[jeremy6d]

The problem with Facebook is not that government has access to it -- at least, that's not a problem unique to FB (Gmail, as one commenter says, is probably worse in terms of raw access to personal details). The problem with Facebook is that it is personal details specifically organized into a dossier-like format. It's one thing for the NSA, for instance, to be able to tap into the hose of undifferentiated data streaming through the network. It's quite another thing for that data to be specifically organized for the purposes of quickly discovering key information about somebody, such as their social network, their political interests, their latest photos, etc. all indexed and searchable. Think about the cost of taking Gmail's data and turning it into something useable by intelligence organizations -- work that FB "empowers" us to do for them!

What we need are tools that allow us to connect in ways that are difficult not only to detect but also to make sense of (not necessarily encryption, but an ad-hoc format that can't be easily parsed and aggregated). We need the ability to use the network for our own particular, peculiar interests rather than having to fit our interactions into some other authority's template for their interests. The idea that social networking never occurred before Friendster, FB, MySpace is ridiculous -- it just happened more informally before.

I'd like to see a return to this informal mode of using TCP/IP, where the internet itself is the social network rather than merely a transport layer for some centralized system. This may make it harder for everyday people to benefit, but it also means they learn how to drive before they use the roads. Social networking's hyped-up promise has always been to passively connect people, but the promise of the internet has always been to allow people to actively connect (or not connect). Once we have a broader suite of tools for this latter purpose, we'll see people reject centralized dossier services like FB.

[resu_nimda]

> What we need are tools that allow us to connect in ways that are difficult not only to detect but also to make sense of (not necessarily encryption, but an ad-hoc format that can't be easily parsed and aggregated).

Which would also make it much more difficult to use and less useful. We've organized our info this way because we like it and it makes sense, it's no surprise that it's useful to the government as well. In other words, I think the value to us and the value to them are very tightly coupled.

And the thing is, outside of the hardcore techie bubble, most people don't care. So what if the government can see their friends and pictures, even track them to some degree? Why should they care? They're not going to migrate to some convoluted unstructured system just for the abstract and esoteric benefit of privacy.

[jeremy6d]

> Which would also make it much more difficult to use and less useful.

Maybe. As somebody who's worked in content management system design for a great deal of his career, I'm not at all convinced that the ongoing enclosure of information into systems of formatting serves people. Instead, what you find is people jumping through hoops to fit their information into the format chosen by others. Paul Goodman critiqued the tyranny of format 50 years ago, and Douglas Rushkoff authored the natural extension of this critique in his seminal "Program or Be Programmed". The promise of the internet has to be more than giving people text boxes, or I give up. :)

> We've organized our info this way because we like it and it makes sense, it's no surprise that it's useful to the government as well.

Really? The users of FB have decided that this is the way they'd like to organize their information? Surprising. I never recall in my use of FB being given the ability to structure the format as I and my friends see fit. I must have missed something.

In all seriousness, I think we need to look very carefully at this coupling of value you speak of. There are almost certainly areas where the format chosen by an authority (a corporation, a government, any institution really) is that that free individuals would choose. But not every area, and as the information gets more personal, the format becomes more restrictive. I'm not sure where the line between sharing on one's own terms and another's terms gets crossed, but any network that can aggregate detailed information about BILLIONS of people has certainly crossed it. The question is simply whether or not we should be content with this situation.

[jeremy6d]

A CMS is essentially a collection of keys and values. The format prescribes the keys, and the user fills in the values.

All I'm suggesting is that we design the keys ourselves. If that makes communication more difficult, perhaps it's also true that not all communication needs to be universally legible.

[foobarqux]

A Freedombox-style approach wouldn't be substantially more difficult to use or substantially less useful. It is more difficult to build, however.

[deanclatworthy]

This is interesting, and I had the same thought reading the article. One approach might be for the user to store the information on their own computer, and only when they enter (login) the social network, does their information become available, and only to those that they specifically give access to.