At times I like to feel like 1984 didn't come true ever, and that our limited surveillence, in the grand scheme of things, is almost tolerable in comparison. But every time I see somethijg like this I change my mind. Everything here is about infiltrating the privacy of children and not about their safety. As soon as we get parents to accept this surveillence for their children, we know we're not far off from not just mass surveillance of metadata, but large scale surveillance of all Internet communication we conduct on a more-or-less personal level. If the current parents are okay with it, how much more will future parents allow now that the precedent is being set? How much intrusion will these children be willing to take once they're grown up?
It will change once our future Politicians, CEOs, Generals, Judges, Celebs etc start seeing their lives and decisions get effected by all that data about them out there. Until then its hard to imagine anything changing.
Ofcourse Google and Facebook can stop being robotic slaves to advertising revenue and go the Wikipedia route. But that would be like expecting the big banks and rating agencies to do what was right at the peak of the subprime crisis.
Its amazing to watch how some of the smartest people on the planet can get stuck on tracks they can't get of.
> Ofcourse Google and Facebook can stop being robotic slaves to advertising revenue and go the Wikipedia route. But that would be like expecting the big banks and rating agencies to do what was right at the peak of the subprime crisis
The big companies are not the scariest parties. While I don't like what they are doing, Google, etc, kind of protect my data. What worries me most is what the government does with my data. They can do almost anything they want, track my every movement, see what I like and save it forever. While Google does the same, they need to protect that very careful because if this data is misused (and it gets publicized), they could lose billions (which they could not afford to do). If a government agency screws up, there is an "investigation", and, after a few weeks/months the media stops reporting.
I'm not saying what either party does is good, but Google and Facebook are not as worrying to me as a government who will only use the data in my best interest and has a perfect track record of safeguarding my data.
> It will change once our future Politicians, CEOs, Generals, Judges, Celebs etc start seeing their lives and decisions get effected by all that data about them out there.
That's happening now. Savy students with an eye on becoming a Judge have been sanitizing their online and public presence, making it very difficult to figure out what their stance is on any given topic. I imagine that prospective politicians are doing the same thing.
Here's what the American Bar association has to say about social media:
> It will change once our future Politicians, CEOs, Generals, Judges, Celebs etc start seeing their lives and decisions get effected by all that data about them out there.
that's a bunch of wishful thinking if not baloney.
everybody's in that game. blackmail will be so inflationary that it won't work. the only difference to today will be much, much easier intrusion if not outright ban of privacy. now you don't tell me that won't happen. just look at the billions of sheep screwing around on facebook, uploading personal pictures to all kinds of clouds and using pictures of themselves on linked in and twitter, throwing their fingerprints into every database there is just to get a drivers license or take a flight somewhere, going along with secret courts, not objecting to international flight passenger records exchange, still believing the stories they're told about syria, lybia, iraq, iran, russia. still watching fox news et al, still voting for suckers like clinton, sanders, trump. everybody still believes at least some part of the charade.
we got to where we are without anybody noticing or at least while ridiculing anybody who actually noticed and spoke out. this will go on and sheep will lose.
The thing with surveillance is that it creeps up one step at a time and very few people realize it at the beginning. By the time the masses wake up (and care) it will be too late. In the coming years, I wouldn't be surprised if more governments follow Kuwait's DNA style, even democratic ones :(
We, as humans, aren't well equipped to properly measure the impact of posting a lot of little things which, individually, don't give a lot of information away (if any). "Big Data" projects and tools such as these allows agents to learn more about us than we have ever consciously given away.
For example, if you post only about being sick, then about your craving for pickles, would you expect an agent to be able to identify that you're pregnant, and given your posting timeline, identify the due date with remarkable accuracy? Ad companies have been doing this with browsing behavior for awhile.
The only way to avoid this particular threat is to not participate at all, something you will have a ridiculously hard time convincing a teenager of.
About as much as you get when you say something in public space like a park. While potentially "anyone" can hear you, it's not going to be used against you 10 years from now to label you a criminal.
So basically the school system doesn't want oversight?
FTA:
> Details of the 12 police investigations that stemmed from searches in the past year have not been divulged by the school system. The school system told the Orlando Sentinel that it doesn't want public details of the program to interfere with its effectiveness.
Clearly they don't reveal what these incidents were about because they're probably reporting students to the police for underage consumption of alcohol or something.
I'd be ok with this... if it only monitored posts made during school hours on days students were present. But it doesn't, so I'm not ok with this.
Looking on the bright side, a bunch of kids are gonna get a crash course in basic opsec aka "not posting stuff you wouldn't want your boss/the cops/the entire world to see online" unfortunately this will probably screw up the lives of a lot of students who come into contact with law enforcement when they really just need help.
I was prepared to be upset, but I'm having trouble seeing why I should. The article seems to indicate this software only looks at public posts. It'd be different if they used fake accounts or got "snitch" students to obtain access. But public posts? They're essentially broadcasting this information to the world. As you say, they will quickly learn privacy practices, and everything gets better.
I agree. Contact with law enforcement always has the potential to become very costly - in lives, freedom, liberty, or simply reputation. I am not sanguine about the effects of broadening this contact, and inviting the state apparatus into more peoples' lives at an even earlier stage.
The whole point of making public posts is because they want lots of people to see them. So who cares if the school sees them too? That's part of the public. It's not spying if the spyee is intentionally broadcasting the information and wants everyone to see it.
Imagine if a teacher walked past some kids bullying their classmate in the hall. She overhears the insults they're shouting and then calls the bullies in to tell them off. Isn't that what we want? Do we want school staff to turn a blind eye to bullying and stand by when they know who's doing it and what they're doing?
>Imagine if a teacher walked past some kids bullying their classmate in the hall.
Except this is absolutely nothing like that. Schools should only have authority over kids at school. Schools in the USA already to a pathetic enough job educating kids before expending effort to spy on them at all times. Schools should be for teaching - not spying - period.
Except that students don't know what is public. They often don't even care if the whole world can see that because they don't know how it affects them now or later.
While it has gotten better (I've noticed that more and more students use s private profile on Twitter, they still accept every follower). It is kind of like if teachers start disgusting as students to invade their privacy, which they have no right to do.
It seems every time there's a mass shooting or a tragic suicide, people find out there were a bunch of social media posts beforehand that clearly broadcast the perpetrator's intent. Every time we ask "Why didn't anyone see this coming?"
Well, this is us "looking" to see these things coming, but now analyzing publicly available information is a violation of privacy?
When public institutions are engaging in industrialized surveillance (of children, no less), it's a violation of privacy.
We also have no idea if Facebook posts are actually a good indicator of propensity to commit violence. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a proper study indicating that this may be the case.
That's because the school shootings should be addressed by finding a root cause (after all, they seem to be a very much USA localized issue) instad of more orwellian surveillance which leads to false accusations and abuse.
>after all, they seem to be a very much USA localized issue
Absolutely false. Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland all had more shooting rampages (and deaths thereof) per capita than the United States (at least from 2009-2013, which the data covers). http://archive.is/f4gbv
I'm not normally in favor of surveillance, or reporting students to police for minor infractions. But for me the key sentence is here:
> collects data from public posts on students' social media accounts
Calling this "spying" is disingenuous. There's no spying going on if person A posts something to be available to the general public, and then person B, a member of the general public (in this case the school's social media subcontractor), looks at the post.
Small differences eventually become a difference in kind.
We are used to thinking about concepts like "in public" and "spying" in traditional human-scale situations. Many of our cultural and legal structures implicitly assume human-scale limitations; we understand that you lose your expectation of privacy when a conversation moves from inside your house to the public shared spaces like the street.
We are also used the spread of information as something that has noise, limited reach, and having a cost that limits both how far the information spreads and how long it lasts.
Combined, this mean it was usually easy say things that might technically be public, but in practice were de facto a private conversation. This is great for kids, who are still learning how society works, risk assessment, and how they want to express themselves publicly. Children need this kind of sorta-public, in-practic-private environment so they can learn and develop. This will often involve making mistakes. A vast majority of the time we simply call this "being a kid". The public side of the situation allows for a parent/teacher/whatever to (hopefully) offer education when a kid makes an embarrassing or rude comment - or a post that could be interpreted as threatening - while the transient nature means the child can move on having learned from their mistake.
What is happening right now is that the underlying assumptions are changing. Information no longer goes away. Far more is recorded and the de-facto-private aspect of many situations is being eroded. In some situations, it's already gone. When life is recorded as the norm, there is no room for mistakes, no allowance for growth, no room to discover by experiment0 how social expression works. We already see this on the internet ever time someone complains about hostility in forums, "cyber bullying", and even the moderation drama here on HN.
This means we need new definitions for what "in public" or a "public post" means. We really need entire new social structures to deal with this brave new world of computing and data. This will take time to convert. I don't know what those social structures should look like, but I do know that applying pre-information-age heuristics to modern internet-based, always-recording situations isn't the answer.
Normally I'd agree with you, but Facebook and other social media sites have controls to make your posts private. If you choose to make them public, you are giving your consent to have them trawled and searched by anyone and everything on the Internet. Kids aren't dumb. They can learn how to make posts private and how to limit who sees what they post. If they choose not to and their parents do not get involved, then I don't see the issue with the schools doing this.
I'm curious exactly what level of visibility is considered "public" in this case. I'm willing to be my definition is very different from their definition.
Readit News
Until these people experience having all their data publicly exposed there is nothing that will drive the point of privacy home.
Unfortunately western hackers have been silenced already.
Exactly. Does anyone believe the 10-year sentences in federal penitentiaries were really about breaking into some servers that didn't belong to them?
If anyone is upset here, it should be with parents for not teaching their kids.
Orwell didn't write about FitBits or Chromebooks.
Ofcourse Google and Facebook can stop being robotic slaves to advertising revenue and go the Wikipedia route. But that would be like expecting the big banks and rating agencies to do what was right at the peak of the subprime crisis.
Its amazing to watch how some of the smartest people on the planet can get stuck on tracks they can't get of.
Highly recommend Douglas Rushkoff on this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87TSoqnZass
The big companies are not the scariest parties. While I don't like what they are doing, Google, etc, kind of protect my data. What worries me most is what the government does with my data. They can do almost anything they want, track my every movement, see what I like and save it forever. While Google does the same, they need to protect that very careful because if this data is misused (and it gets publicized), they could lose billions (which they could not afford to do). If a government agency screws up, there is an "investigation", and, after a few weeks/months the media stops reporting.
I'm not saying what either party does is good, but Google and Facebook are not as worrying to me as a government who will only use the data in my best interest and has a perfect track record of safeguarding my data.
That's happening now. Savy students with an eye on becoming a Judge have been sanitizing their online and public presence, making it very difficult to figure out what their stance is on any given topic. I imagine that prospective politicians are doing the same thing.
Here's what the American Bar association has to say about social media:
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/gp_solo/2015/july-au...
that's a bunch of wishful thinking if not baloney. everybody's in that game. blackmail will be so inflationary that it won't work. the only difference to today will be much, much easier intrusion if not outright ban of privacy. now you don't tell me that won't happen. just look at the billions of sheep screwing around on facebook, uploading personal pictures to all kinds of clouds and using pictures of themselves on linked in and twitter, throwing their fingerprints into every database there is just to get a drivers license or take a flight somewhere, going along with secret courts, not objecting to international flight passenger records exchange, still believing the stories they're told about syria, lybia, iraq, iran, russia. still watching fox news et al, still voting for suckers like clinton, sanders, trump. everybody still believes at least some part of the charade.
we got to where we are without anybody noticing or at least while ridiculing anybody who actually noticed and spoke out. this will go on and sheep will lose.
sheep are sheep.
Something like http://www.idni.org/tauchain could do this.
We need provable code, and the ability to communicate directly with each other rather than to rely on servers owned by third parties.
How is the surveillance we suffer under limited in any sense?
of course.
For example, if you post only about being sick, then about your craving for pickles, would you expect an agent to be able to identify that you're pregnant, and given your posting timeline, identify the due date with remarkable accuracy? Ad companies have been doing this with browsing behavior for awhile.
The only way to avoid this particular threat is to not participate at all, something you will have a ridiculously hard time convincing a teenager of.
What are we paying scholar for? To educate students!
FTA:
> Details of the 12 police investigations that stemmed from searches in the past year have not been divulged by the school system. The school system told the Orlando Sentinel that it doesn't want public details of the program to interfere with its effectiveness.
I'm not sure, but the irony is so thick we might need a new word.
And as someone else noted, how do they figure out which social media accounts belong to students?
Looking on the bright side, a bunch of kids are gonna get a crash course in basic opsec aka "not posting stuff you wouldn't want your boss/the cops/the entire world to see online" unfortunately this will probably screw up the lives of a lot of students who come into contact with law enforcement when they really just need help.
Imagine if a teacher walked past some kids bullying their classmate in the hall. She overhears the insults they're shouting and then calls the bullies in to tell them off. Isn't that what we want? Do we want school staff to turn a blind eye to bullying and stand by when they know who's doing it and what they're doing?
Except this is absolutely nothing like that. Schools should only have authority over kids at school. Schools in the USA already to a pathetic enough job educating kids before expending effort to spy on them at all times. Schools should be for teaching - not spying - period.
While it has gotten better (I've noticed that more and more students use s private profile on Twitter, they still accept every follower). It is kind of like if teachers start disgusting as students to invade their privacy, which they have no right to do.
I was bullied and there was nothing any grown up could have done without me telling them about the bullying.
Non the less, as said above, I am glad to not gave to grow up in this panopticon.
Well, this is us "looking" to see these things coming, but now analyzing publicly available information is a violation of privacy?
Kids talk about lots of things, in jest or half serious. All the time. Getting paranoid about it would be a worse problem.
As I heard Hodge say on Criminal Minds, "All teenaged boys profile as sociopaths"
We also have no idea if Facebook posts are actually a good indicator of propensity to commit violence. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a proper study indicating that this may be the case.
Absolutely false. Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland all had more shooting rampages (and deaths thereof) per capita than the United States (at least from 2009-2013, which the data covers). http://archive.is/f4gbv
Deleted Comment
But indeed, it must suck, growing up in the panopticon :(
> collects data from public posts on students' social media accounts
Calling this "spying" is disingenuous. There's no spying going on if person A posts something to be available to the general public, and then person B, a member of the general public (in this case the school's social media subcontractor), looks at the post.
We are used to thinking about concepts like "in public" and "spying" in traditional human-scale situations. Many of our cultural and legal structures implicitly assume human-scale limitations; we understand that you lose your expectation of privacy when a conversation moves from inside your house to the public shared spaces like the street.
We are also used the spread of information as something that has noise, limited reach, and having a cost that limits both how far the information spreads and how long it lasts.
Combined, this mean it was usually easy say things that might technically be public, but in practice were de facto a private conversation. This is great for kids, who are still learning how society works, risk assessment, and how they want to express themselves publicly. Children need this kind of sorta-public, in-practic-private environment so they can learn and develop. This will often involve making mistakes. A vast majority of the time we simply call this "being a kid". The public side of the situation allows for a parent/teacher/whatever to (hopefully) offer education when a kid makes an embarrassing or rude comment - or a post that could be interpreted as threatening - while the transient nature means the child can move on having learned from their mistake.
What is happening right now is that the underlying assumptions are changing. Information no longer goes away. Far more is recorded and the de-facto-private aspect of many situations is being eroded. In some situations, it's already gone. When life is recorded as the norm, there is no room for mistakes, no allowance for growth, no room to discover by experiment0 how social expression works. We already see this on the internet ever time someone complains about hostility in forums, "cyber bullying", and even the moderation drama here on HN.
This means we need new definitions for what "in public" or a "public post" means. We really need entire new social structures to deal with this brave new world of computing and data. This will take time to convert. I don't know what those social structures should look like, but I do know that applying pre-information-age heuristics to modern internet-based, always-recording situations isn't the answer.
TL;DR - see CGP Grey's recent discussion of why precedent matters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ZpsxnmmbE