What is Digg?69 Comments
- killerofkiller, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28and you thought those pics of you drunk off ur ass where safe :-p
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26Undoing and
Subverting
America's
Protected
Amendments
To
Remove the
Imagined
Operations of
Terrorists - kimastergeorge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19blahblahblahjesus:
He set his profile to private (friends only)--he expects the Facebook people to live up to their promise and only allow his friends to see his data. If you can't trust the people who want you to give them your private data with that data, then something's messed up (in this case, the PATRIOT act). - Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15The line: innocent until proven guilty, no unreasonable searches of secured information unless there is substantial evidence that person is a terrorist. Application to a government agency doesn't make one a terrorist suspect, I'd hope.
- halleyscomet, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23@x1987x
"i doubt very few who know exactly what's in the PATRIOT ACT - find it detestable"
I've read some of the Patriot Act. Trust me, it isn't the vague, benign law you make it out to be. I recommend looking up some of the specific sections that have people up in arms. People aren't upset because of some vague impression that the Patriot Act is "Bad." We have very specif objections to the content of the law, and the way it is being abused.
You can start with this PDF:
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf - BetaMe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Only the first half of the article is interesting - a gov't agency accessed a student's Facebook account on the ground of Patriot Act, while the second half is kind of generic - just raising a ethical question of employers in general should use SNS's as source of publicly available information on applicants.
The Act, or its application, has been criticized by some as not quite limited to terrorist related issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act_controversy
Is this a terrorist investigation? Did the gov't agency wanted to make sure that the applicant is not a terrorist? Possibly. But it seems that it is not the only thing the gov't has done in this case. - Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I agree, but if you're using pictures of someone's teenage years to judge them, what kind of person does that make you?
There's a difference between a background check and digging into someone's personal life outside of work. If you can't figure out that people have always gone to parties and gotten drunk, done things they would regret later, you're not very smart. - killerofkiller, on 10/12/2007, -16/+25and the law makers break another law...
- hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8No one was forced to pretend to be a muslim. A 7th-grade history teacher in Covina, CA, offered students extra credit if they fasted for three days during Ramadan when they studied a unit on Islam. It was a single questionable decision, which WorldNetDaily latched onto and blew completely out of proportion with false stories that suggested that the students were dressing up as muslims and praying.
The right-wing blogosphere went nuts on this and heaped exaggeration on top of exaggeration, to the point that it is very difficult to do real research on the topic as most of the stories are from WorldNetDaily, NewsMax and their ilk. - shaggtastic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10to liquidrums: Uh, forcing children to pretend to be Muslims? Are you out of your mind? And how hard is it to understand that the Constitution prevents the official promotion of any religion? Seriously.
- wm2010russ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@shaggtastic:
the event that liqduidrums is talking about- the ACLU forcing schoolchildren to "pretend to be muslims"- did actually happen.
: / - shaggtastic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Uh, everybody, the ACLU did not force students to pretend to be Muslims. It was a school assignment, and had someone who objected to it chose to ask for the ACLU's help, rather than the help of the Thomas More Law Center, I'm sure they would have filed a lawsuit against it.
I don't think I'm THAT far out of the loop. - DannoHung, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Did you notice the part where he restricted access to the content of his profile and the Government off and demanded access anyway?
Does looking into the dude's profile for a state internship justify the privacy invasion mentioned here? If the agency is specifically related to security, yeah, I could understand that sort of investigation, but that's not elaborated on.
Where is the line? - wm2010russ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"If you can't trust the people who want you to give them your private data with that data, then something's messed up (in this case, the PATRIOT act)."
more like, in this case facebook. if facebook refused to give them the data, even after the fbi brought up the patriot act, maybe they would have been taken to court and then they'd be able to fight this. the judge might have even struck down parts of the patriot act as unconstitutional. but instead, facebook bent over and grabbed their ankles.
im not saying the patriot act doesn't have its flaws either, just that evil happens when good people do nothing - lightmywifire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I just don't understand how it could be surprising to anyone how this would happen. Unfair, yes. Unexpected, no. At the same time, if anyone had actually read Facebook's privacy policy, you would notice that there is very little protection to the users. They've just recently revised it, but previous to May 22, 2006, they pretty much said that they're allowing outside organizations into your information without your consent. On top of that, has anyone taken a look at their funding? $13 million came from a venture capitalist firm who's manager worked for a CIA venture capitalist firm. I'm not going to restate the article, but here it is:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Bloggers_investigate_social_networking_websites
Now, I'm aware that this doesn't directly mean anything. However, you've got to rethink who pays for these things, how they're making their money, and if there's a possible agenda connected to it. Not so much for most sites, but definately for a personal network community. You should probably be pretty careful what you put on there. Most of the people on Facebook are over 18 and, knowing that just about anyone has access to your information, should probably take heed to what goes up. - spidoman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Don't be so modest, that really sucked.
- Cynoclast, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6That's none of their ***** business. And using the PATRIOT act to get at it should be criminal.
This isn't the federal government doing a background check to give out a security clearance, it's some undisclosed "state agency" prying into people's private lives and using the god damn PATRIOT act to do it. It's a blatant abuse of power.
From the article:
"Goodman also thinks the practice seems sneaky.
"My own opinion is that while you are able to get that information, and you are not violating a student's privacy, doing so feels intrusive even if it isn't illegal or technically unethical,""
technically unethical!??! What kind of ***** is that?
The whole god damn PATRIOT act should be repealed precisely because of abuses like this. - chamblin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7There are very few government agencies that I would suspect that would actually go so far as to pull the PATRIOT Act on facebook, and those are the kinds where they ask you about all sorts of things that you hope nobody knows about during the job interview.
More likely than not, he applied for an internship, somebody in the office had a facebook account, and they looked him up before he set his profile to private (which he did not do until after he'd begun applying to various internships). Then the interviewer just said something about the PATRIOT Act to sound official.
In any event, if you put something on a public website ("private" or not), you should not expect any degree of privacy. Consider this his object lesson on how publishing stupid college antics on a public forum can come back to kick you in the teeth. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Patriot act. The one they told us was necessary to protect us from terrorism, not to frivolously invade the privacy of the American people. It is to keep the evil terrorists from killing us all, not so they can read your grandmother's email. Now it is being used to look at pictures of drunk college kids without permission as a screening process for some crappy job. Give me a solid explanation of how this fights terrorism without violating the rights of the American people and I will retract everything bad I have ever said about the "patriot" act. This is exactly the kind of thing that all the "alarmists" were concerned about when this act was proposed, and now it is happening. You can bet this won't make mainstream news though. They'll have some filler garbage about flag burning or gay people or truck on fire or whatever today's distraction from the real issues is.
- WVUChrisF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't see the big deal. I'm not shocked to see employers using facebook to check in on potentail employees. More power to them. I have a facebook account and I don't care if employers read it. Its a simple as this, if you don't want something you've done to come back and haunt you don't put it on the internet. Kids these days are dumb.
- shaggtastic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Students can advocate religion on their own time. That's what it boils down to. When it's an official speech at a public school event where attendance is required, then the speech must be secular. I'm not sure what you mean about the wording of the amendment.
On an entirely different note, not being able to reply to replies is very annoying and one of digg's shortcomings. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.rense.com/general66/scgh.htm
- pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The government should not be using the Patriot Act to sneak into private Facebook accounts. But given the current state of affairs, this is not even shocking. Hell, it probably wasn't the worst violation of the constitution on that day. Bush and Cheney admitting that they broke the country and were stepping down, that would be surprising. Finding out that the government is illegally searching Facebook, not that surprising. This is your notice Facebook users, if you want your privacy, vote the ***** out of congress that are allowing this crap to continue.
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Gotta love people who think material they publish on the internet is private.
"Those Internet environments are marketed heavily as social networks," says Ken Rogers, senior management recruiter at Trader Publishing and a member of the Principles for Professional Conduct Committee. "They tend to disarm users in ways to make them believe that the information they post will just be shared by the user's circle of friends. In fact, they are no different than any other space on the Internet. The reality is it goes beyond the intention. It's public, and there is a false sense of security surrounding these sites perpetuated by the environment itself."
MySpace.com, for instance, invites visitors to "Create a private community on MySpace and you can share photos, journals, and interests with your growing network of mutual friends!" Even though MySpace says in this invitation on it's "About" page that the communities are "private," in a separate area of the site—one titled "Safety Tips"—MySpace warns, "Don't forget that your profile and MySpace forums are public spaces. Don't post anything you wouldn't want the world to know (e.g., your phone number, address, IM screen name, or specific whereabouts). Avoid posting anything that would make it easy for a stranger to find you, such as where you hang out every day after school."
In other words, there are inherent risks involved in posting your personal information for the world to see. Of course, these risks extend far beyond a missed internship or job opportunity. But in the context of a job search, the results of information getting into the hands of those it's not intended to reach can be devastating.
Many students don't understand the ramifications of posting questionable materials; even if it's intended for friends to see, it can be available to anyone with Internet access." - DannoHung, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Durr, yes it is:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+15"I published images of myself in the Boston Globe, and when people looked at them and judged me based on them, I was pissed!"
That's what you kids sound like when you cry about ***** you post in your myspace being used to judge you. You published the ***** to the internet, a big public space. If you want privacy, don't put the crap online. - echo1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2so now because of the big brother aspect of the internet (and the government) we're just supposed to bend over and not engage in things like this just because we're afraid?
i think this whole idea is ***** where employers are doing this more often. like someone stated earlier it's not like they haven't had employees with "objectional" personal lives before. it's assinine that they should assume that because someone might have something "alarming" on their freakin FACEBOOK or MYSPACE that they won't be a good worker. the internet (even with these sites) allows for dispersonal and sometimes anonymous communication, which tends to lead us to behaviors that aren't anywhere near what our true personality is.
so what next, are they going to hire private detectives or hack our webcams? - matthewaaron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Partially true... partially not true. If you break the law on your own time then it's not just your business anymore...
- jo42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lesson to be learned here: Don't put ANYTHING up on the Internet with your name attached to it.
- matthewaaron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's called character profiling... one of the ways you can find out about a person's character is by what they talk about and have pictures of on their online profiles. I mean, the FDA probably wouldn't hire you if you had a pot theme on your myspace would they?
- ThugEsquire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WTF were you trying to say? Did you get "might" confused with "my?"
- OwdenBowden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nothing online nor in your home computer that is connected to the internet is secure! This kid should know that!
- mookieXL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, they search for some weird stuff.
"sport" - only terrorists do that
"Retinal Fetish" - some officer's personal hobby?
"Bugs Bunny" - just plain old WTF
"AOL" - There's internet outside AOL?
"Nerd" - So they search whole digg
"mixmaster" - Attack of terrorist audio software?
"Elvis" - He's dead, get over it.
"Tie-fighter" - I always knew that
"the" - Ok this is ridiculous
"garbage" - That's what they get with all those keywords - caffiend, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7I agree. The article says the guy knew people who currently worked for the company. I bet one of them pulled it up and they just threw the Patriot Act crap out there as a cover.
- mathyoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the problem that no one here has addressed is checking a facebook or myspace profile could reveal far more information than just who goes to drunken parties. some people who set up blogs or profiles in those places share information about their religion, political stances or ideas, and many other personal details that a job interviewer is technically forbidden from asking. To those of you who've said you don't care if a potential employer looks at your profile-would you care if they knew what your religion was, or which political candidate you supported in the last election? What if you're volunteering to support a candidate running for office this year? What if you're volunteering for a PAC to support a particular political issue-do you want that information out there? Resumes and job applications are supposed to be "blind" to a certain degree-do you think there aren't racist human resource people who wouldn't skip over a perfectly qualified candidate who didn't match the race they prefer to hire?
People should be free to express themselves in their personal lives, and that includes an online profile or blog, and using the PATRIOT act for screening job applicants is a clear abuse of power. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Basically, you can not comment on anything in public anymore."
I think there is an important document written a few hundred years ago by some guys with funny wigs that directly contradicts that statement. - SpookyET, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3What do you expect when uneducated and trustworthy America put their information on MySpace and Facebook, funded by Vulture Capitalists associated with CIA? There is no such thing as a former spook now turned businessman.
http://www.digg.com/security/Facebook_s_CIA_ties
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/07/11/183219.shtml - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But we can't vote them out, then we hate America!!! Also, without these people, who will harass the gays? Someone might buy a US flag that was made in mexico and light it on fire. Clearly some things are more important than liberty. There are people doing things that the fundamentalist christians don't like!!!! Screw liberty, some guy might be having buttsex!
- deeno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1the guys a dumb@ss for thinking his pictures were safe. Simple dont put stuff u dont want up on the net. End
- Hawk2007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1in order to avoid this, he shouldn't have facebook or myspace. then, they won't have anything on him.
- CAJason80, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Eh, just out of principle, if I heard from the recruiter that they used the PATRIOT ACT to circumvent my privacy settings on Facebook, that would be my cue to get up, thank them for the interview, and run as far away as humanly possible.
There's no way I'd want to work for a company that did something this employee un-friendly *BEFORE* I was hired. I can only image what it would be like after.
That said, expecting privacy on a page like Facebook is a little laughable. - GoatJuggler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Article doesn't say specifically on what content he was questioned. People applying for govt jobs need to realize that the govt is "the authority" on various things, and your expressing of opinions in public as a govt employee can be viewed as the govt's official stance on a subject. Basically, you can not comment on anything in public anymore. If you comment on a political candidate, then automatically you are expressing your govt agency's views. If you comment on your favorite food, ditto. Sucks? Yea, blame reporters.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6This article already made the rounds. There's no information backing it up. It is very unlikely untrue. It's likely they accessed the page legitimately through an account.
- xenoputtss, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I agree with Lyph424, on that if you don't want people to judge you then don't make your information public.
But (since I didn't read the article, nor will I read it) i do have to say that if information about someones personal life was used to not hire them for a job then that is stepping over the line. Just because I am a programmer at work, and the line of my work is very very detailed, it doesn't mean that since I go home and get stone cold drunk every night that I am incapable of performing my job.
Its time that government and business take a step further away from peoples lives. One thing i would like seen done is for the federal government to make it illegal for companies to force drug screenings as a condition of employment.
An employer should only be allowed to verify the information that you mention to them, either verbally or written. - speakfthetruth, on 09/29/2008, -0/+0The power of facebook in the hands of the government make you think. What if it was the government who made facebook? Seriously it’s not that far out there. They have millions of computers processing all the information searching for keywords and phrase that you post. Flagging certain things for humans to further investigate. If you ever get the message that your page cant be opened do to construction its because these super computers are fishing threw your profile looking for key words and phrases exp (white power, Nazi, bomb, gun, president) any one of these words starts another search and then branches out to your friends and their profiles are searched one after another. and I think its funny how most of you are only worried about face book when sites like this very site were you share your passionate views on the world is more likely to be run by the government then face book
- dgulbran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Gee... college student applies for a job with an agency, and they *gasp* do a background check?! Oh no! Sure, it's lame that they used the "Patriot Act" but they still actually could have seen the info without it... I know a PI who does background checks, it's not hard to dig up dirt.
Seriously: if you put stuff that might cost you a job on-line and depend on the "Facebook" "Friends Only" setting, you are an idiot. Perfect for government work, though. - detroitsux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The article was almost interesting, but the digg comments are just the same arguments you'd hear on the news. Nothing new.
No digg. - rodan32, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Unfortunately, privacy isn't a constitutionally protected right. In a society as open as ours, what you say and what you do will get out in public if someone digs hard enough. Even the government can't keep secrets (at least not for very long).
- bleonard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2When I was looking for a job after college a career advisor from my university recommended in a mass email that all students temporarily remove anything about themselves online they felt that an employer might find objectional.
I believe facebook should be responsible and note that even though you are marking your information as viewable only to a select group, there are agencies who may still access your information without your knowledge...Of course this would only happen if those agencies had a static list of where they look and alerted the providers such as facebook. Unfortunately where the gov't can and can't poke/prod seems to be about as clear as what people can/can't broadcast on TV/Radio. - dude187, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"And how hard is it to understand that the Constitution prevents the official promotion of any religion? Seriously."
Yes the constitution prevents any specific religion from being government sponsored, but tell me where it prevents a child from mentioning a specific religion in a school speech? The amendment prevents the government from forcing a certain religion on people, not preventing the practice of religion in anything government related. If you think thats the case then I guess the people who wrote that amendment violated it as they wrote it. -
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is