7:52 pm ET
Dec 2, 2010


House Committee Asks Professor to Censor Facebook Remarks

    • "Congress tries to foster highest level of decorum....." Funny......

    • I'm with Moglen when he says: “We already have a world where more than half a billion people put everything they say and do in one great big database owned by a single for profit business.”


      If you want to put your life out there, that is your affair. If the site hosting your public data has access to your private data that's OK too provided it is disclosed what they have and what they have a right to do with that data.

      But if you choose NOT to put your private life out there, you ought not to be victimized by tracking technology or any kind of surveillance, any more than you ought to be able to peep into people's windows at night or stalk them physically.

      “How much surveillance is socially tolerable?” “How much are we prepared to abandon our traditional understanding that what we do in our daily life is nobody’s business except those with whom we choose to share?”

    • Why should the testimony not be released immediately without modification? Let the person who is giving the testimony say what they want!


    • If there's a bunch of consumers who want "do not track" internet service then some enterprising individual will create it and sell it to them. If there's just a bunch of whining professors from universities complaining about internet privacy, then the government will have to step in and protect their precious privacy.

      This is ridiculous. When you go online, you know that you that companies are tracking you. If you don't like it, turn off your computer.

      I would trust Facebook with my personal data more than I would any government. Governments can do so much more damage with information than any private company could ever imagine.

    • facebook is a big demo/ obama $ contributer. Hence the requirment to control speach

    • if these elected officials feel that saying bad things about certain companies (eg. his monied backers like the surveillance-for-profit Facebook) will hurt their re-election bid, they should also consider that the people who vote them into office who can change their mind at such conduct like asking people to censor themselves.

    • 1) I have no sympathy for individuals who don't censor themselves, realizing that there is access to everything they post and managing that access to those they want to see it (and that they can't prevent the site owner from seeing it).

      2) What are the chances the federal government will sign up to the "do not surveil" limitation too - at least not without a warrant (for criminals) or individual permission (for government employees and contractors who need a level of reliability)?

Add a Comment


About Digits


    • Digits on Twitter