Abe wrote to the mailing list ppnz@googlegroups.com on 13/06:
...
Julian Assange:
"Facebook, in particular, is the most appalling spying machine that has ever been invented. Here we have the world’s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other, their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US intelligence. Facebook, Google, Yahoo – all these major US organizations have built-in interfaces for US intelligence. It’s not a matter of serving a subpoena – they have an interface that they have developed for US intelligence to use.
Now, is it the case that Facebook is actually run by US intelligence?
No, it’s not like that. It’s simply that US intelligence is able to bring to bear legal and political pressure to them. And it’s costly for them to hand out records, one by one, so they have automated the process. Everyone should understand that when they add their friends to Facebook, they are doing free work for United States’ intelligence agencies, in building this database for them."

Watch Assange's statement here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp8rJVWC2a0&t=1m50s
...
Europe versus Facebook:
"It is almost impossible for the user to really know what happens to his or her personal data when using facebook. For example “removed” content is not really deleted by facebook and it is often unclear what facebook exactly does with our data. Users have to deal with vague and contradictory privacy policies and cannot fully estimate the consequences of using facebook."

All their legal complaints can be found here:
http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Complaints/complaints.html

The complaints by "Europe versus Facebook" are also relevant to every user in New Zealand because they also have, on accepting Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, entered a contract with Facebook Ireland Limited:
"19. Other 1. If you are a resident of or have your principal place of business in the US or Canada, this Statement is an agreement between you and Facebook, Inc. Otherwise, this Statement is an agreement between you and Facebook Ireland Limited. References to “us,” “we,” and “our” mean either Facebook, Inc. or Facebook Ireland Limited, as appropriate."

Caution, link goes to Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
...
ConsumerReports.org:
"But how much information is really being collected about you? How is it being used? And could it fall into the wrong hands?"
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/06/facebook-your-privacy/index.htm
"Protect your privacy on Facebook - ... control what others see and know about you - Deactivate or delete your account"
http://www.consumerreports.org/content/cro/en/electronics-computers/facebook-privacy-tips.html

Wikileaks has the responsibility to protect whistle-blower heroes who are risking liberty and life to expose corruption and injustice and Assange is quite right to avoid Facebook. The pirate party, on the contrary, is dedicated to transparency in politics and looks hypocritical when it appears to hide behind a veil of secrecy.

The individual, on the other hand, has the absolute right to privacy and ownership of their information. But also the right to give, sell or barter that information to other parties as they see fit and the right to withdraw that information at any time. This is guaranteed under EU law but is compromised by corporate power and official corruption.

It is the job of the pirate party to ensure adequate legislation is in place to reign in the corporations and to lift the veil placed over the proper monitoring of those laws.

Eventually we should have the right to see what information is held by whom and how it is being used with the power to correct or delete same.

The difference is like warning people not to drink from a desert well producing cyanide contaminated water or removing the source of the contamination. They will still drink so the effort is best put into the second alternative.

Andrew

Maybe this link is also helpful?
http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Get_you ... data_.html

I know I said five days discussion, but since the discussion on this is still quite active I'm holding off declaring a vote open so that we're sure to include all the appropriate options and opinions.. hope that's OK with everyone.

(Also I'm not sure how we run votes)

ALL options? so like, next year some time?

I don't think that's the right approach to take. We have so many policies we still don't have even a starting point on. Waiting for everything to be just right is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and stopping other equally important things from being discussed.

If we somehow miss a really crucial option, well that's what the "W: no confidence in the vote" is for. We should be aiming to get many good policies, not one or two perfect ones.

also, 5 days is what I recommended for an absolute minimum. I think the standard one used so far is a week or two? (James g?). 2 weeks more time should be plenty, even if the discussion isn't *finished* by the time you announce it.

my 2c

Exactly my feeling.

Plus people might say "OH NOES, Facebook has all this information about you!!!!111"

But perhaps I WANT them to have it? I find it very useful how I'm able to easily connect with a wide range of friends (or future friends ) thanks to FB leveraging what they know about me and them, and I like how I can easily share my thoughts and discuss ideas by using Facebook.

Have the anti-Facebook people here considered for a moment that the elements which they hate are actually a feature not a flaw! lol



True, perfect is the enemy of good.


Yeah, I think a week or two is better than 5 days.



I'm not sure I like the direction that is going on.... how do we determine what is "obfuscation" or what is not? If it is longer than 5 page, or 2 pages? If it doesn't use words with more than four syllables?

People should be free to use whatever services they like, don't treat all people as idiots (even if some are) that must get everything explicitly spelled out to them to "protect themselves".

Absolutely

I think the discussion is still quite productive, and hasn't collapsed into pointless bickering. And also I need to talk to you about how we usually run the votes. In two weeks time there may still be 'discussion' but I don't think much of it will bring up anything new. I do plan to have a vote before we get to that point.

How about two votes as "Where, if anywhere, should the disclaimer be placed?" and "What, if anything, should the disclaimer say?"?

The last couple were officially Condorcet with IR/STV as a tie-breaker rather than Condorcet with Schulze (although the tie-breaker's never been needed anyway, so it hasn't made any difference), and yes, it'll be by e-mail to caucus [EDIT: or at least I assume so, because I haven't heard otherwise].

Here's one: Privacy & Social networks <http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=X7gWEgHeXcA> (OTOH I like that clip from Julian Assange)

They may still drink, but if they're warned, they might drink a bit less. [EDIT: Yeah, removing the contamination would be better, especially if we could ensure that it would remain uncontaminated, but since the well belongs to someone else, I can't see how we could do this besides switching people to a public key encrypted P2P water distribution network.]

LOL that is taking a dodgy analogy a bit far but I love it.

Another thing about FB is that it is turning into an important political propaganda vehicle using visual imagery. The Pirate Parties and Anonymous have some seriously talented people pumping out fantastic graphics.
here is an article from politifact http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/22/Political-messages-proliferate-on-Facebook/

Voting opens on 2/7/2012 (First week of July) for PPNZ policy on the Facebook disclaimer. The closing date for voting is 11 pm on Monday 7/07/2012. Votes will be counted by the Schulze method (which performs strategic voting on voters' behalf). The results will be posted in this thread. Except in the case of a tie, the winning option will become official internal policy.

There are two parts to this vote, plus a 'no confidence' option for anyone who feels that none of the available options are acceptable.

Where, if anywhere, should the disclaimer be placed?

• [A] Mandatory absence of a disclaimer
• [B] No policy, presence, placement and wording of any disclaimers to be decided by the folk who run the Facebook account
• [C] No disclaimer, but we should post comment on facebook privacy concerns regularly so people are reminded of the issue.
• [D] Disclaimer in a location less prominent than the 'about' description, to be decided by further discussion.
• [E] Disclaimer in the current location (in the 'about' description)
• [W] No confidence in the vote (if you use this option, you must place it first)

What, if anything, should the disclaimer say?

• [F] "Some of the Pirate Party membership have concerns about Facebook and privacy as outlined here (link to an appropriate article about Facebook privacy concerns). Because of this we'd prefer you participate with us on our website rather than only on Facebook, so that all of our membership can feel comfortable taking part in the discussion."
• [G] "Since you're here, there's a good chance you're pretty tech literate and privacy conscious. You probably already know that Facebook's default privacy settings aren't very private, and you probably already know that whatever your settings, the privacy of your posts ultimately depends on the discretion of Facebook's admins. But we thought we'd mention it anyway, just in case."
• [H] "The Pirate Party of New Zealand have some reservations about the privacy implications of using Facebook (make this a link to an article about privacy implications of using Facebook). We're here because it's a way to connect with people who otherwise might not find us, but now that we have your attention we would much prefer you engage with us on our website at http://pirateparty.org.nz/"
• [I] "Please be aware that facebook is tracking all activities on facebook and pages showing their like button and use of facebook removes your rights under the privacy act 1993."
• [J] "We think you're all stupid for using facebook, but since you've already made your decision, we're willing to engage with you here."
• [W] No confidence in the vote (if you use this option, you must place it first)

Members can cast their vote by sending an e-mail (from the account they put on their membership application) of the following form:[quote]To: <caucus@pirateparty.org.nz>
Subject: Policy vote on Facebook Disclaimer
T > U > V
X > Y > Z
A separate line should be used for each issue that you wish to vote on. In the place of 'T > U > V', and "X > Y > Z", include the letters that indicate your options in order of preference, separated by the greater than sign '>'. (It is also valid to separate options with the equal sign, for example "X > Y = Z" to indicate that you give Y and Z equal rankings.) You can vote on one issue, or all of them, or any number in between. For each issue you can include 1 option, or all of them, or any number in between, and including more options will not harm the chances of earlier options being successful. Only if the earlier options do not have enough support to be successful will the Condorcet method shift your vote to later options.