[bigiain]

"Banks aren’t the problem, he said; the users tempting banks with their Twitter and Facebook postings are the problem.

As are reporters who write about privacy issues with social media without first closing their Facebook accounts."

You know he's right, don't you?

[vetler]

Well I can see how he's right about users tempting banks, but why would reporters who write about this need to close their Facebook accounts?

[petsos]

Did you read the article?

[jQueryIsAwesome]

Because it would be like an American who complains for the violence of Mexico but buys illegal marijuana and cocaine. He is the cause; but all he does is hoping that others will stop the violence some other way rather than he quitting drugs.

[icebraining]

But he's not complaining, just reporting. If I'm fat, is it immoral for me to say that obesity is a problem?

Frankly, I find his position ridiculous. He's essentially saying journalists have to be these beacons of virtue above everyone else if they want to report on bad things that are happening.

[kstenerud]

It's fine to say that obesity is a problem, but it's hypocritical to berate Burger King for contributing to obesity when you eat there three nights a week. It's even worse when you excuse it, saying that your circumstances are special somehow.

The reporter, similarly, is looking for fuel to blame the banks for their evil practices, when she herself is contributing to the flow of evil information.

[icebraining]

But so what if it is hypocritical? Is it any less true? Why should her personal life be in any way relevant?

I can understand his point about users being the problem - although that doesn't in any way excuse the banks - but criticizing her specifically is completely ridiculous.

It reminds me of how I hear people in my country commenting to each other about how nice is that politician because he rides a scooter instead of a Mercedes, while he and his party continue to sell out the country to big companies.

It's an irrelevant, stupid detail that detract from his position and makes him seem like an unreasonable person.

[kstenerud]

He's making the point that she just doesn't GET it. He took a confrontational tone specifically to get her to spit out excuses for her continued use of Facebook.

His point is not just that users are contributing to the problem, but that users REFUSE to believe they're contributing to the problem. It's the whole "a little bit can't hurt" excuse, which is why he used littering as a metaphor.

In the end it doesn't matter what she writes about the evil banks. It's impossible to stop them from using information YOU PUBLISHED against you. If you don't publish it, it can't be used against you. His further rant is against your friends publishing information about you that can be used against you.

So yeah, she can write her story about banks denying loans based on photos of your frequent trips to Vegas, but it's not going to help anybody because people will focus on the evil banks, and will still fail to grasp the concept of NOT PUBLISHING PERSONAL INFORMATION.

[etfb]

That metaphor is wrong in an intriguing and illustrative way. The problem with drugs is that they're illegal, so criminals have a monopoly. If they were legal, that part of the problem would largely disappear. Granted, it would be replaced with other problems, and there are those who believe (I'm not one of them) that the resulting problems would be worse... but the fact remains.

How would I recast your metaphor to be more like what Moglen is saying? No idea, since I think he's a crackpot and he's quite wrong, but it was fun thinking about it.

[andrewcooke]

i can't see the logic in your reasoning here.

just because legalisation would improve the situation doesn't mean that people who continue to buy drugs illegaly are not also responsible for the problems in mexico.

a problem can have multiple causes, and multiple solutions. but that does not mean that you can choose one solution as the "correct" one and discard all the others.

the typical american who buys drugs cannot change the law, but they can stop buying drugs and that would reduce the problems. so if they choose not to do so then they have some moral responsibility for the violence in mexico. that is not removed because there are other possible solutions.

[MrScruff]

I don't buy that line of argument at all. You're claiming that if you can establish some line of cause and effect then anyone in that chain must take moral responsibility for the outcome.

That's like saying an author who writes something that offends Islamists is responsible for any violence perpetrated on them, since they had the choice of not publishing.

The moral responsibility for acts of violence lies with those that commit them, or incite others to do so.

[kstenerud]

Criminals will be criminals. They are responsible for their own actions. But if you're contributing to their coffers, you're only encouraging them. You don't even have to frame this in terms of morality. They're doing something you don't like. Do you want to help them or hinder them? Sometimes hindering them involves denying yourself. This is how boycotts work.

[md224]

Or like a reporter writing about global warming while owning an automobile... Wait a second...

[EGreg]

So someone needs to become a vegan in order to write about animal cruelty?

Sometimes it's not so clear that things are so black and white. Just because I write about an issue doesn't mean I will first have to get on one side of it.

[loup-vaillant]

However, if you do say that you take sides, take sides.

You don't need to be a vegan to write about animal cruelty, but you'd better be one to complain about it. (Assuming for the sake of the argument that eating meat causes animal cruelty.)

So, while you don't have to quit Facebook to write about its effects on privacy, you'd better quit if you want to complain about those effects.

(EDIT: I retract: other comments point out that acknowledging you contribute to a problem you complain about is sufficient for not being a hypocrite. While it would be better to just stop contributing to that problem, unilaterally deciding that often exposes you to the No Network Effect. So, you can't really be expected to stop first. That first-mover disadvantage is sometimes a deal-breaker. We need some coordination to avoid it. But it is important to acknowledge you're part of the problem. For if you don't, there is no hope.)

[temphn]

  What you want to know is that somewhere there’s a 
  regulator who might stop the bank. But you don’t want to 
  hear that the regulator we really need to call upon is 
  you, yourself. 

Eben Moglen, libertarian. Amazing to hear him say something so clean and simple. The only regulation that works is people voting with their wallets.

[nextparadigms]

People need to take more responsibility for themselves and stop asking the Government to solve all their problems. They are only inviting trouble down the road as the Government gets bigger, more controlling and has more power over the population. All of that makes it harder to change the status quo, too.

[freshhawk]

You know your solution is garbage when it starts with "the first thing we need to do is change fundamental human behaviour"

[dhugiaskmak]

You know he's right, don't you?

He's half right. Banks are also the problem.

[kstenerud]

Banks are only a problem because this opportunity is available to them. Of course, that doesn't absolve them of responsibility for their actions, but it wouldn't even be an issue if users weren't actively encouraging and tempting them with such juicy information that would help their bottom line in risk assessment.

To him, the bank's position is obvious and unworthy of mention. The lack of PERSONAL responsibility is what leads to these kinds of disasters, and that's what people just don't get. Much like people don't want to feel responsible for the greed leading to and maintaining the crazy tort law system in the USA today.

[dhugiaskmak]

Of course you got robbed, you left your doors unlocked!

[kstenerud]

"Of course you got robbed, you left your doors unlocked!"

Yes! Exactly that! Except in the case of Facebook your negligence hurts your neighbors.

[cookiecaper]

You can use Facebook in a way that doesn't endanger your personal privacy, it can be primarily a consumption platform for the endangered privacy of all of your associates. :)

[knowtheory]

This is actually entirely untrue given the way that Facebook is set up.

The most insidious thing that Facebook has done, is litter the web with their "Like" buttons. Oh sure, they're not the ones who have put up "Like" buttons around the web, all they've done is insist that websites who do want a "Like" button have to use file assets & scripts from their webserver.

Well, by tracking where the "Like" button gets loaded, they can tell what you've been watching out on the web, even if you don't touch the "Like" button. Loading the button is enough. And on that basis, anyone who's set their pages up to use the "Like" button is informing on you. And in turn, your very use of the web becomes part of Facebook's surveillance.

[Sorpigal]

This is why it is essential for people who are concerned about privacy to use run Firefox and install the RequestPolicy extension. I simply don't whitelist facebook's domains and thus couldn't be tracked even if I had a Facebook account.

[waqf]

This. The only regret I had about switching from Firefox to Chromium is the lack of RequestPolicy. Apparently the hooks aren't there, as with AdBlockPlus.

In fact, just thinking about it now ... why did I switch? I should try Firefox again.

[jaipilot747]

Thanks for mentioning RequestPolicy. Exactly what I was looking for.

[cookiecaper]

There are a variety of extensions that cut out "Like" buttons. This is part of "using Facebook" in a way that doesn't impede personal privacy.

[napoleoncomplex]

The article author attempted to weasel himself out with that defence as well, but the nonsense of that argument was one of Moglen's main points. It's not just about you, it's about everyone in your network.

To quote it exactly: "You injure other people today also using social media. You’ve informed on them. You’ve created more records about them. You’ve added to the problems not of yourself but of other people. If it were as simple as just you’re only hurting yourself I wouldn’t bother pointing it out to you. See, that’s the difference, okay? The reason that this all works is that even when you know you’re hurting other people, you’re too selfish to stop. And there are hundreds of millions of people like you. That’s why it works."

[chernevik]

As a point of view, fine.

As a qualification for reporting / thinking / writing on the issue -- no.

Moglen is saying that before Betabeat can report, they must agree with him. Which ignores the possibility, remote as it may be, that Eben Moglen could be wrong about something. And, the implications of the example he sets for others.

Respect for freedom of speech is more than insistence on a constitutional norm. It is an attitude of respect for the possibility that you might be wrong even in your strongest beliefs. Such respect is our surest protection against absolutism.

Moblen may think his intransigence adds urgency to his message, and it has gotten him a forum this time. But even so he's deteriorating the culture of free speech and thought, and free-riding on the maintenance of that culture by the maturity of others.

[cookiecaper]

Right, but I disagree. "Everyone in my network" agrees to accept the "information" that I put out as them as a consumer, which is just making known that a relationship between us exists. If I'm not posting any personal information about anyone (including myself) and not tagging anyone in anything, this is the only information one gives to Facebook. I use an alias on Facebook so I am not even directly exposing my identity in their databases and the relationship they record is false, though clearly IP addresses could be used to link the alias to my real identity if a person were interested.

I have long been worried about the implications of friending everyone you know. If you have to go on the run, and everyone you've ever talked to for more than 15 minutes is listed on Facebook, you're not going to have many places to hide. I am "friends" with only a handful of people, mostly close family, which doesn't really expose any new relationships.

[route66]

The people in your network and their habits might tell more about you than you think. http://www.google.nl/search?q=social+network+graph+analysis .

Not to forget the images tagged with your name ...

[msh]

Well, reporters who write about privacy issues dont have to agree with mister moglens view, so you cant says it like that.

But unfortunatly I think he might be right... but well back to facebook for me, what's an socialmedia addict to do other than go find the next fix ;)