
Laura Poitras: ‘Facebook is a gift to intelligence agencies’ - Libertatea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/23/snowden-filmmaker-laura-poitras-facebook-is-a-gift-to-intelligence-agencies/
======
droopybuns
This
([http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/printout/0,29...](http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/printout/0,29239,2036683_2037183_2037185,00.html))
story from 2010 has this bizarre anecdote:

"The door opened, and a distinguished-looking gray-haired man burst in — it's
the only way to describe his entrance — trailed by a couple of deputies. He
was both the oldest person in the room by 20 years and the only one wearing a
suit. He was in the building, he explained with the delighted air of a man
about to secure ironclad bragging rights forever, and he just had to stop in
and introduce himself to Zuckerberg: Robert Mueller, director of the FBI,
pleased to meet you.

They shook hands and chatted about nothing for a couple of minutes, and then
Mueller left. There was a giddy silence while everybody just looked at one
another as if to say, What the hell just happened?"

I'd love to think that the reporter answered that question- What is the
director of the FBI doing at facebook? What does he mean he was just in the
building? In what world does someone as powerful as the director of the FBI
come into your company needing to burst in on the ceo rather than have a
scheduled meeting with the CEO? Does he have an office in the same building?

Instead, we get a puff piece about Facebook's growth.

------
zvanness
The statement is somewhat fair considering that In-Q-Tel, early on, saw
Facebook as a goldmine for human intelligence and decided to make an
investment.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-
Tel#Software](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel#Software)

[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5...](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10456534)

------
atmosx
I've read a couple of articles in the past that linked Facebook and Google to
CIA and that's a fair thought given the business that they're in. Of course
the NSA and the CIA would like to have access to their data (and most probably
they do in one way or another).

That said, doesn't take anything away from Facebook as a service. Facebook
adds extreme value to your _social life_ connects you with people that you
don't see daily, lets you know about birthdays, events, comments and what not.
It's excellent at what it does IMHO and if used properly is really what
web-2.0 is all about. I can say that if Zuckerberg didn't invent Facebook in ~
2004, it would have been invented by now, by someone else because that was
what people _needed badly_ to stay _connected_.

Facebook is just a tool. If you are in the intel business or you are a
possible target (e.g. prominent figure of some sort) and fairly young to
understand how the internet works, you use FB for PR and nothing else. Maybe
not even that.

Every social network can be used for data mining from intelligence agencies.
Do most people care? No. Why? Because they don't see any kind of real threat.
It doesn't interfere with their lives. The HN crowd is composed mostly by
_hackers_. It's natural for _us_ to see where all this might go wrong, because
that's what _we do_ and it's natural for others not to care until the shit
hits the fan.

I'm eagerly waiting for her Snowden related movie/documentary.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
> I can say that if Zuckerberg didn't invent Facebook in ~ 2004, it would have
> been invented by now, by someone else because that was what people needed
> badly to stay connected.

What does "stay connected" mean? Is having a larger number of weak connections
better than a smaller number of strong connections? Are online connections as
meaningful and satisfying as offline connections?

I'm always somewhat skeptical about psychology studies for a number of
reasons, but the studies that have been conducted on Facebook and online
social networking are consistent enough to suggest that your argument warrants
deeper analysis. Many of these studies, like this one[1], find that Facebook
increases feelings of loneliness and unhappiness.

I think you should consider that Facebook and services like it implicate a
number of human emotions and desires, many of which are not always a positive
influence's in one's life if indulged without limit. That doesn't mean that
Facebook is without positive value, but I think its success is a lot more
complicated than it "connects you with people that you don't see daily, lets
you know about birthdays, events, comments and what not."

[1] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419419/All-
lonely-F...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419419/All-lonely-
Facebook-friends-Study-shows-social-media-makes-MORE-lonely-unhappy-LESS-
sociable.html)

~~~
cwyers
People move around because of school and work. I have old friends who live
very distantly from me that I haven't seen in over a decade. Using Facebook, I
can see pictures they post, see what jobs they're in now, etc. If it weren't
for Facebook or something like it, I wouldn't know what these people are up to
anymore.

~~~
coldtea
And thanks to Facebook who don't have to connect in real life with your nearby
friends and neighbors anymore too!

------
peterkelly
Relevant Onion link (which precedes Snowden revelations by several years):

[http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-
dramatic...](http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-
cut-agencys-cos,19753/)

~~~
bradleysmith
"The New York Times has reported that Al-Qaeda has designed Foursquare to
identify popular locations for bombings!"

"Actually, Brooke, that's been discredited as any kind of real threat, the
people that use that site are the people that no one would mind seeing bombed
anyway."

------
zeeshanm
While we are at it, here is a good piece by rms:
[https://stallman.org/facebook.html](https://stallman.org/facebook.html)

~~~
o0-0o
Brilliant article and well referenced. Thank you for sharing.

------
plg
This is reminiscent of Julian Assange's recent article in newsweek
([http://goo.gl/hYbCa9](http://goo.gl/hYbCa9)) which draws parallels between
early companies of the "military-industrial complex" (e.g. lockheed-martin,
general dynamics, raytheon, boeing, etc) and the new information-based
internet companies like Google and Facebook.

It's a bit William-Gibson-esque to think about things in these terms but on
the other hand it seems like an eerily good fit.

(PS instead of merely down voting me it would rather be more interesting for
us all to read your comments)

------
ThomPete
As someone who have spent a lot of time with a friend of mine doing facebook
apps and trying out various things I can say that there is a lot of
information that can be gained just by knowing a few tricks of the trade
without doing anything wrong or against terms.

So I have no doubt that a much more powerful agency like the NSA etc will have
even better abilities to snoop around.

~~~
ianlevesque
For example: here's an NSL, give me a big copy of your database.

~~~
ibrahima
Personally I'd rather have a small copy if it's all the same to you.

------
vph
>Facebook is a gift to intelligence agencies. People volunteer all their
social information.

Yes. It's about social networks, not Facebook in particular. The alternative
is choosing not to participate. This is an intrinsic problem. You participate
in a social network; you choose to be connected; you learn more about people
and things in general, and as a result, people learn more about you. With
technologies, there've always been trade-offs.

~~~
xnull
What we are talking about here is something very different than your neighbors
and acquaintances learning more about you.

Trade-offs for sure.

~~~
cube13
If you're screaming your information out to the entire world, it's hard to
find fault when someone listens.

~~~
xnull
Facebook has a lot more information about you than what you post and 'privacy
controls' presumably limit who gets access to the information you do. Both of
these things are being abused.

------
SCHiM
Another nice thing for these agencies is that being on facebook already
indicates certain things about you(as does not being on facebook). I know for
a fact that here in the Netherlands, during a standard security check, our
intelligence agency checks if you do or don't have a social network account.

If even 'regular' security checks take this into account, then I'll bet you
dollars to donuts that it's certainly looked at when they suspect you of
something, or as dragnet profiling/surveillance.

------
eyeareque
I saw her new Snowden film last night. I loved it and highly recommend seeing
it. It's an awesome behind the scenes look at how things went down. I really
enjoyed seeing more footage of Snowden as I've been keeping up on pretty much
every article that has came out since this whole thing broke.

~~~
pwelch
I wish we could buy it directly... Looks like an interesting film though.

~~~
monsterix
MPAA is watching you!

------
uptown
For anyone interested in the topic, this is an interesting read:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/where-
is...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/where-is-the-
investigation-into-financial-corruption-at-the-nsa/381812/)

------
koja86
Quote from TFA:

"I think that it's really important that the people who are doing free
software and peer review can do vetting and ensure that things are
backdoored."

[ insert generic remark about journalists competence here ]

------
xnull2guest
Facebook onboarded to PRISM program and reporting to FISA ("Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act") Courts.

Comments in here skeptical that they engage in any foreign surveillance.

------
josefresco
Laura is out _selling_ the film, expect these type of click-bait, one-liners
to trickle out as they make the rounds. It's actually a very boring and
obvious statement, but it includes Facebook so it plays well around the web as
an attention grabbing headline.

Sort of like Peter Thiel claiming that Twitter execs were smoking pot all day
when promoting his book.

Say crazy shit = eyeballs on your product.

Edit: I should point out that I don't think the statement about Facebook was
"crazy" or in this case even controversial. However my general statement about
how PR uses click-bait headlines and takeaways holds true.

~~~
selmnoo
It is strange to read what you've written.

Mostly because I personally think the long-term effects of corporations,
particularly Facebook, ganging on our society is going to be immensely more
deleterious than anything our government could do or wants to do. When
Facebook thwarts free and organic growth of something in favor of content
pushed by those who have money (shoddy companies selling fat-loss pills which
are going to moreso fuck you up than make you lose weight), I consider that
something seriously screwed up. When it reduces exposure of content that's
non-compatible with your views on your feed to keep you warm and cozy, perhaps
in an attempt to prime you for certain political ads, that's some serious
shit.

Facebook really IS something extremely horrible, people don't realize it. It's
very sad that even on HN you see strong defense of Facebook. Facebook and its
founder have been involved in one sleazy act to another (from privacy
zuckering ([https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebooks-evil-
interfa...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebooks-evil-interfaces/))
to offering his friends private information -- "yea so if you ever need info
about anyone at harvard; just ask; i have over 4000 emails, pictures,
addresses, sns" \- [http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-
fac...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-facebook)).

Right now, it isn't Poitras who has done one thing after another to make me
doubt the words coming out of her mouth, it's someone else.

~~~
josefresco
I think you misread the point of my post. The statement about Facebook being
great for intelligence gathering is accurate. My point was that the statement
was obvious, and didn't present a new or interesting view on the subject.

That one line however, get's published across the web and because of the
context (Snowden/NSA) and mention of Facebook, it will grab eyeballs.

I generally discount things people say in interviews while _promoting_
something like a book, movie, product etc.

~~~
rosser
That a statement happens in the context of a promotional effort is utterly
orthogonal to its truth.

EDIT: To clarify: if something is true, it's true, no matter where it's said.

