Assange on Facebook

rocketsjudoka · May 3, 2011

Invisible Fan said: ↑

"Disappearing" people is pretty rare for Western nations, but using personal information from social media to discredit you, tarnish your name in front of your peers and family, or even influencing your wife and children for silence is real in our context.

Various groups might even do something as farfetched as labeling you a rapist and issuing warrants without merit.

Are many whistleblowers/activists willing to cross that line when they're normal people with normal interests who happen to dabble in Facebook to feel connected with their community?
Click to expand...

Yes that could happen but at the same time you can use the power of social media to try and counter act that.

Don FakeFan · May 3, 2011

That's exactly why China or every other country should ban google, facebook, Yahoo and twitter. These CIA tools will do no good to anyone.

Ubiquitin · May 3, 2011

opps. accidentally stumbled into a thread of kooks. I'll see myself out, thanks.

Invisible Fan · May 3, 2011

rocketsjudoka said: ↑

Yes that could happen but at the same time you can use the power of social media to try and counter act that.
Click to expand...

I guess so, but we're playing under house odds with liberties (in this case, privacy laws that required court orders to get past) that we assumed we had.

Azadre said: ↑

opps. accidentally stumbled into a thread of kooks. I'll see myself out, thanks.
Click to expand...

you'll see...you'll see...you'll see...

Invisible Fan · May 17, 2011

Apparently since post 9/11, the NSA already performs warrantless domestic surveillance taps on a huge scale through a program (or neutered variant) called ThinThread.

Put this as a mighty un-Like on the Facebook and watch the power of social media counteract this!!

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=3

Binney expressed terrible remorse over the way some of his algorithms were used after 9/11. ThinThread, the “little program” that he invented to track enemies outside the U.S., “got twisted,” and was used for both foreign and domestic spying: “I should apologize to the American people. It’s violated everyone’s rights. It can be used to eavesdrop on the whole world.” According to Binney, Drake took his side against the N.S.A.’s management and, as a result, became a political target within the agency.

Binney spent most of his career at the agency. In 1997, he became the technical director of the World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group, a division of six thousand employees which focusses on analyzing signals intelligence. By the late nineties, the N.S.A. had become overwhelmed by the amount of digital data it was collecting. Binney and his team began developing codes aimed at streamlining the process, allowing the agency to isolate useful intelligence. This was the beginning of ThinThread.

In the late nineties, Binney estimated that there were some two and a half billion phones in the world and one and a half billion I.P. addresses. Approximately twenty terabytes of unique information passed around the world every minute. Binney started assembling a system that could trap and map all of it. “I wanted to graph the world,” Binney said. “People said, ‘You can’t do this—the possibilities are infinite.’ ” But he argued that “at any given point in time the number of atoms in the universe is big, but it’s finite.”

As Binney imagined it, ThinThread would correlate data from financial transactions, travel records, Web searches, G.P.S. equipment, and any other “attributes” that an analyst might find useful in pinpointing “the bad guys.” By 2000, Binney, using fibre optics, had set up a computer network that could chart relationships among people in real time. It also turned the N.S.A.’s data-collection paradigm upside down. Instead of vacuuming up information around the world and then sending it all back to headquarters for analysis, ThinThread processed information as it was collected—discarding useless information on the spot and avoiding the overload problem that plagued centralized systems. Binney says, “The beauty of it is that it was open-ended, so it could keep expanding.”

Pilot tests of ThinThread proved almost too successful, according to a former intelligence expert who analyzed it. “It was nearly perfect,” the official says. “But it processed such a large amount of data that it picked up more Americans than the other systems.” Though ThinThread was intended to intercept foreign communications, it continued documenting signals when a trail crossed into the U.S. This was a big problem: federal law forbade the monitoring of domestic communications without a court warrant. And a warrant couldn’t be issued without probable cause and a known suspect. In order to comply with the law, Binney installed privacy controls and added an “anonymizing feature,” so that all American communications would be encrypted until a warrant was issued. The system would indicate when a pattern looked suspicious enough to justify a warrant.

But this was before 9/11, and the N.S.A.’s lawyers deemed ThinThread too invasive of Americans’ privacy.
Click to expand...

In the weeks after the attacks, rumors began circulating inside the N.S.A. that the agency, with the approval of the Bush White House, was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—the 1978 law, known as FISA, that bars domestic surveillance without a warrant. Years later, the rumors were proved correct. In nearly total secrecy, and under pressure from the White House, Hayden sanctioned warrantless domestic surveillance. The new policy, which lawyers in the Justice Department justified by citing President Bush’s executive authority as Commander-in-Chief, contravened a century of constitutional case law. Yet, on October 4, 2001, Bush authorized the policy, and it became operational by October 6th. Bamford, in “The Shadow Factory,” suggests that Hayden, having been overcautious about privacy before 9/11, swung to the opposite extreme after the attacks. Hayden, who now works for a security-consulting firm, declined to respond to detailed questions about the surveillance program.

When Binney heard the rumors, he was convinced that the new domestic-surveillance program employed components of ThinThread: a bastardized version, stripped of privacy controls. “It was my brainchild,” he said. “But they removed the protections, the anonymization process. When you remove that, you can target anyone.” He said that although he was not “read in” to the new secret surveillance program, “my people were brought in, and they told me, ‘Can you believe they’re doing this? They’re getting billing records on U.S. citizens! They’re putting pen registers’ ”—logs of dialled phone numbers—“ ‘on everyone in the country!’ ”

Drake recalled that, after the October 4th directive, “strange things were happening. Equipment was being moved. People were coming to me and saying, ‘We’re now targeting our own country!’ ” Drake says that N.S.A. officials who helped the agency obtain FISA warrants were suddenly reassigned, a tipoff that the conventional process was being circumvented. He added, “I was concerned that it was illegal, and none of it was necessary.” In his view, domestic data mining “could have been done legally” if the N.S.A. had maintained privacy protections. “But they didn’t want an accountable system.”

Aid, the author of the N.S.A. history, suggests that ThinThread’s privacy protections interfered with top officials’ secret objective—to pick American targets by name. “They wanted selection, not just collection,” he says.
Click to expand...

Drake says that in the Air Force, where he learned to capture electronic signals, the FISA law “was drilled into us.” He recalls, “If you accidentally intercepted U.S. persons, there were special procedures to expunge it.” The procedures had been devised to prevent the recurrence of past abuses, such as Nixon’s use of the N.S.A. to spy on his political enemies.

Drake didn’t know the precise details, but he sensed that domestic spying “was now being done on a vast level.” He was dismayed to hear from N.S.A. colleagues that “arrangements” were being made with telecom and credit-card companies. He added, “The mantra was ‘Get the data!’ ” The transformation of the N.S.A., he says, was so radical that “it wasn’t just that the brakes came off after 9/11—we were in a whole different vehicle.”
Click to expand...

Binney, for his part, believes that the agency now stores copies of all e-mails transmitted in America, in case the government wants to retrieve the details later. In the past few years, the N.S.A. has built enormous electronic-storage facilities in Texas and Utah. Binney says that an N.S.A. e-mail database can be searched with “dictionary selection,” in the manner of Google. After 9/11, he says, “General Hayden reassured everyone that the N.S.A. didn’t put out dragnets, and that was true. It had no need—it was getting every fish in the sea.”

Binney considers himself a conservative, and, as an opponent of big government, he worries that the N.S.A.’s data-mining program is so extensive that it could help “create an Orwellian state.” Whereas wiretap surveillance requires trained human operators, data mining is automated, meaning that the entire country can be watched. Conceivably, U.S. officials could “monitor the Tea Party, or reporters, whatever group or organization you want to target,” he says. “It’s exactly what the Founding Fathers never wanted.”
Click to expand...

Not long after Binney quit the N.S.A., he says, he confided his concerns about the secret surveillance program to Diane Roark, a staff member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which oversees the agency

....
Roark agrees that she distrusted the N.S.A.’s managers. “I asked very tough questions, because they were trying to hide stuff,” she says. “For instance, I wasn’t supposed to know about the warrantless surveillance. They were all determined that no one else was going to tell them what to do.”

...

Roark, who had substantial influence over N.S.A. budget appropriations, was an early champion of Binney’s ThinThread project. She was dismayed, she says, to hear that it had evolved into a means of domestic surveillance, and felt personally responsible. Her oversight committee had been created after Watergate specifically to curb such abuses. “It was my duty to oppose it,” she told me. “That is why oversight existed, so that these things didn’t happen again. I’m not an attorney, but I thought that there was no way it was constitutional.” Roark recalls thinking that, if N.S.A. officials were breaking the law, she was “going to fry them.”

She soon learned that she was practically alone in her outrage. Very few congressional leaders had been briefed on the program, and some were apparently going along with it, even if they had reservations. Starting in February, 2002, Roark says, she wrote a series of memos warning of potential illegalities and privacy breaches and handed them to the staffers for Porter Goss, the chairman of her committee, and Nancy Pelosi, its ranking Democrat. But nothing changed. (Pelosi’s spokesman denied that she received such memos, and pointed out that a year earlier Pelosi had written to Hayden and expressed grave concerns about the N.S.A.’s electronic surveillance.)

...

Roark, feeling powerless, retired. Before leaving Washington, though, she learned that Hayden, who knew of her strong opposition to the surveillance program, wanted to talk to her. They met at N.S.A. headquarters on July 15, 2002. According to notes that she made after the meeting, Hayden pleaded with her to stop agitating against the program. He conceded that the policy would leak at some point, and told her that when it did she could “yell and scream” as much as she wished. Meanwhile, he wanted to give the program more time. She asked Hayden why the N.S.A. had chosen not to include privacy protections for Americans. She says that he “kept not answering. Finally, he mumbled, and looked down, and said, ‘We didn’t need them. We had the power.’ He didn’t even look me in the eye. I was flabbergasted.” She asked him directly if the government was getting warrants for domestic surveillance, and he admitted that it was not.

In an e-mail, Hayden confirmed that the meeting took place, but said that he recalled only its “broad outlines.” He noted that Roark was not “cleared to know about the expanded surveillance program, so I did not go into great detail.” [IF note: The NSA oversight committee "wasn't cleared" to know about dirty dealings of the NSA? Holy ****!]He added, “I assured her that I firmly believed that what N.S.A. was doing was effective, appropriate, and lawful. I also reminded her that the program’s success depended on it remaining secret, that it was appropriately classified, and that any public discussion of it would have to await a later day.”

During the meeting, Roark says, she warned Hayden that no court would uphold the program. Curiously, Hayden responded that he had already been assured by unspecified individuals that he could count on a majority of “the nine votes”—an apparent reference to the Supreme Court. According to Roark’s notes, Hayden told her that such a vote might even be 7–2 in his favor.

Roark couldn’t believe that the Supreme Court had been adequately informed of the N.S.A.’s transgressions, and she decided to alert Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, sending a message through a family friend. Once again, there was no response. She also tried to contact a judge on the FISA court, in Washington, which adjudicates requests for warrants sanctioning domestic surveillance of suspected foreign agents. But the judge had her assistant refer the call to the Department of Justice, which had approved the secret program in the first place. Roark says that she even tried to reach David Addington, the legal counsel to Vice-President Dick Cheney, who had once been her congressional colleague. He never called back, and Addington was eventually revealed to be one of the prime advocates for the surveillance program.

“This was such a Catch-22,” Roark says. “There was no one to go to.” In October, 2003, feeling “profoundly depressed,” she left Washington and moved to a small town in Oregon.
Click to expand...

President Bush and Administration officials assured the American public that the surveillance program was legal, although new legislation was eventually required to bring it more in line with the law. They insisted that the traditional method of getting warrants was too slow for the urgent threats posed by international terrorism. And they implied that the only domestic surveillance taking place involved tapping phone calls in which one speaker was outside the U.S.

Drake says of Bush Administration officials, “They were lying through their teeth. They had chosen to go an illegal route, and it wasn’t because they had no other choice.” He also believed that the Administration was covering up the full extent of the program. “The phone calls were the tip of the iceberg. The really sensitive stuff was the data mining.” He says, “I was faced with a crisis of conscience. What do I do—remain silent, and complicit, or go to the press?”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer#ixzz1MfYkKI00
Click to expand...

The rest of the article goes into the government's ridiculous crusade to hunt and prosecute potential leakers of the NYTimes warrantless wiretapping story (thus crippling First Amendment press rights through the guise that passing confidential info carries the intent for espionage), Roarke the former staffer in the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and finally Drake, who they later reduced the charges to petty bull**** that can still land him 35 years.

In April, 2010, Welch indicted Drake, shattering his hope for a reprieve from the Obama Administration. But the prosecution’s case had shrunk dramatically from the grand conspiracy initially laid out by Tyrrell. (Welch accidentally sent the defense team an early draft of the indictment, revealing how the case had changed.) Drake was no longer charged with leaking classified documents, or with being part of a conspiracy. He is still charged with violating the Espionage Act, but now merely because of unauthorized “willful retention” of the five documents. Drake says that when he learned that, even with the reduced charges, he still faced up to thirty-five years in prison, he “was completely aghast.”

Morton Halperin, of the Open Society Institute, says that the reduced charges make the prosecution even more outlandish: “If Drake is convicted, it means the Espionage Law is an Official Secrets Act.” Because reporters often retain unauthorized defense documents, Drake’s conviction would establish a legal precedent making it possible to prosecute journalists as spies. “It poses a grave threat to the mechanism by which we learn most of what the government does,” Halperin says.

The Espionage Act has rarely been used to prosecute leakers and whistle-blowers. Drake’s case is only the fourth in which the act has been used to indict someone for mishandling classified material. “It was meant to deal with classic espionage, not publication,” Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University who is an expert on the statute, says.

The first attempt to apply the law to leakers was the aborted prosecution, in 1973, of Daniel Ellsberg, a researcher at the RAND Corporation who was charged with disclosing the Pentagon Papers—a damning secret history of the Vietnam War. But the case was dropped, owing, in large part, to prosecutorial misconduct. The second such effort was the case of Samuel L. Morison, a naval intelligence officer who, in 1985, was convicted for providing U.S. photographs of a Soviet ship to Jane’s Defence Weekly. Morison was later pardoned by Bill Clinton. The third case was the prosecution, in 2005, of a Defense Department official, Lawrence Franklin, and two lobbyists for the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. Franklin pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, and the case against the lobbyists collapsed after the presiding judge insisted that prosecutors establish criminal intent. Unable to prove this, the Justice Department abandoned the case, amid criticism that the government had overreached.

Drake’s case also raises questions about double standards. In recent years, several top officials accused of similar misdeeds have not faced such serious charges. John Deutch, the former C.I.A. director, and Alberto Gonzales, the former Attorney General, both faced much less stringent punishment after taking classified documents home without authorization. In 2003, Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national-security adviser, smuggled classified documents out of a federal building, reportedly by hiding them in his pants. It was treated as a misdemeanor. His defense lawyer was Lanny Breuer—the official overseeing the prosecution of Drake.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who served in the Bush Justice Department, laments the lack of consistency in leak prosecutions. He notes that no investigations have been launched into the sourcing of Bob Woodward’s four most recent books, even though “they are filled with classified information that he could only have received from the top of the government.” Gabriel Schoenfeld, of the Hudson Institute, says, “The selectivity of the prosecutions here is nightmarish. It’s a broken system.”

Mark Feldstein, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, warns that, if whistle-blowers and other dissenters are singled out for prosecution, “this has gigantic repercussions. You choke off the information that the public needs to judge policy.”

Few people are more disturbed about Drake’s prosecution than the others who spoke out against the N.S.A. surveillance program. In 2008, Thomas Tamm, a Justice Department lawyer, revealed that he was one of the people who leaked to the Times. He says of Obama, “It’s so disappointing from someone who was a constitutional-law professor, and who made all those campaign promises.” The Justice Department recently confirmed that it won’t pursue charges against Tamm. Speaking before Congress, Attorney General Holder explained that “there is a balancing that has to be done . . . between what our national-security interests are and what might be gained by prosecuting a particular individual.” The decision provoked strong criticism from Republicans, underscoring the political pressures that the Justice Department faces when it backs off such prosecutions. Still, Tamm questions why the Drake case is proceeding, given that Drake never revealed anything as sensitive as what appeared in the Times. “The program he talked to the Baltimore Sun about was a failure and wasted billions of dollars,” Tamm says. “It’s embarrassing to the N.S.A., but it’s not giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”

Mark Klein, the former A.T. & T. employee who exposed the telecom-company wiretaps, is also dismayed by the Drake case. “I think it’s outrageous,” he says. “The Bush people have been let off. The telecom companies got immunity. The only people Obama has prosecuted are the whistle-blowers.”
Click to expand...

Other stuff from the article...Obama's use of the Espionage Act to prosecute whistleblowers (5) is more than all of the other past presidents combined.

The NSA in 6 hours, can download communications data equivalent to the entire contents of the Library of Congress.

Great thing we get to use the Twitter for these kinds of issues. I just wrote up a one sentence thesis about this after my post-mortem twit dissecting last night's chili.

NotInMyHouse · May 18, 2011

^ LOL. How was that chili?

rhadamanthus · May 18, 2011

Invisible Fan said: ↑

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=3
Click to expand...

I posted this in the "Obama Wiretapping" thread too, not sure which placement will harbor better discussion though...

Invisible Fan · May 18, 2011

NotInMyHouse said: ↑

^ LOL. How was that chili?
Click to expand...

@NotInMyHouse: Fire in the Hole

rhadamanthus · May 25, 2011

Moderately on topic:

I saw parts of the frontline special on wikileaks....what a load of propagandized crap.

Greg Mitchell:

The mountain labored, and in the end, it gave birth to a mouse. Or rather, a goldfish. One of the only bits of new information in the much-ballyhooded PBS Frontline program on WikiLeaks, Assange and Bradley Manning which aired tonight was: The man who fingered Manning, Adrian Lamo, secluded in California, has a large goldfish in his apartment.

The other scoop: It was Manning’s aunt who made the final update to his Facebook page, announcing his arrest. Come to think of it, maybe that one came out before. But we’ve still got that goldfish.

The rest of the program, from beginning to end, was nothing but re-hash, much of it from news reports going back to last June. We also heard from plenty of Assange critics making their usual and much-published charges. We absorbed multiple appearances by David Leigh, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Nick Davies, Bill Keller. Paging Glenn Greenwald! We did get a few seconds of Dan Ellsberg—at a rally.

It took Manning’s friend, David House, about 55 minutes in to remind viewers, and correspondent Martin Smith, that the soldier has not been convicted of anything. But you'd never know it from the program.
Click to expand...

rhadamanthus · Jun 8, 2011

Oh yeah, nothing with the potential for outrageous abuse here...

Facebook Turns On Facial Recognition, Prompting Concern
Security firm Sophos on Tuesday expressed concern that Facebook's facial-recognition technology had been turned on by default. The social-networking site acknowledged that it should have been more communicative about the service's roll-out, but did not announce plans to make it opt-in.
"Now might be a good time to check your Facebook privacy settings as many Facebook users are reporting that the site has enabled the option in the last few days without giving users any notice," Sophos' Graham Cluley wrote in a blog post.
Back in December, Facebook announced plans for facial-recognition technology intended to make it easier for people to tag photos of friends. Facebook said it would examine newly uploaded photos and compare them to other photos in which you or your friends are tagged in order to make tagging suggestions.
When it was announced, Facebook said it would test the service and listen to feedback before a full rollout. "We should have been more clear with people during the roll-out process when this became available to them," a Facebook spokesman said in a Tuesday statement.
Facebook is "rather creepily ... pushing your friends to go ahead and tag you," Cluley wrote. "Remember, Facebook does not give you any right to pre-approve tags. Instead the onus is on you to untag yourself in any photo a friend has tagged you in. After the fact."
Facebook, however, said the tool is simply intended to help users speed up a process that is "done more than 100 million times a day." Tag suggestions are made only when people upload photos and it only suggests friends.
"Tag Suggestions are now available in most countries and we'll post further updates to our blog over time," the Facebook spokesman said.
If you don't want facial recognition turned on, go to your Facebook account's privacy settings, click on "Customize settings," go to "Things others share" and find the option for "Suggest photos of me to friends." To see if it's enabled, click "Edit Settings" and the box should either say "enabled" or "disabled."
In April, Cluley published an open letter to Facebook that outlined three fundamental steps Facebook needed to take to better protect its users. That included a request for a "privacy by default" setting.
"Unfortunately, once again, Facebook seems to be sharing personal information by default," Cluley wrote today. "The onus should not be on Facebook users having to "opt-out" of the facial recognition feature, but instead on users having to 'opt-in.'"
Click to expand...

rocketsjudoka · Jun 8, 2011

Unfortunately Mark Zuckerberg doesn't believe in the concept of privacy.

rhadamanthus · Jun 8, 2011

So let's say you're not on facebook, but your friends and family tag your face in some pictures. There is nothing you can do about it.

And now, is it possible that you will auto-tagged with the facial recognition software for eternity with no recourse? It would be almost like having a 3rd-party "ghost" account of yourself on the site. This makes me very uncomfortable.

rocketsjudoka · Jun 8, 2011

rhadamanthus said: ↑

So let's say you're not on facebook, but your friends and family tag your face in some pictures. There is nothing you can do about it.

And now, is it possible that you will auto-tagged with the facial recognition software for eternity with no recourse? It would be almost like having a 3rd-party "ghost" account of yourself on the site. This makes me very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that you can't be "tagged" unless you are on facebook as the tag is like a link that links to your Facebook page. Also if you aren't on Facebook I don't know how they can get the base information to program into the facial recognition.

Your friends and family could still just list you in the caption to the photos.

rhadamanthus · Jun 8, 2011

rocketsjudoka said: ↑

My understanding is that you can't be "tagged" unless you are on facebook as the tag is like a link that links to your Facebook page. Also if you aren't on Facebook I don't know how they can get the base information to program into the facial recognition.

Your friends and family could still just list you in the caption to the photos.
Click to expand...

That was not my understanding. Can anyone here confirm if you can tag non-facebook members in photos on facebook? I have reasons to be suspicious....

Northside Storm · Jun 8, 2011

rhadamanthus said: ↑

That was not my understanding. Can anyone here confirm if you can tag non-facebook members in photos on facebook? I have reasons to be suspicious....
Click to expand...

You can tag non-members, but it's not a link or anything, it's pretty much a caption. Someone determined enough to look you up (say a private eye after your vast amount of riches, or a psychotic stalker girl you need to dump NOW) will be able to link multiple photos to you---but there's no comprehensive page that this leads to (since you don't have a Facebook). but honestly, most people just use the "non-members" features to tag ridiculous things and inside jokes, so most likely all of it is going to be lost. It would take someone truly determined to try to link together a set of pictures that do not link to each other, or are search-able in anyway.

Unless the CIA/NSA/FBI were following you or "THAT WOMAN BE CRAZYYYYY!", you've got little to worry about. and honestly, the only thing this could be used for assuming someone actually went to all the effort---is to gauge the awesomeness or shi**yness of the parties you attend.

rhadamanthus · Jun 8, 2011

Northside Storm said: ↑

It would take someone truly determined to try to link together a set of pictures that do not link to each other, or are search-able in anyway.
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps, a computer programmed to perform such a feat?

Thanks for the info.

DrLudicrous · Jun 8, 2011

rhadamanthus said: ↑

Or, perhaps, a computer programmed to perform such a feat?
Click to expand...

It would be difficult for a computer to yield any really useful results. The vast majority of photos have some sort of privacy setting and to see it you have to have permission, either from the person that uploaded it or possibly from somebody tagged in it. A computer would be limited to viewing photos with no privacy settings. Given enough time it may be able find a photo of you, but it would have to go through a ton of profiles looking for photos.

Northside Storm · Jun 8, 2011

rhadamanthus said: ↑

Or, perhaps, a computer programmed to perform such a feat?

Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...

Would have to be a damn good computer, that could pierce through the fact that someone's face might be tagged "drunk *******" on some pictures or "<3" on others or "WTF IS THIS GUY AND WHAT IS HE DOING HERE."

honestly, unless you're doing obviously criminal activities, and have friends stupid enough to record these things and upload them online, well---you have little to nothing to fear.

the only close shave I know of is a girl who had to pretty much delete half the s*** on her wall because her ultra-religious grandma just got on Facebook. she was the exception, not the rule.

rhadamanthus · Jun 8, 2011

DrLudicrous said: ↑

A computer would be limited to viewing photos with no privacy settings.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that for a second.

SunsRocketsfan · Jun 8, 2011

lean said: ↑

This is why I'm the only person I know without a facebook. Hey govt, trace this
Click to expand...

now you know two.. I also dont have a facebook acct

Forums

Assange on Facebook

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Don FakeFan Member

Ubiquitin Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

NotInMyHouse Contributing Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

Northside Storm Contributing Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

DrLudicrous Contributing Member

Northside Storm Contributing Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

SunsRocketsfan Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Assange on Facebook

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member Supporting Member

Don FakeFan Member

Ubiquitin Contributing Member Supporting Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

NotInMyHouse Contributing Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member Supporting Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member Supporting Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

Northside Storm Contributing Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

DrLudicrous Contributing Member

Northside Storm Contributing Member

rhadamanthus Contributing Member

SunsRocketsfan Member

Share This Page

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Ubiquitin Contributing Member
Supporting Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member