MySpace or SpySpace?

[mickal555]

If you are one of the millions of people using social networking websites such as MySpace and Friendster, be careful what you reveal about yourself. The US National Security Agency is looking at ways to harvest the information that people post about themselves on such networks. It could use advances in internet technology to combine the data with personal details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing it to build profiles of individuals. The idea is to identify terrorists and other criminals, but privacy groups worry that this hi-tech snooping could lead to miscarriages of justice...

http://www.prq0.com/apps/redir.asp?link=XcefbeacBI,ZdggbcjfihEH&oid=UcjjbCB&iclitemid=YcdhcechcCJ&tid=WideibhDB

[TheBlackCat]

Okay, I can understand having an issue with something where you have the perception of privacy, such as mail, telephone communication, email, VOIP, bank records, credit card information, sales records, or something like that. But the whole point of myspace is specifically to make information as public as possible. The whole point is to get the information to as many people as you can. It is like sticking a flyer on a tree by the side of the road. The intention is for people to see it. I cannot understand how people have privacy issues with something like myspace whose sole purpose is to make information public.

Like people getting upset about schools looking at their students' myspace pages. Seriously, if you purposefully put information in an explicitly public place then it is no longer private. Similarly, I have no illusion of privacy regarding what I post on this forum. It is a public forum, intended for anybody and everybody to look at. I cannot have any reasonable expectation of privacy. Although on this forum, unlike myspace, nobody should know my real identity, although I am aware the admins would be forced to turn over my IP address in the event of a court order, but mining IP addresses on the forum without a court order would go against the forum's privacy policy. However, the point of myspace is that you identify yourself. I just don't get how people can rationally expect privacy on such a site. I specifically don't use myspace because I don't want total strangers learning whom I am and what the details of my life are.

People need to use a little common sense.

Don't get me wrong, I think privacy rights for things that are supposed to be private is an absolutely critical limit on government power. But if someone were to go around town post flyers saying "my name is such and such and I plan to shoot people at such and such a school on such and such a date", as happened on myspace not too long ago, you have to expect the police to come knocking on your door. There is an inherent difference between public and private places, even online, and people cannot expect privacy on a website whose sole purpose is to make your information public.

[jt-3d]

Yeah, duh, posting stuff on the internet can be read by anybody. Now it's the evil NSA. More fear of the evil government mongering. I'd be more concerned with random psychopaths. As per usual, even if the NSA did care about a bunch of 13 year olds on MySpace, if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear.

[TheBlackCat]

Well, there is always the concern of people who are innocent being convicted based on misconstrued information. People get wrongly convicted all the time, I am not sure I am really in favor of making it any easier than it already is. At least theoretically police should have probable cause before they start checking whether they can find evidence of wrongdoing (unless of course it is plainly visible in a public place), it doesn't always work but I still feal more comfortable with that little safeguard. If the government could start looking for evidence of wrongdoing in private areas without any reason to believe anything wrong has been done, it will be a lot easier to find evidence implicating people, both guilty and innocent. So sure, someone may have done nothing wrong, but it doesn't mean there might not be some circumstantial evidence somewhere that could be presented as though it indicated that person had done something wrong. Especially with hackers, identity theft, and people using other people's names and addresses to register websites and email address and such.

Although I have not heard any reports about it yet, I think we could eventually reach the point where people like me whose careers are dependent on government grants could have a hard time finding money if we say things someone with power does not like. It is not that big a step from altering publications and preventing scientists from speaking to the press to tweaking the flow of money a little to "discourage" certain things. The argument is being made that government scientists need to follow the government position when it conflicts with their research, I do not see it as too far a stretch for similar arguments to be made with government-funded research in some cases.

So yeah, I have done nothing wrong but I do have something to fear.

[Ara Pacis]

Should this be in another forum?

[jt-3d]

So yeah, I have done nothing wrong but I do have something to fear.

And that is the whole point of these kinds of breathless reports, to keep everbody scared. Anybody with a lick of sense knows not to put personal stuff on the internet and yet somebody has to pull up a new bogey man to scare us about something we already know.

And yes, this isn't really scientific.

[ToSeek]

Moved from "General Science" to "BABBling".

[ktesibios]

The "if you're not a terrorist you have nothing to fear" argument only holds water if you assume that our Glorious Organs of State Security are completely apolitical professionals who are interested solely in preserving public safety.

Unfortunately, even in this country this has not uniformly been true. The history of COINTELPRO and its antecedents is that of a thoroughly politicized secret police agency engaging in attempts to suppress political views which it did not approve of by inflicting extrajudicial punishment on people who committed the "crime" of advocating those views.

Was Fred Hampton a terrorist? Jean Seberg? Martin Luther King Jr.? What about the non-household-names whose employers were pressured to fire them from their jobs, or whose landlords were pressured to evict them, or whose spouses received anonymous letters accusing them of adultery?

Note that the purpose of such programs was not to gather evidence of crimes with a view to prosecuting their perpetrators but to control the nation's political course by harrassing and punishing people effectively advocating opinions and policies which were incompatible with the secret police's right wing authoritarian beliefs.

It's also worth noting that the danger is not so much one of wrongful conviction in a court of law, but of the myriad of nasty tricks that can be played on a target without any judicial involvement at all. In an era when the executive branch asserts an unlimited, unaccountable right to imprison or even kill without any sort of check, balance or review the danger posed by politicized police agencies with powers unimagined even three decades ago is amplified considerably.

[TheBlackCat]

What about the non-household-names whose employers were pressured to fire them from their jobs, or whose landlords were pressured to evict them, or whose spouses received anonymous letters accusing them of adultery?
Do you have any evidence that this actually occured, and any evidence that the government was responsible?

In an era when the executive branch asserts an unlimited, unaccountable right to imprison or even kill without any sort of check, balance or review the danger posed by politicized police agencies with powers unimagined even three decades ago is amplified considerably.
Do you have any evidence of the government killing US citizens without any oversight?

[jt-3d]

The "if you're not a terrorist you have nothing to fear" argument only holds water if you assume that our Glorious Organs of State Security are completely apolitical professionals who are interested solely in preserving public safety.
And for the most part, I do.

In an era when the executive branch asserts an unlimited, unaccountable right to imprison
I assume you mean Guantanamo? This is'nt capture the flag or hide and seek. What would you have us do with them? Turn them loose? For them, the war is over.

or even kill without any sort of check, balance or review the danger posed by politicized police agencies with powers unimagined even three decades ago is amplified considerably.
I'm gonna call horsehockey.

[Gillianren]

While I disagree that the innocent have nothing to fear--prosecution of the innocent does happen from time to time, you know--I really don't think the US government can actually kill without oversight. I mean, the level of secrecy involved would be pretty unprecedented; the government, and indeed any large organization, just can't keep secrets that well.

Note that this is different than innocent people having been convicted in a court of law and then executed, which has happened and will likely continue to happen, though hopefully not much. (Ideally never, but we don't live in an ideal world.)

[TheBlackCat]

I assume you mean Guantanamo?
I think we should avoid the G-word, it will be extremely difficult to keep politics out of that one.

[jt-3d]

Haha, that reminds me of this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/02/bofh_2006_episode_19/)
"Yes. Item 2, the members would like free access to learning materials to further their knowledge in computing."

"We're not stopping them learning more about computing! You're the one putting all the magazines through the shredder as soon as they turn up!"

"Yes...I don't think we should be naming names here, it's just not helpful. Now, I should emphasise that no one here is blaming anyone for the poor state of affairs that these individuals have been subjected to in an almost criminal manner."

"YOU'RE THE ONE DOING IT!"

"Once more, we're not here to name names or apportion blame to the people who've been responsible for allowing this sort of thing to go on unchecked in a manner which has created a hostile workplace environment."

"YOU'RE CREATING THE HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT!"

"Right, well I can see we've reached an impasse on Item 1 and Item 2 so perhaps we'll see if item 3 would be more workable."


You're probably right though.

[Doodler]

Dear paranoid myspace blogging morons,

Anything you publish to a website becomes public domain. If you don't want them to know it, DON'T STICK IT UP ON THE [expletive tirade omitted] INTERNET WHERE THEY CAN FIND YOUR HALFWIT [posterior's] RAMBLINGS WITH HALF A BRAIN TIED BEHIND THEIR BACK!!!11!!1ELEVENTY-ONE1!!!!

Yours sincerely,

Sick and tired of your paranoid whining.

[Doodler]

Note: that was not aimed at anyone in particular, but I get real tired of the "big brother is watching" attitude when people whine about their personal thoughts being aired in the public domain when they put them there knowingly.

Its like a woman complaining about guys ogling her breasts when she's walking around topless...

[Nicholas_Bostaph]

...Anybody with a lick of sense knows not to put personal stuff on the internet...

Just out of curiosity, may I ask why? Could you cite a study that has actually shown this to be dangerous? I'm assuming you're referring to personal information such as a full name or address, and not obvious no-nos like credit card numbers.

[Doodler]

Just out of curiosity, may I ask why? Could you cite a study that has actually shown this to be dangerous? I'm assuming you're referring to personal information such as a full name or address, and not obvious no-nos like credit card numbers.

Heh, yes, I do. I have several ladyfriends who've cancelled pages after receiving constant and endless attention of some seriously warped freaks on myspace after revealing simply the fact that they are women.

There've been a couple impressive Dateline NBC stories that have demonstrated the impressive power of information with regards to children. Something to the effect of, "If you post it, the pervs will come."

It may not be universal, I'm certainly hoping its a relative minority of individuals that achieve such lofty heights of dispicability, but given that its a percentage greater than 0%, its a risk well worth mitigating. Its like playing Russian roulette with your life and personal safety. You may never be the one that gets the live bullet, but is it REALLY worth risking the pull of the trigger?

[jt-3d]

Just out of curiosity, may I ask why? Could you cite a study that has actually shown this to be dangerous? I'm assuming you're referring to personal information such as a full name or address, and not obvious no-nos like credit card numbers.

No. I meant personal information that you don't want the whole world to know about. Obviously anybody can drive down my street and get my address, look inside the mailbox and get my name. Infact my name and address is already on the web if you happen to have my ham call (KE5BWT btw). Doesn't mean I'm going to put that information in my sig though.

[Nicholas_Bostaph]

jt-3d, thanks for the clarification; I'd agree with your comment in that light. :)

Doodler, I'm actually a little surprised. Judging from my own anecdotal evidence I would have expected the risk to be more akin to a 5 minute drive to the grocery store than Russian Roulette. Then again, I've never actually used MySpace or similar sites. It makes me curious what the actual statistics indicate.

[Doodler]

jt-3d, thanks for the clarification; I'd agree with your comment in that light. :)

Doodler, I'm actually a little surprised. Judging from my own anecdotal evidence I would have expected the risk to be more akin to a 5 minute drive to the grocery store than Russian Roulette. Then again, I've never actually used MySpace or similar sites. It makes me curious what the actual statistics indicate.

Consider the relative anonymity the internet offers these predators from the ideal victim who's knowledge of internet security amounts to saying yes whenever the popup windows appear. Posting your location and picture amounts to putting yourself on display for a windowshopping stalker. And the sad thing is, of the million or more people who might see your information, of those only a few dozen being crazy enough to try something, it only takes the unfortunate chance that one of those lunatics is local enough to make the trip worth the effort to make the poster into a statistic.

That's why I tapped that Dateline series as a leg to stand on. Consider how many men they had show up for a bogus set up with a kid. These people are out there, and there's a lot more than most people would probably be comfortable sleeping at night knowing the full extent.

Privacy and anonymity are the great equalizers on the internet. You abandon them only at extreme risk.

[korjik]

I most definitely agree with Doodler.

the fact that Dateline NBC has managed to pull their sting 4 times already and are prolly working on a 5th, and that each time the pervs were coming out of the woodwork, I would have to say that posting personal info online can be hazardous. This more applies to women and children, but you must consider that the internet allows careful, anonymous sorting to pick a target, and in some cases actually could help contact a target.

The problem is that so many people can use the internet that the small chance that a perv sees your info is far to high for my likeing. Admittedly, a personal bias, but I dont think it kills my arguement.

[Gillianren]

Anything you publish to a website becomes public domain.

You're using the wrong term, here.

You cannot, for example, base a book on The Collected Posts of JayUtah, educational as that might be, without getting Jay's permission and giving him money. That's because he still owns the copyright to his posts; they are most assuredly not in the public domain. If I created a website dedicated to my own poetry and fiction, I'd still own the rights to what I post and could sue for copyright infringement if you tried somehow to make money off them, because they're not in the public domain.

However, they would most assuredly be in the public eye, and I would have no expectation of privacy about them, unlike the ones in my filing cabinet.

[Doodler]

You're using the wrong term, here.

You cannot, for example, base a book on The Collected Posts of JayUtah, educational as that might be, without getting Jay's permission and giving him money. That's because he still owns the copyright to his posts; they are most assuredly not in the public domain. If I created a website dedicated to my own poetry and fiction, I'd still own the rights to what I post and could sue for copyright infringement if you tried somehow to make money off them, because they're not in the public domain.

However, they would most assuredly be in the public eye, and I would have no expectation of privacy about them, unlike the ones in my filing cabinet.

Whether its legal to post it or not, the minute its posted on the internet, it is in the hands of the public. Its like a shared MP3. Yes, its illegal to share it, but once its shared, its out there, the people have it.

[HenrikOlsen]

Dear paranoid myspace blogging morons,

Anything you publish to a website becomes public domain. If you don't want them to know it, DON'T STICK IT UP ON THE [expletive tirade omitted] INTERNET WHERE THEY CAN FIND YOUR HALFWIT [posterior's] RAMBLINGS WITH HALF A BRAIN TIED BEHIND THEIR BACK!!!11!!1ELEVENTY-ONE1!!!!

Yours sincerely,

Sick and tired of your paranoid whining.
Nope, putting it on a website instantly makes it published, thus protected by international copyright laws.

You're right that it's viewable by all, but that's definitely NOT the same as being in the public domain, which would also grant other rights, such as the right to republish.

Whether its legal to post it or not, the minute its posted on the internet, it is in the hands of the public. Its like a shared MP3. Yes, its illegal to share it, but once its shared, its out there, the people have it.
Let's be clear about this, every time a copyrighted piece is copied, the law is broken by both the one publishing it without permission from the copyright holder and by the person getting it.

Public Domain is a very specific legal term giving very specific legal rights, it is not the same as "everyone has downloaded it".

[mickal555]

I don't use myspace, but I have my own website...

Which is worse if you do a whois look-up, I've moved from there though.

I was a bit upset about my adress and phone number being up easilly and accesible, I wish my hosting provided(who did my domain) let me know about that so I could use a fake one. (I'd rather that then the alternitive.

[Doodler]

To HenrikOlsen and Gillianren,

I respect what both of you are saying. The truth is, the tangent on which we've gone is something of an aside to the intent I was aiming at. What I was refering to were any kind of private information, things you've done, things about you that you would rather other people not know. That's the kind of information I was ranting about, not someone putting copyrighted material up, but putting potentially embarassing information on these websites and blogs that most intelligent people would put in a more secure diary or simply not write down at all.

[Nicholas_Bostaph]

Posting your location and picture amounts to putting yourself on display for a windowshopping stalker. And the sad thing is, of the million or more people who might see your information, of those only a few dozen being crazy enough to try something, it only takes the unfortunate chance that one of those lunatics is local enough to make the trip worth the effort to make the poster into a statistic.

But this is why this argument just doesn't seem to hold and why I would be interested in seeing statistics. We put ourselves 'on display for a windowshopping stalker' every day. Walking down the street puts ourselves on display, and I'm sure a lot of personal information could be parsed out of our friendly conversation on that walk. Putting ourselves in the phonebook places not just our real name, but our complete address and phone number on display. What about selling something in the Pennysaver?

In any of these activities you see the danger as small enough to continue engaging in them. My guess would be that the reason is along the same lines as your last sentence quoted above; for every one 'stalker' there are 50,000 potential stalkees. That places our probability of a dangerous situation at 50k to 1 or, if we want to assume a 'stalker' goes after five people in their time, at 10k to 1; hardly something to be terrified about. Vigilant, yes, but not terrified. If posting your personal information online is more dangerous than placing it in a phonebook, there must be an different reason. I would, however, be surprised if that was shown to be so.



That's why I tapped that Dateline series as a leg to stand on. Consider how many men they had show up for a bogus set up with a kid.

I have not seen this series so I only have your post to go on, but how does this show that posting personal information online is dangerous? If we setup a sting like this outside your local convenience store and put the same amount of time into it I'm sure we could come up with similar results. A child agreeing to meet someone they met online will probably be in about as much danger as a child who agrees to meet a total stranger they met at the mall.

I guess the point I'm getting at is that the danger isn't so much in posting information online, it's losing common sense because you're online. A child (or person) talking to someone online isn't what does them harm; agreeing to meet that person in a less than public place is. Even so, despite the number of warnings people give, I'd be surprised if the odds of someone who wished to do you harm actually finding and choosing you are nearly as great as this common advice warns. It's definitely not impossible, but I don't think it's quite Russion Roulette either (1 in 6, right?).

Also, of course, the relative danger of any activity will often be much different for children than adults. I had the impression that the OP was talking about young adults (age 16-30) and not children.

Without any numbers available to me, though, I'll remain open.





These people are out there, and there's a lot more than most people would probably be comfortable sleeping at night knowing the full extent.

How do you know how many there are?

About 70% of all my relationships (and dates) have been with people I met online, either via personals or just randomly. The worst relationship I ever had with someone I met online was better than the best relationship with someone I met in person. This could have something to do with the time period, as IM wasn't big yet and the majority of the 'cool crowd' wasn't into computers, so most of the people online at the time were more intelligent and mature than the norm. In spite of all the warnings, I never had the chance to even speak to someone I would consider dangerous, let alone meet them in person. Neither had any of the girls I dated.

I know it's anecdotal evidence, but in lieu of actual numbers...

But back toward the OP...




Okay, I can understand having an issue with something where you have the perception of privacy, such as mail, telephone communication, email, VOIP, bank records, credit card information, sales records, or something like that. But the whole point of myspace is specifically to make information as public as possible.

I think the objection is more to the government engaging in profiling, and then using that information for wrongful accusations or prosecution. I have concerns about this myself. Not just regarding MySpace, but using any public information available about me. But I can't see any way to discuss further without crossing the politics line...

[HenrikOlsen]

Doodler, if we modify your rant (and rant it was :)) to saying that once something is put on an website it's been published and everyone in the world has access to it, then we agree completely.
It was just your use of the words "public domain" which was problematic.

[Gillianren]

I have not seen this series so I only have your post to go on, but how does this show that posting personal information online is dangerous? If we setup a sting like this outside your local convenience store and put the same amount of time into it I'm sure we could come up with similar results. A child agreeing to meet someone they met online will probably be in about as much danger as a child who agrees to meet a total stranger they met at the mall.

The difference is that a lot of these kids agree to meet someone they think is another kid. It's a lot easier to lie online. I mean, for all you people really know, as I haven't met any of you, everything I've said about myself is a lie--with the exception of my address; three people on this board have mailed me things. Since I received all three, or at least said I did, they've got a safe guess that at least I really do get mail where I say I do.

But most of the online stalkers targeting kids pretend to be someone the kid's age. After all, if, when you were a kid, someone said, "Hey, I'm a 35-year-old man with a pressing urge to meet you, a twelve-year-old, for preference without your parents knowing," would you have gone along with it?

[HenrikOlsen]

I'd just like to be a fly on the wall at the meeting of a couple of middleaged guys who both think they're they're to meet a 14 year old girl:)

[Nicholas_Bostaph]

The difference is that a lot of these kids agree to meet someone they think is another kid. It's a lot easier to lie online. I mean, for all you people really know, as I haven't met any of you, everything I've said about myself is a lie--with the exception of my address; three people on this board have mailed me things. Since I received all three, or at least said I did, they've got a safe guess that at least I really do get mail where I say I do.

But most of the online stalkers targeting kids pretend to be someone the kid's age. After all, if, when you were a kid, someone said, "Hey, I'm a 35-year-old man with a pressing urge to meet you, a twelve-year-old, for preference without your parents knowing," would you have gone along with it?

But whether you have posted your phone number and address to MySpace or not has no bearing on this situation at all. It was the interaction that got our hypothetical kid in trouble, not anything they posted. I'm not saying the internet can't be dangerous or these things don't happen, I'm just saying that if I talk about my hard day at work (and it has been rough today :( ) and post my home mailing address for sympathy cards, I haven't done anything inherrently dangerous.

For clarification, my initial response was to following comment that I hear very often but do not agree with:

Anybody with a lick of sense knows not to put personal stuff on the internet

[Doodler]

I'd just like to be a fly on the wall at the meeting of a couple of middleaged guys who both think they're they're to meet a 14 year old girl:)

Look up that Dateline series, and bring barf bags. The one that makes my skin really crawl is the one who shows up with his 5 year old son. :eek:

[jamescooper]

It's what we simply call as myspace phishing (http://www.profilepitstop.com/articles/myspace/identity-theft-and-myspace-phishing.php). People trick you into revealing your login details by redirecting you to a phished site. They then use these details to steal information from you.

The responsibility lies on Myspace to ensure that all their users are not going to fall prey on this. On the other hand, all users have the duty to safeguard their accounts and to always be vigilant by any warning signs displayed (e.g., changes in profile or can't log in anymore).

[SeanF]

I'd just like to be a fly on the wall at the meeting of a couple of middleaged guys who both think they're they're to meet a 14 year old girl:)
There was a news story recently about a 29-year-old man who was pretending to be a 14-year-old boy and registering at area middle schools.

Frightening as the whole thing was, part of the story was that this guy was living with a couple of older men who actually thought he was 14. They were, apparently, rather upset when the police told them he was actually 29, which for some reason I found amusing.