I see a new website coming op.
ProtestBook.
Which is actually available:
ProtestBook.com is for sale (Protest Book). Click here to buy ProtestBook.com for $1,895.
Topic: Partnership between Facebook and police could make planning protests impossible (Read 4524 times)
December 03, 2013, 11:39:55 AM
December 03, 2013, 10:52:17 AM
people should already have been aware that facebook is profiling its users for a reason. This just seems like the next logical step in a plan to get everyone profiled and databased as a from of control if not worse but that is just my opinion.
November 28, 2013, 10:55:50 AM
Facebook is annoying in term of privacy and customer satisfaction,they just change things without giving you prior notices if you like it or not,there ads are annoying and a complete invasion of privacy since they use your likes/shows/groups etc...
November 28, 2013, 01:17:33 AM
The last sentence is a gem:
That's because the police don't publicly broadcast their intentions on Facebook.
Quote
"95.9 percent of law enforcement agencies use social media, 86.1 percent for investigative purposes," Lipp quoted from the head of the social media group for the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
That's because the police don't publicly broadcast their intentions on Facebook.
Gotta love the Suspiciously Specific Percentages cited by this whoever-it-is.
Is it really a surprise or even wrong, though, that the police are as capable of reading shit you post in public as your next door neighbor is?
Seriously. How shocking! How dare the police look at posts of you boasting about your crimes!
November 27, 2013, 10:15:46 PM
It's crazy that people still use Facefuck/Twatter, plenty of alternatives to the CIA/NSA/GCHQ database:
http://pump.io/
https://diasporafoundation.org/
https://www.gnu.org/software/social/
http://movim.eu/
always check https://prism-break.org/ for good ways to protect your privacy.http://pump.io/
https://diasporafoundation.org/
https://www.gnu.org/software/social/
http://movim.eu/
that said people will continue to use F.B. & T for mass spread of the word.
November 25, 2013, 03:19:04 PM
http://venturebeat.com/2013/11/25/15-of-employees-are-required-to-use-personal-social-accounts-for-work-survey/
We’re about a third of the way done with our 9-question survey on social media at work, and the preliminary results are both fascinating and disturbing.
For example, 17 percent of our anonymous respondents so far told us they are required to use their personal social media accounts to post about work and their company. (A further 27 percent are not required but are strongly encouraged to do so.)
For these folks, the line between personal and private online lives has blurred to invisibility. As one of these respondents noted, “I have to be very careful about everything I say to my friends as I conduct business activities over the same accounts. My Facebook has become a more interactive version of my LinkedIn profile, with only the blandest conversations with my friends.
“My friends don’t understand why I am reluctant to use this channel to talk, and it’s hard to get them to sign in to Skype every time I want to chat.”
Another employee told us, “I feel the personal and work identities have largely blurred in the past several years. That being said, I am moderately concerned about privacy, security, and surveillance.”
But not everyone’s overly concerned about how their private accounts and data are being handled. As a third respondent said, “It’s good to have a transparent life, provided nobody uses the data from these social networks to pester people for buying their services or products.”
(Unfortunately, that’s precisely what the data is used for in the most innocuous cases.)
For this minority group, the most-required network for company use is Facebook, followed by Twitter.
These respondents are also — surprise, surprise — more likely to feel their privacy is being violated by their employers.
We’re about a third of the way done with our 9-question survey on social media at work, and the preliminary results are both fascinating and disturbing.
For example, 17 percent of our anonymous respondents so far told us they are required to use their personal social media accounts to post about work and their company. (A further 27 percent are not required but are strongly encouraged to do so.)
For these folks, the line between personal and private online lives has blurred to invisibility. As one of these respondents noted, “I have to be very careful about everything I say to my friends as I conduct business activities over the same accounts. My Facebook has become a more interactive version of my LinkedIn profile, with only the blandest conversations with my friends.
“My friends don’t understand why I am reluctant to use this channel to talk, and it’s hard to get them to sign in to Skype every time I want to chat.”
Another employee told us, “I feel the personal and work identities have largely blurred in the past several years. That being said, I am moderately concerned about privacy, security, and surveillance.”
But not everyone’s overly concerned about how their private accounts and data are being handled. As a third respondent said, “It’s good to have a transparent life, provided nobody uses the data from these social networks to pester people for buying their services or products.”
(Unfortunately, that’s precisely what the data is used for in the most innocuous cases.)
For this minority group, the most-required network for company use is Facebook, followed by Twitter.
These respondents are also — surprise, surprise — more likely to feel their privacy is being violated by their employers.
November 17, 2013, 04:18:13 PM
Anecdotal examples. Russians have stricter gun control and a lot less guns than Sweden, but their murder rates are more than double compared to the US and 10 times compared to Sweden's. I'm not saying that gun control is good or bad, but a more thoughtful discussion must be had on the issue, than just pointing on the map and saying: "Hey look, this country has tough gun control and low crime rates, hence gun control = low crime rates".
There's what's on the books and what actually happens. If you read Russia's Constitution during the Soviet era, it contained most of the same freedom of speech and other civil liberties guarantees as the U.S. Constitution. But it was just on paper. None of those rights actually existed in practice. By contrast, as flawed as the U.S. system is, you can go into a court and argue that a law violates the First Amendment, or Second Amendment for that matter, and if you can convince a court of that, the law gets struck down.
Also, re the OP, the story seems more than a bit overblown.
No, the Cops Aren’t Banning Protesters From Facebook
Quote
It should come as no surprise that police departments monitor social media. After all, as a speaker revealed during a panel at last week’s International Association of Chiefs of Police conference, roughly 96 percent of law enforcement agencies utilize social media, and more than 86 percent for “investigative purposes.”
At least, that’s according to Kenneth Lipp, the Philadelphia-based investigative journalist at the center of what Chicago Police Department Lt. Steven Sesso calls a “headache.”
Since the IACP conference’s closing, Lipp has been posting photos and videos from the event’s panels and showroom floor, along with blog posts highlighting the available police swag and attending heavy-hitters. It was essentially a who’s who of modern law enforcement, the massive conference having filled every bit of the PA Convention Center’s 679,000 square feet for a solid five days.
The headache to which Lt. Sesso refers, though, comes not from any helicopters or armored personnel carriers that were for sale, but a statement from an unnamed, unscheduled speaker from the Chicago Police Department indicating an apparent relationship between the agency and social media giant Facebook. According to Lipp’s original blog post, the nature of that relationship—allegedly built through Facebook’s chief security officer, Joe Sullivan—was to “block users’ from the site by account [person], IP, and device … if it is determined they have posted what is deemed criminal content.” Additionally, Sullivan was listed as a speaker for that same panel.
At least, that’s according to Kenneth Lipp, the Philadelphia-based investigative journalist at the center of what Chicago Police Department Lt. Steven Sesso calls a “headache.”
Since the IACP conference’s closing, Lipp has been posting photos and videos from the event’s panels and showroom floor, along with blog posts highlighting the available police swag and attending heavy-hitters. It was essentially a who’s who of modern law enforcement, the massive conference having filled every bit of the PA Convention Center’s 679,000 square feet for a solid five days.
The headache to which Lt. Sesso refers, though, comes not from any helicopters or armored personnel carriers that were for sale, but a statement from an unnamed, unscheduled speaker from the Chicago Police Department indicating an apparent relationship between the agency and social media giant Facebook. According to Lipp’s original blog post, the nature of that relationship—allegedly built through Facebook’s chief security officer, Joe Sullivan—was to “block users’ from the site by account [person], IP, and device … if it is determined they have posted what is deemed criminal content.” Additionally, Sullivan was listed as a speaker for that same panel.
tl;dr the police can read Facebook. Just like anyone else can. And they can click the "report" button.
Just like anyone else can.
I agree that sensationalism sales papers, online clicks and thread baits. It was meant for people here to still be aware of their privacy and property and create a conversation, back and forth...
...Until you will be forced to have a facebook account linked to your bitcoin wallet and THEN... DUN! DUN! DUUUNN!!!!!!!
November 17, 2013, 11:29:40 AM
Anecdotal examples. Russians have stricter gun control and a lot less guns than Sweden, but their murder rates are more than double compared to the US and 10 times compared to Sweden's. I'm not saying that gun control is good or bad, but a more thoughtful discussion must be had on the issue, than just pointing on the map and saying: "Hey look, this country has tough gun control and low crime rates, hence gun control = low crime rates".
There's what's on the books and what actually happens. If you read Russia's Constitution during the Soviet era, it contained most of the same freedom of speech and other civil liberties guarantees as the U.S. Constitution. But it was just on paper. None of those rights actually existed in practice. By contrast, as flawed as the U.S. system is, you can go into a court and argue that a law violates the First Amendment, or Second Amendment for that matter, and if you can convince a court of that, the law gets struck down.
Also, re the OP, the story seems more than a bit overblown.
No, the Cops Aren’t Banning Protesters From Facebook
Quote
It should come as no surprise that police departments monitor social media. After all, as a speaker revealed during a panel at last week’s International Association of Chiefs of Police conference, roughly 96 percent of law enforcement agencies utilize social media, and more than 86 percent for “investigative purposes.”
At least, that’s according to Kenneth Lipp, the Philadelphia-based investigative journalist at the center of what Chicago Police Department Lt. Steven Sesso calls a “headache.”
Since the IACP conference’s closing, Lipp has been posting photos and videos from the event’s panels and showroom floor, along with blog posts highlighting the available police swag and attending heavy-hitters. It was essentially a who’s who of modern law enforcement, the massive conference having filled every bit of the PA Convention Center’s 679,000 square feet for a solid five days.
The headache to which Lt. Sesso refers, though, comes not from any helicopters or armored personnel carriers that were for sale, but a statement from an unnamed, unscheduled speaker from the Chicago Police Department indicating an apparent relationship between the agency and social media giant Facebook. According to Lipp’s original blog post, the nature of that relationship—allegedly built through Facebook’s chief security officer, Joe Sullivan—was to “block users’ from the site by account [person], IP, and device … if it is determined they have posted what is deemed criminal content.” Additionally, Sullivan was listed as a speaker for that same panel.
At least, that’s according to Kenneth Lipp, the Philadelphia-based investigative journalist at the center of what Chicago Police Department Lt. Steven Sesso calls a “headache.”
Since the IACP conference’s closing, Lipp has been posting photos and videos from the event’s panels and showroom floor, along with blog posts highlighting the available police swag and attending heavy-hitters. It was essentially a who’s who of modern law enforcement, the massive conference having filled every bit of the PA Convention Center’s 679,000 square feet for a solid five days.
The headache to which Lt. Sesso refers, though, comes not from any helicopters or armored personnel carriers that were for sale, but a statement from an unnamed, unscheduled speaker from the Chicago Police Department indicating an apparent relationship between the agency and social media giant Facebook. According to Lipp’s original blog post, the nature of that relationship—allegedly built through Facebook’s chief security officer, Joe Sullivan—was to “block users’ from the site by account [person], IP, and device … if it is determined they have posted what is deemed criminal content.” Additionally, Sullivan was listed as a speaker for that same panel.
tl;dr the police can read Facebook. Just like anyone else can. And they can click the "report" button.
Just like anyone else can.
November 16, 2013, 08:49:13 PM
What was I talking about? Oh yeah: Facebook and total police control.
Yeah, facebook sucks. Lets boycott it
November 16, 2013, 08:46:55 PM
Everybody loves their favorite gun control puppets. They don't even believe you need a gun for self-defense from another human being, strangely enough if you are a female being attacked. Yet defending yourself with a flu shot is fine. Using radiation against cancer is fine. What is the difference but scale? From the social unit to the microscopic unit, self-defense is the same. Maybe I am the only one seeing it that way.
What was I talking about? Oh yeah: Facebook and total police control.
What was I talking about? Oh yeah: Facebook and total police control.
November 16, 2013, 07:41:17 PM
Stay away from such things and you should be fine.
November 16, 2013, 06:13:30 PM
Police are effectively no deterrent to murder, rape, and all other crimes. However, because they enforce the human rights violations called "gun control", they are a deterrent to peaceful people being able to defend themselves, which actually deters crime. Unfortunately totalitarians will never go quietly into the night, so people will continue to kill, rape, and otherwise victimize the legally disarmed and defenseless, with effective impunity.
This is, of course, why the United States, the only civilized nation with no gun control, is a perfect paradise of peace and harmony and nobody is in prison here. The Scandinavian countries, full of gun control, are the most violent hellholes in the world. You can barely get off a plane in Stockholm without being dragged to the street and ripped to pieces by ravening hordes of violent criminals.
I'm proud to be Amurrican where muh freedumb.
Anecdotal examples. Russians have stricter gun control and a lot less guns than Sweden, but their murder rates are more than double compared to the US and 10 times compared to Sweden's. I'm not saying that gun control is good or bad, but a more thoughtful discussion must be had on the issue, than just pointing on the map and saying: "Hey look, this country has tough gun control and low crime rates, hence gun control = low crime rates".
This thing that some American liberals believe that Europe is almost free of violence due to gun control is largely a myth.
November 16, 2013, 06:03:34 PM
This link is foxnews safe... 
http://rt.com/usa/facebook-police-social-lipp-743/
A partnership between police departments and social media sites discussed at a convention in Philadelphia this week could allow law enforcement to keep anything deemed criminal off the Internet—and even stop people from organizing protests.
A high-ranking official from the Chicago Police Department told attendees at a law enforcement conference on Monday that his agency has been working with a security chief at Facebook to block certain users from the site “if it is determined they have posted what is deemed criminal content,” reports Kenneth Lipp, an independent journalist who attended the lecture.
Lipp reported throughout the week from the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference, and now says that a speaker during one of the presentations suggested that a relationship exists between law enforcement and social media that that could be considered a form of censorship.
According to Lipp, the unnamed CPD officer said specifically that his agency was working with Facebook to block users’ by their individual account, IP address or device, such as a cell phone or computer.
http://rt.com/usa/facebook-police-social-lipp-743/
A partnership between police departments and social media sites discussed at a convention in Philadelphia this week could allow law enforcement to keep anything deemed criminal off the Internet—and even stop people from organizing protests.
A high-ranking official from the Chicago Police Department told attendees at a law enforcement conference on Monday that his agency has been working with a security chief at Facebook to block certain users from the site “if it is determined they have posted what is deemed criminal content,” reports Kenneth Lipp, an independent journalist who attended the lecture.
Lipp reported throughout the week from the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference, and now says that a speaker during one of the presentations suggested that a relationship exists between law enforcement and social media that that could be considered a form of censorship.
According to Lipp, the unnamed CPD officer said specifically that his agency was working with Facebook to block users’ by their individual account, IP address or device, such as a cell phone or computer.
God, I'm so glad I'm not living in the US. Their government is out of control and the people there don't seem to be doing anything about it.
November 16, 2013, 03:33:41 PM
Police are effectively no deterrent to murder, rape, and all other crimes. However, because they enforce the human rights violations called "gun control", they are a deterrent to peaceful people being able to defend themselves, which actually deters crime. Unfortunately totalitarians will never go quietly into the night, so people will continue to kill, rape, and otherwise victimize the legally disarmed and defenseless, with effective impunity.
This is, of course, why the United States, the only civilized nation with no gun control, is a perfect paradise of peace and harmony and nobody is in prison here. The Scandinavian countries, full of gun control, are the most violent hellholes in the world. You can barely get off a plane in Stockholm without being dragged to the street and ripped to pieces by ravening hordes of violent criminals.
I'm proud to be Amurrican where muh freedumb.
Where are you from that you believe America has no gun control?
Yep, absolute BS. Plenty of innocent people, mostly non-caucasians, have suffered punishment for the "crime" of being able to defend ourselves against aggressors (violating "gun control") in America.
November 16, 2013, 08:09:02 AM
Police are effectively no deterrent to murder, rape, and all other crimes. However, because they enforce the human rights violations called "gun control", they are a deterrent to peaceful people being able to defend themselves, which actually deters crime. Unfortunately totalitarians will never go quietly into the night, so people will continue to kill, rape, and otherwise victimize the legally disarmed and defenseless, with effective impunity.
This is, of course, why the United States, the only civilized nation with no gun control, is a perfect paradise of peace and harmony and nobody is in prison here. The Scandinavian countries, full of gun control, are the most violent hellholes in the world. You can barely get off a plane in Stockholm without being dragged to the street and ripped to pieces by ravening hordes of violent criminals.
I'm proud to be Amurrican where muh freedumb.
Where are you from that you believe America has no gun control?
November 16, 2013, 07:58:51 AM
Police are effectively no deterrent to murder, rape, and all other crimes. However, because they enforce the human rights violations called "gun control", they are a deterrent to peaceful people being able to defend themselves, which actually deters crime. Unfortunately totalitarians will never go quietly into the night, so people will continue to kill, rape, and otherwise victimize the legally disarmed and defenseless, with effective impunity.
This is, of course, why the United States, the only civilized nation with no gun control, is a perfect paradise of peace and harmony and nobody is in prison here. The Scandinavian countries, full of gun control, are the most violent hellholes in the world. You can barely get off a plane in Stockholm without being dragged to the street and ripped to pieces by ravening hordes of violent criminals.
I'm proud to be Amurrican where muh freedumb.
November 15, 2013, 10:02:03 PM
I agree with you; precisely because humanity is not mature enough to handle anarchism, we rely on the state in order to survive together. Anarchism would never work if it suddenly occurred now, as it would always devolve back into the state system, e.g. Somalia.
You're completly right here, and I agree Mike Christ. But chowderman seems to have a BIG problem to understand the difference between anarchy and rebellion/protestion against some laws. I can't recall it's beeing mentioned anything about anarchism from the side wihch chowderman apparently is not on, but he still throws blames about anarchism and criminals and more.
That's why I don't agree with him. He sweeps everyone under one comb. Because you don't agree with one or two rules, it does not magicaly make you an anarchist that will remove the government and let the ciminals rule. We still need police and stuff for fuck sake, people are still killing and raping people, and unfortunaly they will probably a long time in the future.
Police are effectively no deterrent to murder, rape, and all other crimes. However, because they enforce the human rights violations called "gun control", they are a deterrent to peaceful people being able to defend themselves, which actually deters crime. Unfortunately totalitarians will never go quietly into the night, so people will continue to kill, rape, and otherwise victimize the legally disarmed and defenseless, with effective impunity.
November 15, 2013, 02:38:26 PM
Yes, you're right, and I understand your frustration; all we can really do is state our case in a way we would understand before we started believing in anarchism. It wasn't that long ago that I thought anarchists were crazy people myself 
I think it wasn't until the beginning of this year that I'd been introduced to the viewpoint... What really draws me to it is how rational anarchists are, and eventually I couldn't call myself rational while fighting them with irrational logic. I believe it was a gun debate that finally broke me; I tried to make the case that banning guns was a good thing, but after I was explained why it wasn't, I had to roll with what made more sense.
Anyhow, I believe the best approach is to leave anarchism out of the equation, but to instead push for rationalism; find a break in someone's logic and pull the thread, show them why you believe the things that you do, state your intentions, have patience. Anarchism evolves naturally from secular rationalism; the more rational a society is, the less dependence they have on the state. Since the state loses all its power if nobody believes in it, it's not a matter of political preference, but a matter of understanding why it's better to have a foundation of reason and ethics; everything flows naturally from these philosophies.
I think it wasn't until the beginning of this year that I'd been introduced to the viewpoint... What really draws me to it is how rational anarchists are, and eventually I couldn't call myself rational while fighting them with irrational logic. I believe it was a gun debate that finally broke me; I tried to make the case that banning guns was a good thing, but after I was explained why it wasn't, I had to roll with what made more sense.Anyhow, I believe the best approach is to leave anarchism out of the equation, but to instead push for rationalism; find a break in someone's logic and pull the thread, show them why you believe the things that you do, state your intentions, have patience. Anarchism evolves naturally from secular rationalism; the more rational a society is, the less dependence they have on the state. Since the state loses all its power if nobody believes in it, it's not a matter of political preference, but a matter of understanding why it's better to have a foundation of reason and ethics; everything flows naturally from these philosophies.
Seems like we have had some of the same experiences and agree with you
+1
November 15, 2013, 02:32:58 PM
I agree with you; precisely because humanity is not mature enough to handle anarchism, we rely on the state in order to survive together. Anarchism would never work if it suddenly occurred now, as it would always devolve back into the state system, e.g. Somalia.
You're completly right here, and I agree Mike Christ. But chowderman seems to have a BIG problem to understand the difference between anarchy and rebellion/protestion against some laws. I can't recall it's beeing mentioned anything about anarchism from the side wihch chowderman apparently is not on, but he still throws blames about anarchism and criminals and more.
That's why I don't agree with him. He sweeps everyone under one comb. Because you don't agree with one or two rules, it does not magicaly make you an anarchist that will remove the government and let the ciminals rule. We still need police and stuff for fuck sake, people are still killing and raping people, and unfortunaly they will probably a long time in the future.
Yes, you're right, and I understand your frustration; all we can really do is state our case in a way we would understand before we started believing in anarchism. It wasn't that long ago that I thought anarchists were crazy people myself
I think it wasn't until the beginning of this year that I'd been introduced to the viewpoint... What really draws me to it is how rational anarchists are, and eventually I couldn't call myself rational while fighting them with irrational logic. I believe it was a gun debate that finally broke me; I tried to make the case that banning guns was a good thing, but after I was explained why it wasn't, I had to roll with what made more sense.Anyhow, I believe the best approach is to leave anarchism out of the equation, but to instead push for rationalism; find a break in someone's logic and pull the thread, show them why you believe the things that you do, state your intentions, have patience. Anarchism evolves naturally from secular rationalism; the more rational a society is, the less dependence they have on the state. Since the state loses all its power if nobody believes in it, it's not a matter of political preference, but a matter of understanding why it's better to have a foundation of reason and ethics; everything flows naturally from these philosophies.
November 15, 2013, 02:14:22 PM
I agree with you; precisely because humanity is not mature enough to handle anarchism, we rely on the state in order to survive together. Anarchism would never work if it suddenly occurred now, as it would always devolve back into the state system, e.g. Somalia.
You're completly right here, and I agree Mike Christ. But chowderman seems to have a BIG problem to understand the difference between anarchy and rebellion/protestion against some laws. I can't recall it's beeing mentioned anything about anarchism from the side wihch chowderman apparently is not on, but he still throws blames about anarchism and criminals and more.
That's why I don't agree with him. He sweeps everyone under one comb. Because you don't agree with one or two rules, it does not magicaly make you an anarchist that will remove the government and let the ciminals rule. We still need police and stuff for fuck sake, people are still killing and raping people, and unfortunaly they will probably a long time in the future.
Jump to: