This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Another Facebook Privacy Scandal Approaching? WikiLeaks Demands Unsealing Of Google, Facebook Subpoena, If Any

Tyler Durden's picture





 

As Zero Hedge wrote earlier, following revelations that the DOJ was going through line items of private data, including personal financial information on Twitter, WikiLeaks has demanded that Goldman darling Facebook as well as the firm that "does no evil" Google reveal any subpoenas they may have received, if any. And all signs point to yes: after all why would the DOJ go after just Twitter which is not a repository of any notable private data, unlike the other companies, one of which already has been in much hot water in the past due to its privacy policy, and especially now that Goldman's SPV has full access to who knows what information: courtesy of the brain dead parasitic zombies at the SEC nobody knows just who knows what vis-a-vis Goldman's "private placement." And since a positive answer will most likely not do anything good for the brand reputation of either firm, as it will be spun in the way that these firms not only did not disclose an incursion in user privacy, but only did so following a fluke act by Twitter, and may well be working behind the scenes with who knows who else on providing gobs of private data on a silver platter to whatever is the government's witch hunt organization du jour, then maybe, just maybe, the world's infatuation with MySpace v2 (and Friendster v3) may finally start to wane, explaining why just as there are buyers, no matter how wealthy and sophisticated, in Goldman's latest PR fiasco, so there are sellers, who just happen to be wealthier and more sophisticated.

From the Guardian:

WikiLeaks has demanded that Google and Facebook unseal any US court subpoenas they have received after it emerged that a court in Virginia had ordered Twitter secretly to hand over details of accounts and use of the micro-blogging site by five figures associated with the group, including Julian Assange.

Amid strong evidence that a US grand jury has begun a wideranging trawl for details of what networks and accounts WikiLeaks used to communicate with Bradley Manning, the US serviceman accused of stealing hundreds of thousands of sensitive government cables, some of those named in the subpoena said they would fight disclosure.

"Today, the existence of a secret US government grand jury espionage investigation into WikiLeaks was confirmed for the first time as a subpoena was brought into the public domain," WikiLeaks said in a statement today.

The writ, approved by a court in Virginia in December, demands that the San Franscisco based micro-blogging site hand over all details of accounts and private messaging on Twitter – including the computers and networks – used by five individuals.

In the meantime, Assange is certainly not making friends in the Department of Truth.

WikiLeaks also condemned the court order, saying it amounted to harassment.

"If the Iranian government was to attempt to coercively obtain this information from journalists and activists of foreign nations, human rights groups around the world would speak out," Assange said in the statement.

"I think I am being given a message, almost like someone breathing in a phone," Jonsdottir said in a Twitter message.

Twitter has declined comment on the claim, saying only that its policy is to notify its users, where possible, of government requests for information.

The subpoena itself is an unusual one known as a 2703(d) which a recent Federal appeals court ruled was insufficient to order the disclosure of the contents of communication. Significantly, however, that ruling is binding in neither Virginia – where it was issued – or in San Francisco where Twitter is based.

Regardless, if the Assange "drama" is rising to fever pitch again, then something of far greater significance is likely happening somewhere else.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:58 | Link to Comment Mercury
Mercury's picture

The purpose of Facebook isn't to help you make friends it's to make money off your personal information.  And you should assume that they will play ball with the government too, especially if it helps facilitate their primary purpose.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:59 | Link to Comment williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

No the new purpose is to make bubble money for Squidco.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:02 | Link to Comment Mercury
Mercury's picture

Well, same thing.  Who the equity principals are doesn't change the larger picture.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:03 | Link to Comment -Michelle-
-Michelle-'s picture

It also saves the government a ton'o'money by making everyone self-reporters.

Do you know the Navy actually encourages all their sailors to create Facebook pages?

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:37 | Link to Comment macholatte
macholatte's picture

+10

 

The idea that people should "opt-out" from the spying and not "opt-in" is a slap in the face. It's like a burglar who robs your house because you didn't lock your door. So you invited him in. So no crime. OR, if you lock your door, he claims that you must have had something to hide and therefore he was compelled to break in. No crime. 

People need to demand that this sort of bullshit stop. There is an implied covenant of privacy that the government is ignoring so that it, via Google et al, can spy on you. Not surprising. Yet reprehensible.

 

It is only the enlightened ruler and the wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for the purposes of spying, and thereby they achieve great results.
Sun Tzu

 

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:55 | Link to Comment chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Since it's laughable and naive at this point to hope for the abuse to stop, the most reasonable course of action is simply to not use those services.

Who the fuck uses Twitter anyway?  Self-important, self-obsessed vanity seekers spewing their mostly idiotic non-observations unto the rest of the world.  Who the fuck cares what you can communicate in 140 characters?  Try writing a full page memo sometime.

And who uses Facebook to keep abreast of their social life?  Whatever happened to a damn notebook and a pen?  Were e-mail and instant messaging and the telephone just not enough?  Do we really need yet a fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth form of communication for sharing pointless observations, stupid pictures of stupid people doing stupid things, and videos of Miley Cyrus slowly turning herself into a drugged-out public embarassment ala Britney Spears?

Fuck everyone who has a Twitter account (in the ass if you actually use it regularly), double fuck anyone who has a Facebook account, and make a new opening to fuck if you have both.

Stop immersing yourself in all this digital glop and get back to living a real life, with real people, doing real things that are meaningful.

I am Chumbawamba.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:08 | Link to Comment redpill
redpill's picture

Agree, I don't use either.  While Twitter is important for communication to get around government authorities in many countries, this is a prime example of how it  can go wrong if it's the US government going after you because they are based here. 

The solution is for a new Twitter-like operation to take hold that has no central servers and operates solely through distributed networking.  Hell, one probably already exists. Wikileaks could pioneer the use of it because they would get so many followers.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:28 | Link to Comment TheMerryPrankster
TheMerryPrankster's picture

Welcome to the machine. Early speculation on the internet - late 80's - early 90's was the government press to make internet access ubiquitous - was to save the NSA a lot of time digitizing and interpeting analog data, let the surveilled digitize it themselves - hence the internet age was born.

A certain 6foot plus muslim on kidney dialysis doesn't even own a cel phone and the CiA hasn't been able to find him for nearly a decade. Private communication should never occur on open channels  - at some point the public must realize they are not the innocent - they are the prey - feasted on by their own corporate governments. Protect yourselves for no else will do the job.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:55 | Link to Comment bugs_
bugs_'s picture

Pretty sad that Wikileaks has to demand that others do the disclosure for them.

Pretty sad.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:42 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Set yourself on fire you mafia fucknut.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:58 | Link to Comment chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

I totally have him pegged as a DOD toadie.

I am Chumbawamba.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 16:55 | Link to Comment bugs_
bugs_'s picture

bugs_  jumps up and down I'M A DOD TOADIE!!!

....um...how much do DOD Toadies get paid?

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:05 | Link to Comment max2205
max2205's picture

Here is Julians tweet: 'send lawyers guns and lots of money'

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:58 | Link to Comment chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

And fuck him in the ass.

I am Chumbawamba.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:19 | Link to Comment ThisIsBob
ThisIsBob's picture

It is way beyond me why anybody would think that anything that is transmitted via the internets can be kept secret. 

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:30 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

If you go on Facebook, you are an idiot; and apparently there are a lot of idiots. 

Speaking of such, and glancing above to the "contributors' lineup", I suppose many decent people skip williambanzai7’s commentaries because of his word selection.  But since the word selection now moves to the headlines, I’m wondering if it will affect the skipping of Zero Hedge?  And you know what?  I know the answer; I’ve already seen the damage to the comment quality.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:39 | Link to Comment malikai
malikai's picture

"If you go on Facebook, you are an idiot; and apparently there are a lot of idiots."

 

Using FB does not make you an idiot. Using FB is no different from an account here on ZH. If you understand the purpose of the account and what information you submit to it will be used for, you are simply making a choice.

Such blanket statements are both foolish and dishonest. It is how you use FB that determines idiot or intelligent.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:03 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

If you understand the purpose of the account and what information you submit to it will be used for, you are simply making a choice.

 

And of course, you understand it. How wonderful.

It is how you use FB that determines idiot or intelligent.

 

Which goes perfectly well with the previous quote. As you understand FB, you can not be surprised by the way it is used.

Genius.

My personal assessment is that the game was too much rigged in favour of FB, with various controls on their side and very few on mine, making the game so imbalanced it was useless to play.

I am pretty sure you developped your way to play the market in control.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:15 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Five Hidden Dangers of Facebook: Security Expert on Big Risks You Should Be Aware You’re Taking When You Use the Site (excerpt)

(CBS) --  Facebook claims it has 400 million users.  But are they well-protected from prying eyes, scammers and unwanted marketers?

Not according to Joan Goodchild, senior editor of CSO (Chief Security Officer) Online.

She says your privacy may be at far greater risk of being violated than you know when you log onto Facebook, due to security gaffes or marketing efforts by the company.

Facebook came under fire (May 2010), when 15 privacy and consumer protection organizations filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, charging that the site, among other things, manipulates privacy settings to make users” personal information available for commercial use.  Also, some Facebook users found their private chats accessible to everyone on their contact list – a major security breach that’s left a lot of people wondering just how secure the site is.

In two words, asserts Goodchild – not very…

The potential for crime is real.  According to the Internet Crime Complaint Center, victims of internet-related crimes lost $559 million in 2009.  That was up 110 percent from the previous year… One British police agency recently reported the number of crimes (including assault) they’ve responded to in the last year involving Facebook climbed 346 percent. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/08/earlyshow/saturday/main6469373.shtml

So, here’s the picture: Privacy or not, through the door walks the most powerful force on the planet so far, a force strong enough to co-opt the operation of a superpower, the investment bank, Goldman Sachs.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:14 | Link to Comment chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

No, actually, whether you use Facebook or not is a direct reflection of your level of intelligence.

If you ripped on Friendster but then used MySpace, you're a tool.  If you ripped MySpace but then hopped on the FB bandwagon, you're a tool.  And if you rip FB but then sign on to the next social netjerking iteration, you're a tool.

That being said, this looks to be very cool:

https://joindiaspora.com/

And this:

http://diso-project.org/

And these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_social_network

So many people spewing about boycotting big corporate and government institutions only to sign on with replacements like Twitter and Facebook.  Sure, they may have been cozy when they were small, but they've been coopted for the greater Powers That Be because that's what those mother fuckers do.

You don't spend all your time hoarding gold, silver, guns, bullets, food, seeds, all manner of supplies, securing your perimeter, and generally remaining vigilant against government and corporate depredations, only to then surrender your privacy and anonimity by signing on to a grand social experiment with the very beast you are trying to escape.  What the fuck is wrong with some of you?  Slap yourselves in the face already and wake up.

You don't have to hire a middle manager to be social.  Only rich, self-absorbed snobs like rock stars and valueless debutantes do that.  Take control of your own shit, like any true sovereign would.  Not to mention a distributed form of digital social interaction, as these projects are promoting, will open up incredibly interesting and creative approaches to human relationships free of the control of government and oligarchs.

I am Chumbawamba.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:43 | Link to Comment swissinv
swissinv's picture

Basically you call our honored Zero Hedge friends as a bunch of idots since the are on Facebook too.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:19 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

"The are on Facebook too."

 

Idiot.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:33 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

That is probably why the US is definitively superior to the West Germany, USSR types... All of them had to fund the effort of monitoring a population. And losing money by acting this way.

The US brings grand style to the activity and turns it into a 50 $Bn valued firm.

The US, making money off tyranny is the word of God.  

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:39 | Link to Comment TheMerryPrankster
TheMerryPrankster's picture

Plus one million points - this is dead on the head. Facebook is now more valuable than many companies that have real physical resources and intellectual property -like Boeing Aircraft for instances. What is this fantasy land we find ourselves in and WTF happened to America?

Kennedy takes a bullet for the home team and the shit storm never stops falling - I'm still amazed how many people still think this is a democracy.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:37 | Link to Comment Arius
Arius's picture

the latest (for me at least) is how facebook is used as a great tool to try to fire someone.  Here is the scheme:

- become facebook "friend" with the person

- gather some juicy stuff the person has written which compromise their personality in the eyes of management e.g sexual stuff etc. (make sure these are written during business hours); print these pages, and scan these so they can be emailed as attachments. 

- next write to the TOP from an anonymous account, how concerned you are the person working "next" to you is spending half of his/her time on facebook and shopping online all in company dime...

- upon acknowledgement of receipt or some kind of communication send your attachment as full proof of your concerns...

IT WORKS!

 

 

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:34 | Link to Comment malikai
Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:26 | Link to Comment ThisIsBob
ThisIsBob's picture

Gazillions of self-made dossiers, constantly updated.

Go long storage.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:36 | Link to Comment Wheatman
Wheatman's picture

Tyler, a stylistic and logical suggestion: Occam's razor. Keep your senstence SHORT. I challenge you to write a blog that ONLY has short sentences.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:40 | Link to Comment Arius
Arius's picture

i keep trying to write short, but its difficult.  If you dont mind me asking, any suggestions?

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:57 | Link to Comment Hansel
Hansel's picture

No way.  Writing in short sentences leads to less information being conveyed.  The english language should be used fully.  Short sentences lead to neurotic posts which leave too much to be implied.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:17 | Link to Comment Arius
Arius's picture

The short sentence conveys only one thought.  Generally speaking short sentence is fine, however, in this particular blog I prefer the longer sentences.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:42 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I prefer the longer sentences.

 

TPTB will soon be handing out long sentences to anyone who expresses an independent thought regardless of the rhetorical skills of the individual.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:21 | Link to Comment chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Perhaps Twitter is more your fare?

I am Chumbawamba.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:40 | Link to Comment MurderNeverWasLove
MurderNeverWasLove's picture

Sentences should be their own length.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:40 | Link to Comment Trimmed Hedge
Trimmed Hedge's picture

Trimmed Hedge has demanded that WikiLeaks reveal any dirt on BAC they may have received, if any.

Otherwise, Julian can now kindly STFU, as his 15 minutes are long over....

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:43 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Maybe he's saving it for the book.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:45 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Otherwise, Julian can now kindly STFU, as his 15 minutes are long over....

I didn't vote for you as sole arbiter of taste and fashion but I guess some folks did or you wouldn't be trying to lord it over one and all.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 15:10 | Link to Comment Rula Lenska
Rula Lenska's picture

+1

Like my dad said, "Don't threaten - do it."  Meaning, don't tip your hand, don't telegraph your move; but also, apropos Assange, if he had the info he'd have dumped it by now.  Empty threat = bluff. Unfortunately, Assange/Wikileaks are looking more and more like famewhores.

There, I said it, let the junking commence!

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:02 | Link to Comment ThisIsBob
ThisIsBob's picture

Apparently Twitter went to court and got the supboena unsealed and notified its customer, which makes me wonder about Google* and others.  Did they lay down?

 

*Evil information sucking giant vampire squid

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:05 | Link to Comment apberusdisvet
apberusdisvet's picture

 The current Administration has pumped the Patriot Act full of steroids, especially lately.  All Americans are now potential "terrorists" without Constitutional protections; will any criticism of government policies be deemed sedition?

 

Stay tuned.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:33 | Link to Comment chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Which is why we buy guns and hoard bullets.

Just biding our time are we.

I am Chumbawamba.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:40 | Link to Comment spekulatn
spekulatn's picture

January 7, 2011 4:31 PM

Obama Eyeing Internet ID for Americans

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20027837-501465.html

 

(h/t)   drudgereport.com

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:07 | Link to Comment CulturalEngineer
CulturalEngineer's picture

Both Facebook and Twitter strive to be the dominant landscape for peer-to-peer networking in an Internet-connected world. I use them both on occasion and have a clear appreciation for the vital role private enterprise plays in our general advancement.

However, the landscape for the original peer-to-peer networking was the ground upon which  you and the other guy stood... and the air through which your communications traveled.

The World Wide Web is a truly NEW landscape!

Who owned the old one? Nobody? Everybody?

How should we handle this new one?

Gov 2.0 and New Economies - Designing the Social Contract

Protect the Birth of the Global Internet Landscape!

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:29 | Link to Comment DrLamer
DrLamer's picture

Protect the Birth of the Global Internet Landscape!

Why? How? "The contract" is a matter of love (or at least of strong co-interest) between two parties. Where is the love between Obama's gang and the american people? By the way, where is that US  "we the people"? "The poople" means ONE LAW for many. "We the people" should obey ONE LAW.

30000 pages of so-called "tax code" is not a law, it is a tool for bribe.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:09 | Link to Comment ReallySparky
ReallySparky's picture

Has anyone considered that the "bank" Julian intends to out may in fact be Goldman instead of BOA?  That would be an interesting twist, and account for the recent FB shenanigans, DOJ involvement. Speculation.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:14 | Link to Comment Dr. Porkchop
Dr. Porkchop's picture

I don't trust Facebook, that's why I don't use it. If I had a business to promote, I'd use it for that, because it's free advertising, but I'd never upload personal or sensitive data on there. I just don't trust the bastards.

A girlfriend had an account and one day I came in and she was uploading pics of us. I gave her shit for uploading me to the internet. She was confused, and I explained that Facebook isn't really the same thing as the photo album you keep under your coffee table to show people. It's out there.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:07 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Dr. Porkchop

Some older, late forties/early fifties, real estate agent uploaded her naked cruise ship vaction pics. Unfortunately she forgot to make them private.

Now they are shared on the internet.

There were many comments about how small her male companions penis was.

I imagine strangers recognizing him pointing and laughing hysterically.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:47 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

"I was in the pool! I was in the pool!"

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:23 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

“Change?  Here’s your change nearly three years after we learned that Goldman was selling bad debts while simultaneously betting against the very ‘investments’ they were selling.”

That’s how Nate reacted to Goldman’s face on Facebook in  his Economic Edge commentary, in reference to the following:

Goldman Sachs Says It May Sell, Hedge Facebook Stake

Jan. 6 (Bloomberg)—Goldman Sachs Group Inc. clients considering whether to buy shares in closely held Facebook Inc. should take heed: Wall Street’s most profitable securities firm could unload its own holdings without letting them know.

In the last sentence of a one-page investment profile sent to private wealth clients, the firm explains: “GS Group may at any time further reduce its exposure to its investment in Facebook (through hedging arrangements, sales or otherwise), without notice to the fund or investors in the fund.”

Says Nate: “Now that’s CHANGE you can believe in!  A lousy note at the end of an investment profile…no kidding, buyer beware.  My take is that anyone buying anything whatsoever from Goldman Sachs is suffering from a serious case of failing to do their due diligence. And the same goes for buying any equity in the current ‘market.’”

http://economicedge.blogspot.com/

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:40 | Link to Comment Twindrives
Twindrives's picture

Where is the DOJ when JPM and the CFTC are conspiring to scam the silver market on a daily basis?   Busy chasing Julian?    And what of the millions of U.S. citizens losing money to the corruption of the CFTC?   The U.S. government is a joke.    

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:32 | Link to Comment Dr. Porkchop
Dr. Porkchop's picture

Well we know that Google helped countries like China supress access to information. These entities try to present themselves as benevolent geek cultures, but it's all an act.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:32 | Link to Comment DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

So if/when wikileaks drops the bomb on BAC what is the short term outcome.  I love seeing opportunities for rank speculation, but I don't see how to play this one. Any suggestions from the wise ones?

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:41 | Link to Comment chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Buy gold.

I am Chumbawamba.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:41 | Link to Comment jules from aus
jules from aus's picture

what happens in Facebook?

http://albumoftheday.com/facebook/

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:12 | Link to Comment TheMerryPrankster
TheMerryPrankster's picture

Facebook - just by joining it you've Friended Big Brother. Amazingly 500 million tools have  joined Facebook and are either clueless or clueless and are giving away all their private information and providing big business and the government - oops I'm being redundant big business is the government - 2 faces one heart or whatever that throbbing red thing is - I digress - Facebook tools give it all away for a free webpage. Was it P.T. Barnum who said never underestimate the stupidity of the public?

Your only defense is noise -  add as much fake data to the internets as you can - never post anywhere under your real name, change your gender,age,nationality, shoe size and as many meaningless things as possible on a random basis -  think of it as a game - whenever you win, big brother loses another cpu cycle on the data mining machine.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:00 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

are either clueless or clueless

 

People were adapted. Selection is often introduced as an active event, you adapt to a situation when actually it is mostly passive, you are adapted to a situation or present the appropriate features for the situation.

All those people signing on FB are adapted. And were adapted before the creation of FB.  It caused them no anguish because they perfectly fit the situation. Their adapted features were shed light on by the emergence of FB.

 

As to adding noise, the most valuable information looked for  on the Internet is profile,tastes, cultural interests, social habits, time of presence. If you want to add noise, add noise on anything related to these fields, use search bots fed by lists inspired by co-workers, fictional characters, people in pubs. Let the Internet on 24/24. Use presence bots etc...

Google ads or stuff like that can be a good indicator to know whether or not  you smoke screens were efficient.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:33 | Link to Comment JohnKing
JohnKing's picture

Regardless, if the Assange "drama" is rising to fever pitch again, then something of far greater significance is likely happening somewhere else.

 

Yes, big whine from mainstream media is that they lost control of the news cycle to the internet, the script being played out looks like an attempt to get that back.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:36 | Link to Comment NERVEAGENTVX
NERVEAGENTVX's picture

@ chumba

+1,000

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:49 | Link to Comment Rula Lenska
Rula Lenska's picture

Chumba said:

"...they may have been cozy when they were small, but they've been coopted for the greater Powers That Be because that's what those mother fuckers do."

 

So true; even your "very cool" open source distributed social networks will succumb sooner or later (bet on sooner):

http://www.downes.ca/post/54533

"...Salesforce.com has stunned the open source community by acquiring DimDim and immediately announcing that all free accounts will be terminated. It was rather surprising, I must say, to get some legalese in my email saying, effectively, "get out." More here. Even if you paid, your account will be terminated when the subscription period runs out, and there are no refunds. Brutal."

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 15:30 | Link to Comment chumbawamba
chumbawamba's picture

Well, they certainly CAN succumb.  But with monolithic mega-sites like Facebook and Twitter, we KNOW they will succumb (and have).

Just as you are a sovereign in real life, you should maintain your sovereignty in the digital realm.  Your person in any form can be attacked by anyone at anytime.  Vigilance is constant necessity.

Eventually we'll evolve a digital weapon analogous to the gun that will make people think twice about attacking you recklessly.  For now, we have to put up with the 1970s era internet structure.

I am Chumbawamba.

Sun, 01/09/2011 - 00:30 | Link to Comment irishlink
irishlink's picture

Have never wanted to twitter , join face book ,or invite anyone to invade my space , soo I hope DEAR LORD that enjoying and "partisating" just a little bit on this site does not compromise me.......... Reasure me PLEASE!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!