[HacktionLab] We need to talk about Facebook

[Sikes]

HAI

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Ben Green wrote:

> Quoting Alan Dawson <aland at burngreave.net>:
>
>> http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2012/11/facebook-and-google-know-we-value-conformity-more-our-privacy
>> 
>> Facebook and Google know that we value conformity more than our privacy
>
> Good article. That statement is far too damning of the human race, we use 
> insecure forms of communication because we value communication, not 
> conformity.

The thin red line is not so much between communications or not but between 
degrees of 'conformity' actually really necessary in order to 
communicate effectively.

In practice, this question is almost never considered by the vast majority 
of people, because it would imply acting far more consciently than ppl are 
accostumed to, which in turn requires a far higher level of attention than 
ppl are willing or capable of maintaining.

It is a lot *easier* to have ones data in the hands of one big-data cloud 
merchant, possibly under ones real name, one size 
fits all, than to purposefully separate online (or for that matter 
offline) identities, broadcasting several well trimmed streams of 
information for different audiences on a need to know base.

It's more about comfort (lazyness really) than conformity or 
communication.

Interestingly enough, the same need for comfort does not apply, when it 
comes to other forms of (public) appearance and the control thereof. Most 
ppl invest considerable amounts of time and energy into their looks, 
consciently separating their proffesional, leisure and intimimate 
identities, whitout whining about how complicated that is, while they are 
fully awar of the dire consequences of having leaks from one of this 
spheres to the other.

> We accepted an insecure land line phone network with designed in 
> tap in point, and we all purchased newspapers from our local newsagents 
> without disguise, we accepted an insecure and carcinogenic mobile phone 
> network for the same reason.

But we do not talk about our sexual phantasies at a business lunch, nor do 
we go shopping in our underwear (there is exceptions though ;).

It's worth mentioning the 'killer' argument of 
PKI-is-too-complicated-for-mortals, also because the article does. I 
believe that active userspace encryption is really only the last inches in 
a much longer trajectory certainly not worth abandonning as a whole.

It would start with NOT using ones real name online, NOT putting up photos 
of oneself all over the place, NOT using one single point of cloud storage 
(or two as in gmail and facebook). Having separate private 
and public facebook profiles, mail account and what not does not require 
any IT skills either.

>
> We need to remember that these organisation rarely use their tech to hassle 
> us as individuals, but to control us as a whole. It is on that level that we 
> must not acquiesce.

These organization do exactly what we ask them to: they make our 
information available to the 'world'. And it's others in this world that 
make use of it. While figuring out what overprized gizmoes can be possibly 
sold to someone might be seen as harmless, profiling someones useability 
(or weaknesses) from an unregulated datacollection is not.

On the bottomline, it is all about creating awareness of what someones 
appearance in the digital world actually is, and that not controlling it 
has the same consequences than not controlling one appaerence elswhere.

imho then

kizziz
IAH


>
>
> IMHO,
> Cheers,
> Ben
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> HacktionLab mailing list
> HacktionLab at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/hacktionlab