Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

“Hands off our users’ data” say Apple, Google to FBI. “That’s ours!”

The FBI has been dealt a serious blow today, after Apple, Google, Twitter and Facebook banded together to take a stand against “anyone but us tampering with your private data and personal information.”

The union between these massive conglomerates and companies released a joint statement today, blasting the FBI’s desire to have a 'back door' into users' devices and saying that no government agency or outside entity that wasn’t a listed subsidiary of their parent organisations had the right to invade into users’ private spheres.

“We have to take a stand for what is right,” said the letter, which was co-signed by Jack Dorsey (CEO of Twitter), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Sundar Pichai (CEO of Google) and Marissa Mayer who apparently still thinks Yahoo is a thing. “We can’t just let anyone who isn’t one of our technicians, marketing data analysts, stockholders or data miners tamper with or collect our user’s personal information and private data. That would be hugely unethical. “

“To let a company that isn’t us have a free back-door into your divide and personal data would simply be just wrong.”

The letter continued:

“The repercussions of giving organisations who aren’t us - and who didn’t legally bind you with that other document we published but you didn’t read (our user Terms and Condition) - unfettered access to your data is unimaginably dangerous,” it read. “If we let [the FBI] access our data, then they might mine it for demographic data, user trends and usage patterns to create billion-dollar ad-placement algorithms and targeted marketing.”

“Or even worse, they could find your deleted search history.”


Apple now says it would redouble its efforts to protect its devices and software.

“We would never let anyone ever interfere with your device without our permission,” they said. “It doesn’t matter if it’s the FBI or a phone repairman fixing your screen of home button in a country without registered Apple repairmen. We would rather totally lock anyone – even legitimate users – out of their devices forever and render them completely unusable forcing you to buy another one than see your private information fall into the hands of someone who isn’t a registered subsidiary of Apple, Inc.”

The united companies were resilient in their defiance.

“We would never give any outside government organisation your personal data,” they said. “Well, except maybe for PRISM and the National Security Agency. But no one else, scout’s honour, cross our hearts!”

However, the FBI has since backed off from its demands, saying it realises “if we got into your phones and Facebook feeds we’d have to sift through all your incredibly boring drivel on social media only to find out you’re not a crazed ISIS cell member.”

However, user reactions have been mixed.

“It’s outrageous!” said one Apple user, Amabaya Nufone. “I have lots of top-secret, sensitive information on my phone. If all those SMSes to my mom, those funny memes my friends sent me over Whatsapp, or my browsing history were to get into the hands of the FBI, who knows what awful things they would do it?”

“I think the FBI are right: we should support them and hand over all our personal information,” said another. “If the cost of protecting our hard-won freedom and democracy is just sacrificing a couple of freedoms and democratic rights, then that’s a price we should all pay gladly. “

“I shudder to think of the future if things continue like this. We could soon be living in an extremist state where you have no privacy or rights and your every movement is scrutinised by fundamentalists dedicated to their particular beliefs – and that's just the government. I haven’t even mentioned what ISIS might do!”

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Facebook's lawyers destroyed by simple status

Facebook’s legal team is in stunned silence today, after their seemingly airtight, carefully constructed and extensive 134-page Terms and Conditions legal agreement was undone and nullified by a simple Facebook status.

“When we first started this company all those years ago, we knew we would have to have legal safeguards in place to control content, oversee copyright management, and provide a general set of user terms and conditions that apply equally across our user database,” said the legal team in a lengthy statement this morning, “but how were we to know that a twenty-something-year old in South Africa would have the legal genius to undo all our care and work in one simple ten-sentence status? It was sheer brilliance.”

Facebook now says that, despite their document’s apparent legal strength and imperviousness, this new disclaimer, containing just twenty lines of text, was like kryptonite on an Achilles tendon made of glass.

“It hit us like a sack of bricks,” they said. “I mean, quoting the Rome Statute – a document usually reserved for outlining a court’s jurisdiction, structure and internal processes – was just, wow, incredible. We never saw it coming.”

The creator of the post, who is amazingly neither a law student nor legal expert in any way - says that beating the system like he did requires nothing but clever manoeuvring.

“When you sign up for Facebook and tick the box that says you have read and understood their terms and conditions of service and use, there are all kinds of nasty controls put on your photographs and all your user information that you upload,” said Andy Vokate, whose work has gone on to protect many thousands of enlightened, seasoned internet users, “but when you stumble upon some very clever legal arguments that some companies don’t want you to discover, you’ll see that these contracts are not worth the .txt file they’re written on.”

These legal arguments are incredible, say legal experts.

“We know this argument will be very powerful in court because it’s filled with all kinds of law words and legal phrases like ‘articles’ and ‘hereby’ and, geez, ‘tacitly’. Oh, and ‘foregoing’!” said legal counsel Eric Manders. “And an even more hard-hitting part of the argument is citing UCC 1 1-308 – 308 1 -103 and codes L.111, 112 and 113. Personally, I would quote paragraph 123 subsection a1 of L ACB 123456 or the infamous precendent of Hugh Justin v. May Dissup, but this is as good.”

He added that most judges were amenable to arguments like “really, who even reads these long confusing things? We all know everyone just scrolls to the bottom and clicks ‘Accept’.”

“Especially if they’re an iTunes user,” he said.

However, this post may have opened the floodgates for public legal declarations and defences, with this judiciary tactic being applied to many other industries and services.


“With this new resurgence of customer legal protection, companies are now being force to issue counter legal statuses on Twitter and Facebook,” said Manders. “Pretty soon, we’ll be seeing counter-counter-legal-announcements, and counter-counter-counter-counter notices. It’ll be like Inception, but with more law and less confusion.”

Whatever controversy arises, judges and Facebook users alike agree on one very simple fact: that this definitely is not a hoax.

“This is perfectly sound legal advice,” they said. “I mean, if it wasn’t, would it really be copied and pasted by hundreds of other people? I don’t think so.“


Legal notice: by reading this you agree that I my writing is awesome and flawless and beyond reproach, and deserves some kind of a medal or something. You also agree to share this article with friends and family at least eighteen times.