point Nicole. These are the same people who work themselves into fits of apoplexy over teh mail gays, yet can feign nonchalance over gropings by the state's thugs.

  • Fluffy||

    Facebook’s privacy systems affect them directly every day, and they see it.

    The funny thing is, they actually don't.

    How YOU set Facebook's privacy SETTINGS might affect you directly, if you're a dumbass. Because that might let your boss see your drunk pics or what have you.

    But the algorithmic shit Facebook does based on my personal data doesn't impact me one little bit.

    It doesn't matter how much they let advertisers profile me. I'm not clicking on the ads anyway.

    I don't really consider myself "impacted" because one set of ads I will never, ever click is replaced by a different set of ads I will never, ever click.

  • robc||

    I'm not clicking on the ads anyway.

    There are ads on the internet? When did that start happening?

  • ||

    I don't know, but apparently libertarians buy a lot of funny T-shirts.

  • DJF||

    Only T-shirts worn by girls with big boobs.

  • Enough About Palin||

    I've just been buying the girls.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    I've tried that too, but my wife won't sign for the delivery. For some strange reason she seems fairly put out by my mere request to do so.

  • johnl||

    And if they did post ads that were more relevant to you, that wouldn't represent a hardship.

  • nicole||

    It doesn't matter how much they let advertisers profile me. I'm not clicking on the ads anyway.

    I don't really consider myself "impacted" because one set of ads I will never, ever click is replaced by a different set of ads I will never, ever click.

    And yet this is something that a great many people strenuously object to because they find it "creepy." Or, as sloopy said, because they are fucking retarded sheep.

  • ||

    I really don't mind the private sector using my info. Normally they use it to improve/customize their services to fit my tastes. They don't have guns or the power to force me to do anything.

    The gubmint, OTOH...

  • ||

    People are more vocal about Facebook because it's something they use every day. Most people don't know what FISA is, how it violates their rights, or why they should care, which is just how the feds want it.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    They just know that Rand Paul is fighting FISA, and therefore they need to support it because Paul is an eeeeeeeeeeevul Tea Fucking Rat Bagger.

  • sloopyinca||

    Why Are People More Scared of Facebook Violating Their Privacy than Washington?

    Because they're fucking retarded sheep.

  • sloopyinca||

    Because they're retarded fucking sheep might look better to our resident grammarians.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Unless, you know, it's because they are fucking those poor sheep.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And if those pictures ever got out...

  • ENDelt260||

    I assumed fucking was modified retarded, not sheep.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'll only fuck intelligent sheep, but hey, that's just me.

  • mr simple||

    That's because you know retarded sheep can't consent, which makes it rape. Also true if the sheep has had any alcohol.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    True dat.

  • Jordan||

    Because they're products of public education, where the virtues of the police state are extolled endlessly.

  • Hyperion||

    Facts:

    Facebook suckz ballz and is a magnet for sociopaths and morons.

    Washington DC suckz ballz and is a magnet for sociopaths and morons.

    That being said. I can easily avoid facebook and I do, like it was the plague. But I can't seem to avoid the parasitical soul draining scourge of Washington DC.

    Therefore, anyone who fears facebook more than Washington, is a blithering idiot.

  • Nuked||

    Like

  • OldMexican||

    Why Are People More Scared of Facebook Violating Their Privacy than Washington?


    Because Woodrow Wilson won?

  • John||

    It is very simple. There is at least a significant chance that what is on facebook can hurt them. Their wives or employer or someone else with direct affect on their lives could see what is on facebook. Facebook can cause harm in a way people understand. In contrast, most people cannot conceive of the NSA listening into their conversation much less caring enough to use that information in any damaging way. Which is more likely, that your wife finds your secret facebook account where you communicate with your mistress or the NSA listens into your telephone conversation with the mistress and turns it over to your wife?

    People are more concerned about Facebook for good reason.

  • Hyperion||

    When facebook starts extorting money directly out of my pay check every month to pay for shit that I am totally opposed to, then I will start being worried about them.

  • John||

    Most people don't look at taxes as extortion. And most people could care less if the cops are listening to their phone because they don't think they are doing anything to ever give the cops any reason to care. Maybe they are wrong in thinking that. But it is a bit puzzling to me that Reason isn't bright enough to figure out that is why they care about Facebook but no the government.

  • Hyperion||

    Most people don't look at taxes as extortion

    Those wouldn't be the 46% who don't pay any taxes and who, ironically, showed up in the exact same number in a poll saying that Obamas 2nd term will be better as opposed to worse(in other words, I will get more free shit), would they?

  • John||

    I pay a lot of taxes. I don't like them but I don't look at them as extortion. And at least in my own life, Facebook would be more likely to do real damage to me than the government. For that reason, I am a hell of a lot more concerned about Facebook than I am the government. It is simple self interest.

  • Hyperion||

    Well, you are going to pay even more, and I am glad that you are happy about what DC is doing with your money. I'm not.

    You do know that you don't have to have a facebook account, right?

  • John||

    Just because something is wrong or excessive, doesn't make it extortion.

    And sure I don't have to have a facebook account. But that doesn't mean I can't be concerned about it if I have one.

  • sloopyinca||

    I pay a lot of taxes. I don't like them but I don't look at them as extortion.

    Do you tell them how much you are going to pay or do they tell you?

    And at least in my own life, Facebook would be more likely to do real damage to me than the government.

    So says the man whose livelihood and impending retirement will be paid for by extorted taxes taken from the rest of us.

    For that reason, I am a hell of a lot more concerned about Facebook than I am the government.

    Because FB has the monopoly on violence the government has, right?

    It is simple self interest.

    Finally a bit of honesty from a humble "public servant".

  • John||

    Yeah sloopy, the NSA is going to drone strike me real fucking soon. Would you get some help? Maybe some meds. You don't help your case by acting like a paranoid lunatic.

  • sloopyinca||

    And you don't help yourself to any respect here by going "baaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh" all day.

    Did they change your government job to "internet troll" in the past couple of weeks? If so, you're gonna make GS-21 in no time, because you truly excel at licking the boot of your master on a site where it doesn't play well.

  • Tonio||

    Oh, no, YOU di'n't just go there, John.

  • Jordan||

    Facebook would be more likely to do real damage to me than the government.

    Reading your e-mail without your consent is real damage.

  • John||

    Reading your e-mail without your consent is real damage.

    How so? It is certainly wrong. But it doesn't affect my life. My wife isn't going to divorce me. I won't be any poorer. I won't be publicly humiliated. What showing of damage could I make?

    Something can be wrong in principle. The government reading your emails is wrong because it is illegal. It doesn't matter if you are actually harmed and in fact in most cases you won't be. But that is not the point.

  • R C Dean||

    I don't like them but I don't look at them as extortion.

    How much would you pay entirely voluntarily?

    Anything more than that amount is being extracted from you by force or threat of force, which sure sounds like extortion to me.

  • John||

    Yes RC, I do pay them by choice. If I really didn't want to pay them and it were that important to me, I would leave the country and never send them another dime.

  • Hyperion||

    It doesn't even matter how much one pays. It's the fact that they use the money as handouts to their political donor cronies. They don't use the money for the benefit of the citizens that pay the taxes. When that happens, it is no longer taxes, it's extortion.

  • John||

    Hyperion,

    Maybe you are right. But that is not how 90% of the world looks at it. And that is why most people really don't care if the government is violating their privacy.

    I go back to my original point. Maybe they are wrong to think that. But that doesn't change the way they are.

  • Hyperion||

    John,

    I think your 90% estimate is way off. And I am only referring to the US, I don't really care about what governments in the rest of the world do with their tax revenues, as it doesn't affect me.

    In the US, I would say that there is probably 50% who think what the government does with taxes is not extortion to at least some degree. Those are the 50% who don't pay any taxes or work for the government in DC.

    Our federal government is way past the point of giving a fuck what the people think, and they truly believe that the revenue collected from the rest of us is for them to buy votes with and reward their crony donors. The few in DC that do not think that way can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

    I am truly starting to believe what Peter Thiel and a few others are saying, that Democracy is not compatible with liberty. Once voters discover that they can vote themselves free stuff, most are ready to give up all freedom for said free stuff. We are already past that point.

  • Enough About Palin||

    What would you do
    If you were asked to give up your dreams for free stuff?
    What would you do
    If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice?

    Would you think about all them people
    Who gave up everything they had?
    Would you think about all them occupiers
    And would you start to feel bad?

    Free stuff isn't free
    It costs folks like you and me
    And if we don't all chip in
    We'll never pay that bill
    Free stuff isn't free
    No, there's a hefty in' fee.
    And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
    Who will?

    What would you do
    If someone told you to fight for free stuff?
    Would you answer the call
    Or run away like a little pussy?
    'Cause the only reason that you're here
    Is 'cause folks paid for you in the past
    So maybe now it's your turn
    To pay through your fucking ass

    Free stuff isn't free
    It costs folks like you and me
    And if we don't all chip in
    We'll never pay that bill
    Free stuff isn't free
    Now there's a hefty in' fee
    And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
    Who will?

    You don't throw in your buck 'o five. Who will?
    Oooh buck 'o five
    Free stuff costs a buck 'o five

  • ||

    Or some hypothetical internet lunatic might hypothetically stalk you and hypothetically attempt to hack your hypothetical Facebook account. Hypothetically speaking.

  • John||

    Yes. There is always that.

  • ||

    Don't sell yourself short. You aren't just any internet lunatic, you're *our* internet lunatic.

  • ||

    I particularly like your most recent vacation pictures, Dagny. The ones you marked private. Hypothecally speaking.

  • ||

    Now there is a New Year's resolution worth making: take sluttier vacations.

  • ||

    Oh yeah, try to pretend like you don't have a timeshare at all the Hedonism resorts. Go ahead.

  • Hyperion||

    You see, that's just another thing that bothers me. Why do we need hedonism resorts where we have to pay $7 for a damn beer.

    When Libertopia is finally founded from the crumbling states of the former USSA, hedonism will be the norm!

  • Randian||

    And just what the living fiddle-faddle is a Hedonism Resort?

  • nicole||

    "How do we filter out the teases? We don't let them in. This goes for the guys, too. Because sometimes the guys are tapped out. But check your lease, man. Because you're living in Fuck City."

  • ||

    Are you suggesting Warty's vacations aren't already incredibly slutty?

  • ||

    They are good enough to inspire my favorite limerick of all time, so, no, I am not suggesting that at all. Someone less lazy can probably find the one that gave us the best new word of 2012: shigellical.

  • ||

    Warty| 2.7.12 @ 4:42PM |#|–|filternamelinkcustom

    I've seldom met sluts so sluttical
    Who loved to do all things buttical
    But the good times I had
    Were followed by bad
    After my trip turned shigellical.
    reply to this

    Full disclosure: I changed the last line to read "After..." instead of the previous "When..." in order to make the meter work better.

  • ||

    When do you think the OED will get around to including it as a hip new word in their latest edition? By my calculations they're running at least 5-7 years behind.

  • ||

    I'm gonna go sex up Merriam Webster real good and get put on the fast track. She's hot, right?

  • ||

    I hear she vajazzles, so totes punch her in the twat. The lolz will be ridic.

  • Ted S.||

    So you're the slut going on a cruise with Auric? :-p

  • sloopyinca||

    Did your boss reprogram you for Christmas, John?

    If you are "concerned" with FB, you can easily opt out of it. If you are concerned about the FedGov spying then fuck you, that's why.

    I'll be honest, I don't care for your Tulpa impersonation John. One contrarian government nut-gobbler is enough.

  • John||

    Sure I can opt out of it. But what if I don't want to. What are the chances the feds are ever going to notice me, much less do anything? Zero and zero. What are the chances some nut is going to hack my facebook account and figure out who my family and friends are and do God know what? That would be 100%.

    Yeah, I worry about things that are likely to actually happen. Do I think the NSA should be reading my emails? No. Do I think them reading them will affect my life in any way? No and I don't see how that changes anytime soon. There is a difference between principle and absolute harm.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I don't care for your Tulpa impersonation John.


    Just don't get him started about parking perpendicular to traffic.

  • sloopyinca||

    What are the chances the feds are ever going to notice me, much less do anything?

    Seeing as they have your tax records, your vital records, control over your social security/pension and the ability to take anything they want through asset forfeiture, I'd say they have done and can do anything they want.

    What are the chances some nut is going to hack my facebook account and figure out who my family and friends are and do God know what? That would be 100%.

    Yes, the newspapers are filled to the brim of this happening. Since the chance of that happening is 100%, I'm sure it's already happened to you, me and every other person on here with a FB account. Shall we ask the commentariat with FB accounts if your assertion is true?

    Yeah, I worry about things that are likely to actually happen. Do I think the NSA should be reading my emails? No. Do I think them reading them will affect my life in any way? No and I don't see how that changes anytime soon. There is a difference between principle and absolute harm.

    Replace the words "reading my emails" with "entering my property" or "searching my automobile" or any other invasion of privacy and tell me if you're still OK with it.

    If you want to give up your liberty and privacy, feel free. But stop being so flippant about your employer ignoring the rights of people who still value both.

  • Fluffy||

    You think there's a 100% chance some nut is going to hack your Facebook account?

    Again, you're confusing Facebook's privacy settings with their privacy policy.

    If you use their privacy settings wrong and your wife finds out you're having an affair, that's called "user error" and you're just a big dope. It's no different from writing your mistress a love letter and leaving it in your pocket for your wife to find. That's not a "mail privacy problem". That's a "you're a dumbass" problem.

    Their privacy policy is where they tell you how they're going to use your information. And that tends to be what agitates the asshole faction in the tech press. "Oh noes, Google sends me targeted ads based on my searches and based on the web content I read and based on keywords in my email! IZ BEEZ VIOLATEDZ!"

  • John||

    Fluffy,

    Some nut did hack into my facebook account. That said nut is the most notorious troll on here. She hacked into it, changed the privacy settings and then started linking to my account on here.

    So yes, sloopy, I don't think the chances are 100%. I know they are 100%, since it happened.

    And Fluffy. The customers of google and facebook have every right to complain and be concerned who is using their information. They are the customers aren't they? Do they not have a right to at least complain and ask for different service?

  • sloopyinca||

    Because they happened to you doesn't make the chances 100%, you stupid asshole. It just means it happened to you. Your statistical analysis would be like me saying the odds are 100% that having a Directv account means you are watching ST:TNG right now just because I am.

    Sorry that Mary got into your account. That's not my fault. It's yours. It's also against the law and you should pursue the matter with FB and your local police department.

    You're still a bootlicker because you don't give a fuck about the government violating two of the most basic tenets our nation was founded upon: privacy and liberty. And until you realize that privacy and liberty are absolute principles and the default position should be for the government to respect them unless they have obtained a warrant, you'll be on the wrong side of the argument.

    Good day, sir.

  • John||

    You're still a bootlicker because you don't give a fuck about the government violating two of the most basic tenets our nation was founded upon: privacy and liberty

    That is just not true. I have said all over this thread I am concerned and think it is wrong.

    So tell me are you illiterate or are you a lying sack of shit who falsely accuses people of believing things that they specifically repudiated on the same thread?

    Since you seem to be able to write, it must be the latter. You want to disagree with me, fine. But stop lying about what I think. That makes you go from wrong to just being a piece of shit troll.

  • Randian||

    Jesus Christ, you two aren't even disagreeing and you don't even know it.

    sloopy is describing what ought to be (in his opinion): people should be more worried about the government spying than Facebook.

    John is describing why that is not the case and is making a positive, not normative, observation.

    You people fucking slay me, so you do.

  • John||

    Yes, I am describing how people are. And I have said on at least two occasions that they may be wrong about that but that is what they think and they are not irrational for thinking so. That is all i ever said.

    But sloopy doesn't care about what I actually said. He just wants a stand in and a Goldstein to rage about.

  • Numeromancer||

    Nuh-uh, becuz they ought not should be doing that.

  • ||

    TNG? God, you suck. There isn't any TOS on some channel?

  • sloopyinca||

    Unfortunately not. Hey, at least it ain't DS9.

  • Randian||

    Unfortunately not. Hey, at least it ain't DS9.

    Because you can't handle the awesomeness?

  • ||

    Dude, just how drunk are you already?

  • Randian||

    I'd offer you a glass, but I know how much you dislike kanar.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, I can't handle the awesomeness of more Alexander Rozhenko and that frootloop Odo.

  • Randian||

    Alexander was way worse in TNG, and don't talk that way about the Founders. Obedience is Victory, sloop.

  • John||

    And it happened to me retard and that means it happens to other people. So that makes it perfectly reasonable for people to be concerned about it.

    Just admit that you shot off your mouth about it never happening and I called you on it. So rather than admit you were wrong, you went on some insulting rant pretending I said a bunch of shit I never said. Stop showing your ass and move on.

  • sloopyinca||

    If you honestly believe the rate of FB accounts being hacked is greater than the amount of people the government illegally obtains information about, then so be it.

    And show me where I claimed it "never happens", shit for brains.

    You've resorted to calling me paranoid, yet I've been a victim of 4A violations, as has every person on here that ever went through a DUI checkpoint, a CA border checkpoint, a USBP stop 100 miles inland, an airport security search, registered a firearm with the government or had their car stopped by a park ranger and searched in Yosemite. So fuck you and your inability to come up with a Mary-proof password. That's small potatoes compared to the persistent and gross abuse of our Constitutional rights the government perpetrates on us every fucking day.

  • Tonio||

    Did she really hack it, or just manage to guess your PW, John?

  • John||

    She hacked it. I have good passwords. nothing you could guess.

  • Paul.||

    Some nut did hack into my facebook account. That said nut is the most notorious troll on here. She hacked into it, changed the privacy settings and then started linking to my account on here.

    Never had an account hacked in my lifetime. Ever. And I'll bet I've had seven to ten times the number of "accounts" that the average American has.

    Choose your passwords wisely.

    Here's my facebook password: 0011ll1llOlOO111O0011ll1l1000l1O

  • Randian||

    Nice to have you back, Fluffy. Where the hell have you been?

  • Hyperion||

    He came back specifically to police who is responding to Johns posts.

    Just remember, don't respond to any of Johns posts, unless you ask Fluffys permission, first.

  • Randian||

    Alright, whatever beef you two have let's just leave it at the door, eh?

  • Redmanfms||

    "Oh noes, Google sends me targeted ads based on my searches and based on the web content I read and based on keywords in my email! IZ BEEZ VIOLATEDZ!"

    If only that were the way it worked. No amount of searching, "Avy Scott buttfucking" (or its various permutations) or, "shooting machine guns while tripping balls on mescaline" has ever generated anything even remotely useful to my tastes.

    I do still get ads for generators at Home Depot because I searched for info on portable gennies 4 years ago.

  • Paul.||

    I do still get ads for generators at Home Depot because I searched for info on portable gennies 4 years ago.

    According to NPR, you've been digitally "outed".

  • ||

    I'll be honest, I don't care for your Tulpa impersonation John.

    No shit! Twins separated at birth. Fucking argue over the most mundane shit imaginable. And getting worse.

  • John||

    Go fuck yourself Francisco. You don't like it, don't read it.

  • ||

    Oh John, now I'm butthurt. Why ya gotta be so mean?

  • $park¥||

    Someone pushed his Mr Angry button. Again.

  • Adam330||

    "their conversation much less caring enough to use that information in any damaging way. Which is more likely, that your wife finds your secret facebook account where you communicate with your mistress or the NSA listens into your telephone conversation with the mistress and turns it over to your wife?"

    Let's ask Mr. Petraeus that question....

  • John||

    Since I am not the head of the CIA and not conducting an affair with my ghost writer, ask away. If they ever offer me the job as head of the CIA, I will be sure to be real concerned about the NSA reading my mail. Until that time and I am just another anonymous schmuck out there, I think the chances of the NSA extorting me are pretty fucking slim.

  • Adam330||

    Ok, let's ask Khaled El-Masri that question...Or are you not worried because you don't have an Arab sounding name...how about this guy: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ml...given the government's secrecy, there are likely far more examples of average joes swept up in this that aren't publicly known.

  • John||

    If I had an Arab name, I might be more concerned. But I don't. And most people don't. And that is another reason why most people are more concerned about Facebook. For the same reason people who don't live on mountain tops are less concerned about lightening strikes than those who do.

  • Ted S.||

    First they came for the people with the Arab-sounding names, but I said nothing as my name sounds WASPish.

  • Ska||

    I wouldn't say that it's no big deal seeing the government shit all over my right to privacy, but at the same time John's explanation is pretty reasonable. I guess I could poll the people in my workplace to substantiate the assumption, but thinking that people fear what their spouses/friends/employers might think about them before they fear what some faceless government department might think about them seems like a reasonable assumption.

  • John||

    I think the government violating people's privacy is a big deal too. But I think it is a big deal because it is wrong and illegal and immoral not because I think the NSA is reading my mail or would personally worry about what might happen to me if they did. I am just trying to explain to a bunch of paranoids how non paranoids think.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Of course the consequences are much different too.

    Your wife finds out about your girlfriend can have any number of consequences. Most of them bad, but not exclusively.

    The NSA misinterprets an innocent conversation now has the power to detain you without charge, and send you to a place like Guantanamo without so much as a note to your family that you're gone.

    When Facebook can disappear me under color of law, I will fear Facebook.

  • A Serious Man||

    Jeez, if only the media was as relentless in critiquing Congress' and president's record on civil liberties as it is in deconstructing why Facebook's snapchat/sexting app clone sucks.

  • ||

    I point this out to my wife all the time and it falls on deaf ears. She's outraged when Lowe's want her telephone number to track her purchases and make returns easier, but willingly fills out all of the information on her tax returns, etc. I don't care if Lowe's has my info. They've never violated my rights. I put as much erroneous shit on my tax form as I can get away with. I just had to file for a couple of years ago when I "forgot" and in the "occupation" field, I put "Not extortion like you."

  • John||

    I don't care if Lowe's has my info. They've never violated my rights.

    They won't violate your rights. They will just sell your telephone number to a bunch of telemarketers who will annoy the shit out of you. Fuck Lowes, they don't need my phone number. They need my money. And if my money isn't good enough I will go somewhere else. I never give them my phone number.

    Just because they are not the government, doesn't mean they won't fuck you in the ass or that you should take said ass fucking.

  • ||

    I can count on one hand the number of calls I have received from telemarketers in the past year. And I always use my phone number. It's optional. They don't force you to give it to them in order to do business with them. They do it as a service so when you lose your receipt, you can still return an item. Or if you bought paint and lost the color swatch, they can make more for you. What a concept!

    Plus, you're a raving, pedantic, imbecile John...

    also, fried chicken.

  • Jordan||

    I just had to file for a couple of years ago when I "forgot" and in the "occupation" field, I put "Not extortion like you."

    HAHA that is great. I may try that this year...

  • Mensan||

  • Jordan||

    Whoa, that's so meta.

  • Scott S.||

    That's totally going on 24/7, heh

  • Randian||

    Dammit! I just thought about this idea today too! I missed out on my chance.

  • Brandon||

    Obviously, because there is no possible way to just not be associated with Facebook, while government is entirely benevolent and voluntary.

  • NYer||

    The 23 no votes.

    NAYs ---23
    Akaka(D-HI)
    Baucus(D-MT)
    Begich(D-AK)
    Bingaman(D-NM)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Cantwell(D-WA)
    Coons (D-DE)
    Durbin(D-IL)
    Franken(D-MN)
    Harkin(D-IA)
    Leahy(D-VT)
    Lee(R-UT)
    Menendez(D-NJ)
    Merkley(D-OR)
    Murkowski(R-AK)
    Murray(D-WA)
    Paul (R-KY)
    Sanders(I-VT)
    Schatz(D-HI)
    Tester(D-MT)
    Udall(D-CO)
    Udall(D-NM)
    Wyden(D-OR)

    It's interesting, Murkowski, Begich, Tester voted for the NDAA recently yet voted against the Patriot Extensions last year, and FISA today.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It's not interesting. It's perfectly planned.

    Both TEAMS engage in it when they have the majority. They have just enough NAY votes to give legitimacy to the idea of there being opposition, but not enough that a vote or two one way or the other will change the outcome.

    It's all a fucking game to the scum in DC.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    I never thought my state's tard (Franken) would have voted against this. Nice to be surprised.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    The 4th amendment was written for cave hieroglyphics. Fact.

    /piers morgan

  • StillASkeptic||

    Who knows why, but people seem to identify a sense of purchase with social media more than they do with government, so they tend to want to hold Facebook more accountable with managing their privacy than they do government. People look at social media as voluntary services that they "buy into," and the primary users of social media (middle and upper class Americans) now view their tax payments as more of an obligation than a willful payment for services. Basically, people've given up on government but are oddly optimistic about the accountability of services like Facebook. That's my take on it.

  • waaminn||

    Cause most people are idiots lol

    www.Anon-et.tk

  • Paul.||

    Whereas, just about everybody’s on Facebook. Facebook’s privacy systems affect them directly every day, and they see it. So Americans are furious that Instagram might sell their photos

    Dear America:

    When you put your data online, you don't own it anymore. Act accordingly.

    That is all.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement