[stfu]

What I find interesting is, that now the but think of the innocent children argument is also getting adapted by the corporate world to justify incredible privacy invasions.

Facebook's mass wiretapping and analysis of its users private communication seems almost like the post office scanning each and ever letter and postcard in the vague hope of finding some keywords related to bomb, terror and of cause "children". I wonder how long it is going to take until Google is going to send automated notifications to my local police station when I'm going to start googeling some water bomb tutorials for the summer.

[marshray]

This is a sincere question: Why would you think Facebook chat would be "private communication"?

[cwe]

Do you consider SMS private communications? Your cellphone carrier is just as likely to eavesdrop on your SMS history as FB does your chats.

[marshray]

> Do you consider SMS private communications?

That question has a complex answer. In short: not really.

Unfortunately, I know a little too much about phone networks to have a representative answer. I know very little about Facebook, except that its users usually attribute to it more privacy than it really offers. Trying to understand why that is is the reason for my question.

[yk]

Yes. On one hand there are quite strong laws about privacy for phone companies and second I pay them. By contrast, I would not pay FB even if I had an account. Their entire business model is, that they are selling private data. ( Technically it is unfortunately neither for FB nor for telcos a problem to eavesdrop.)

[personlurking]

There's an illusion in online communication that makes the average user think any particular message they send is like physically handing a message to another person. Using Gmail as an example, sure, your email goes to the right person, but you first send it to/through Gmail. They just happen to pass it along to the recipient.

[sp332]

I consider FB chats to be much less private because they actually get stored on a server somewhere by default. Also I can access them anywhere with an internet account. Neither of these things are true of SMS.

[mahyarm]

There is nothing preventing your SMSs being saved in a telco DB. I'm fairly certain they are.

[dredmorbius]

AT&T cops to saving SMS messages, not just "pen trace" (sender/recipient data), for up to 72 hours. For "delivery purposes" only. Though the release I read doesn't specify to whom.

http://gizmodo.com/349308/verizon-att-respect-your-sms-priva...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jdawg/93928749/

[sp332]

Well sure it might be, but it doesn't have to. FB messages always get saved, no question.

[adventureful]

FB chat messages don't have to be saved either.

[einhverfr]

It would be covered under the Stored Communications Act. Unfortunately reading the act it looks like it is up for debate as to whether they are breaking the law. The Stored Communications Act allows voluntary disclosure when two things are true:

1) The communications were inadvertently obtained and 2) The communication appears to pertain to commission of a crime.

I don't think you can classify this as inadvertent. So I wonder if Facebook can be sued.

There is one way to find out. Create a decoy post, hear from law enforcement, and sue Facebook.

[ritchiea]

I am pretty sure "but think of the children" is exactly the sort of thinking that goes into a program designed to stop child predators. I don't get the freakout here. Facebook communication is not private communication and they're clearly targeting child predators. Now obviously it could creep/evolve to target other types of crime but I still think communication over Facebook is not private and it's silly if one is surprised to find that out. Outrage over this feature is a step short of saying "well how come concerned citizens are allowed to notify the police when a man in public is exhibiting the behavior of a child predator?"