zlacker

>>fahimu+(OP)
This is a good move by facebook and does have the potential to save lives, but the fact that they don't provide any details about the attack or the supposed attacker definitely makes it significantly harder for potential victims to act on this information.

Imagine getting a message like this out of the blue, not even knowing who's after you. What are you going to do?

It's hard to fight a faceless enemy, especially when you can't even be sure if they really exist.

>>ryanlo+s3
I wrote a long response to this but decided to simply ask, what can a person do to act on the information, if it were provided?

Protestors in Syria or China could probably already guess what such a message means, so I'm curious as to the amount of information needed for a person to be able to act on it?

>>nness+M3
Protestors in Syria or China aren't the only people getting these.

As Snowden demonstrated there's no lack of westerners being spied on just because they happen to work at a telecom company.

The fact that there's no more information provided makes it far too easy for those people to just ignore these warnings as mistakes and go on with their lives.

>>ryanlo+r4
That's true, but I suppose its a lot easier for Facebook to show warnings when actors like Syria or China are the culprits since they have no requirement to abide by their law. Where as, as Snowden has shown, the US and EU can stipulate whatever policy they want and require that Facebook can not disclose anything about it. I'm just skeptical anyone in the US or EU will see this warning.