Skip to content or view screen version

Using Facebook for organising?

Riseup Collective | 10.01.2010 01:21 | Analysis | Technology | World

This information was introduced in a "newsletter for users" but it provides food for thought for all.

Two birds recently did a presentation at the People's Summit[1] celebrating the 10 year anniversary of the WTO protests. We discussed the dangers of using corporate tools to do organizing work, in
particular, the fact that you don't know what they do with your data.

Thanks to some anonymous comments in a blogger's post[2] about his research regarding a U.S. mobile phone company's release to law enforcement of its customers' geographic location information, we now have some answers.

Large companies have entire departments devoted to dealing with law enforcement subpoenas and warrants, and the anonymous posters provided copies of the guidebooks that several large corporations provide to assist law enforcement with their requests. The leaked manuals include those for facebook,[3] yahoo,[4], myspace,[5] comcast,[6] and paypal.[7]

Each manual provides helpful hints for law enforcement regarding the specific data available (some of which may be obtained with a mere subpoena and without any judicial scrutiny), and even sample request language to use in different circumstances.

For example, according to the leaked manual, facebook retains information about the IP address of
every computer that accesses their website for 30 days. This means that, unless you use countermeasures, facebook can know the exact location where you logged on to your account.

Because this IP address information does not include the contents of communications, a U.S. prosecutor can seek the information without any judicial oversight.

With a court order, facebook will release even more information about you. They've even developed an application called "Neoprint" to deliver a handy packet of information about subscribers, including profile contact information, mini-feed, friend listing (with friend's facebook ID), group listing and messages.

There is little oversight of surveillance conducted in the U.S. of online service providers because the U.S. Department of Justice does not report the number of IP address requests that they have issued, even though a 1999 law requires reports.[1] There is also no reporting requirement for court orders issued under the Stored Communications Act[8] which governs the release in the United States of all of your electronic data stored online.

One of the scary things about all of this is that the US actually has better data protection laws than many other countries. Also, unlike our comrades in the EU,[9] the US does not currently require online
providers to keep logs, This means that people organizing everywhere should be aware that if you are using corporate providers, your data is at risk.

While this information should not be surprising, it illustrates the importance of supporting alternatives and educating each other about the risks of using corporate tools for organizing work. For more information, read the blog post,[2]

[1]  http://seattleplus10.org/
[2]  http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2009/12/8-million-reasons-for-real-surveillance.html
[3]  http://dtto.net/docs/facebook-manual.pdf
[4]  http://dtto.net/docs/yahoo-guide.pdf
[5]  http://dtto.net/docs/myspace-guide.pdf
[6]  http://dtto.net/docs/comcast-guide.pdf
[7]  http://dtto.net/docs/paypal-guide.pdf
[8]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored_Communications_Act
[9]  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0024:EN:NOT

Riseup Collective
- Homepage: http://riseup.net

Additions

Facebook snowball 'terrorist' threatened by cops

10.01.2010 13:24

A Leeds man who posted a Facebook event "The World's Biggest Snowball Fight", to take place in Leeds on Sunday 10th January received a visit at his home from coppers who threatened him with charges if "anyone or anything is damaged in Hyde Park on Sunday".

 http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?v=app_2344061033&ref=profile&id=766690091#/event.php?eid=237588241804&index=1

He comments:
"I REFUSE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY,
I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER PEOPLES ACTIONS.
IM ORGANISING A SNOWBALL FIGHT. NOT A RIOT.

THE POLICE WILL BE SURROUNDING THE PARK "DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP AND THROW SNOWBALLS, APPROPRIATELY"

HOWEVER,
I DON'T THINK ANYONE CARES..."

Speaking as a a snowballer, i don't care that the police are trying to stop the fight - in the words of GWB, 'bring it on'.

As an activist, this shows that by posting anything on Facebook, you might as well invite the coppers round your house and show them your plans. If they can be arsed to track you down over a snowball fight, then...

Which isn't to say that it's of no use whatsoever as an organising tool, but must be handled with care.

scrumpy


Comments

Hide the following 4 comments

birds?

10.01.2010 11:54

is "two birds" the name of a group? or it is slang for "people" these days?

where i come from "bird" is a derogatory word for women, is why i ask...

just wondering


birds clarification

10.01.2010 14:58

The riseup folks (a techy collective based in the US) tend to refer to themselves as birds, even calling themselves after various types of birds. It's just an eccentric playful figure of speech they use, unrelated to the slang term 'bird' here used by some in the UK to refer to a woman.

a friendly sparrow


Facebook and Twitter users 'undermine their right to privacy'

10.01.2010 22:11

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/6947950/Facebook-and-Twitter-users-undermine-their-right-to-privacy.html

Facebook and Twitter users 'undermine their right to privacy'

People who use social-networking websites like Facebook and Twitter could be eroding their own right to privacy, a philosopher has warned.

Published: 6:17PM GMT 07 Jan 2010

Employers and the authorities are putting new media sites under greater surveillance, encouraged by users who bare their personal lives to the world, unwittingly inviting them in to view compromising photographs and messages.

Dr Kieron O'Hara, a computer scientist and philosopher, of the University of Southampton, said: "Users of new media, in their self-disclosure, are often as complicit in assaults on our privacy as the authorities which orchestrate surveillance."

Kimberley Swann, 16, was sacked from her job as an office administrator in Clacton-on-Sea, Essex, last year after posting status updates about how boring the work was.

Meanwhile, Kyle Doyle, who worked for a telecommunications company in Sydney, was caught faking a sick day when he boasted about it on Facebook in October 2008.

Employees from large companies such as Marks and Spencer, Virgin Atlantic and British Airways have also been caught out posting rude comments about their customers on Facebook forums.

A conference at the London School of Economics and Political Science also heard that sharing intimate details on the sites could damage personal relationships.

Dr Adam Joinson of the University of Bath, an expert in computer communication, said: "As new technology and social media encourage sharing of the small details of everyday life, it also reduces privacy in social relationships, and may have negative effects on intimacy levels between people. If you desire intimacy, it may well be disastrous to add your partner to Facebook, or to follow them on Twitter."

About 300 experts are attending the annual conference of the Media, Communication and Cultural Studies Association.

anon


Facebook users "undermine everybody else's right to privacy"

10.01.2010 23:24

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8446649.stm

How online life distorts privacy rights for all
By Zoe Kleinman
Technology Reporter, BBC News

People who post intimate details about their lives on the internet undermine everybody else's right to privacy, claims an academic.

Dr Kieron O'Hara has called for people to be more aware of the impact on society of what they publish online.

"If you look at privacy in law, one important concept is a reasonable expectation of privacy," he said.

"As more private lives are exported online, reasonable expectations are diminishing."

The rise of social networking has blurred the boundaries of what can be considered private, he believes - making it less of a defence by law.

We live in an era that he terms "intimacy 2.0" - where people routinely share extremely personal information online.

"When our reasonable expectations diminish, as they have, by necessity our legal protection diminishes."

Dr O'Hara, a senior research fellow in Electronic and Computer Science at the University of Southampton, gave the example of an embarrassing photo taken at a party.

A decade ago, he said, there would have been an assumption that it might be circulated among friends.

But now the assumption is that it may well end up on the internet and be viewed by strangers.

Raging debate

Privacy has long been a thorny issue but there were very few court cases until that of former motorsport boss Max Mosley in 2008.

Mr Mosley sued the News of the World over the publication in the newspaper of explicit photos of him secretly taken during an orgy.

He argued that the publication of the photos was an unwarranted breach of his privacy - and won.

Mr Mosley had taken steps to keep his private life private but Dr O'Hara's concern is that other people's disregard for privacy online will spill over into other walks of life.

As debates continue to rage over whether the new airport body scanners and CCTV are an infringement of privacy or useful protection, some argue that it already has.

"Recent security decisions have become a privacy discussion - but if security suffers, the community suffers," Dr O'Hara said.

He was due to deliver his research paper at the annual Media Communication and Cultural Studies Association (Meccsa) conference held at the London School of Economics from 6-8 January.

anon