This is why we need Diaspora

http://sankarabharanam.tk/tech/why-diaspora

by ragsagar • 13 years ago

4 5 13 years ago

antimagic2• 13 years ago

No, it really isn't. If you are using Facebook or Twitter with anything other than an expectation that the information is public (in the sense that US law enforcement can look in), then frankly you deserve everything you get. These are networks that exist for the sole purpose of sharing data. They are optimised for sharing, not for privacy, and this is how it should be. If you don't like it, don't put sensitive information on social networks.

The really concerning news out of all of this is that services like Gmail, Google Docs, Dropbox and other services that are more aimed at synchronising data than with sharing it are being targeted by law enforcement. In these cases we have a much more reasonable expectation of a certain level of freedom from governmental scrutiny.

Even more concerning is the invasion into the privacy of point-to-point communications, Skype, various chat programs etc. Obviously there are some grey areas in this distinction - where does Facebook chat fall for example. My personal feeling is to go back and look at the main purpose of the site in question - when I am on Facebook I feel like things are public. When I'm exchanging emails with a friend, it feels much more private. An email to a group of friends on the other hand does not feel anywhere near as private as a one on one exchange. Meh - these kinds of distinctions are precisely why we have human beings known as "judges" in the legal system.

At any rate I for one would not feel any more secure and private when using a Diaspora-style architecture than when I'm using Facebook. Why? because the whole point of social networks is to share, not to hide. If you really want to hide stuff, use encrypted point to point communications methods, preferably buried in a near-constant traffic stream that ideally bounces off servers in several different countries. You'll note that this level of security is many many orders of magnitude more difficult, but that's normal - sharing and security are diametrically opposed.

ragsagar• 13 years ago

So you are saying that social networking sites like facebook and twitter are only for public sharing? You never do private messaging with your friends in these social networking sites? Do you want people to look at those private messages?

antimagic2• 13 years ago

Exactly. The only reason that I use private messaging on Facebook is when I don't want to spam my friends. I do not use private messaging out of concern for privacy.

balasankarc• 13 years ago

What about controlled sharing? You may want to share something with someone and them only. Would you like others to see it? (Here others being the government). Sharing just doesn't always mean speaking out loud. It can also mean whispering to your friends. As social networking sites became the present day's trend, encrypting a mail and then sending it to attain privacy might look a heavy job. With diaspora, you can save that headache, when you attain privacy along with sharing. IMO, it's a double treat..

j4v4m4n• 13 years ago

I don't think it is either privacy or sharing. We have the technology to share privately, the challenge is to make it accessible to more people easily. The issue with centralized networks is, they are built to spy and sell data. I understand the importance of social networks as a great media and believe we can do better than how facebook, twitter and google + does it. Diaspora is an effort in the right direction. If we delegate the responsibility of running our communications to corporates whose business model is based on selling our data, then we have a problem. We have to take control of our communication infrastructure and projects like diaspora and Freedom Box are attempts in the right direction.

This is why we need Diaspora

Related Stories