Facebook Scrambles after Unexpected Privacy Fumble 196
bart_scriv writes "Facebook is responding to the recent uproar among its users by deploying better privacy protections and control, as well as being more open about future changes. This could be a case study for other social networking sites on how to avoid or deal with similar problems in the future." From the article: "A week before launch, when asked if he was concerned about a privacy backlash, he appeared surprised, saying, 'No, these people share stuff already and they get something out of sharing.' They've shared all right. And Facebook is listening. On Sept. 7, the site is ratcheting up privacy protections--the result of around-the-clock coding. On their privacy settings page, people will be given greater control over what items will or won't be included in news feeds." Relatedly, an anonymous reader writes "A recent Reuters article mentions that Facebook user Igor Hiller, 17, a freshman at University of California, Santa Barbara is organizing a real-world demonstration next Monday at Facebook's downtown Palo Alto headquarters." Read below for Zuckerman's Open Letter to the community.
theStorminMormon writes ""We really messed this one up." begins an open letter from Mark Zuckerberg to the Facebook community. The letter goes on to say: "When we launched News Feed and Mini-Feed we were trying to provide you with a stream of information about your social world. Instead, we did a bad job of explaining what the new features were and an even worse job of giving you control of them. I'd like to try to correct those errors now.When I made Facebook two years ago my goal was to help people understand what was going on in their world a little better. I wanted to create an environment where people could share whatever information they wanted, but also have control over whom they shared that information with. I think a lot of the success we've seen is because of these basic principles.
We made the site so that all of our members are a part of smaller networks like schools, companies or regions, so you can only see the profiles of people who are in your networks and your friends. We did this to make sure you could share information with the people you care about. This is the same reason we have built extensive privacy settings — to give you even more control over who you share your information with.
Somehow we missed this point with Feed and we didn't build in the proper privacy controls right away. This was a big mistake on our part, and I'm sorry for it. But apologizing isn't enough. I wanted to make sure we did something about it, and quickly. So we have been coding nonstop for two days to get you better privacy controls. This new privacy page will allow you to choose which types of stories go into your Mini-Feed and your friends' News Feeds, and it also lists the type of actions Facebook will never let any other person know about. If you have more comments, please send them over.
This may sound silly, but I want to thank all of you who have written in and created groups and protested. Even though I wish I hadn't made so many of you angry, I am glad we got to hear you. And I am also glad that News Feed highlighted all these groups so people could find them and share their opinions with each other as well.
About a week ago I created a group called Free Flow of Information on the Internet, because that's what I believe in — helping people share information with the people they want to share it with. I'd encourage you to check it out to learn more about what guides those of us who make Facebook. Tomorrow at 4pm est, I will be in that group with a bunch of people from Facebook, and we would love to discuss all of this with you. It would be great to see you there.
Thanks for taking the time to read this,
Mark"
Boo-Hoo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
b) as has been pointed out numerous times before, there's a difference between publicly accessible and publicly announced
Re:Boo-Hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
I really think many people don't really "get" the internet.
There are these things called search engines and spiders out there that scrape information from public places constantly. It matters not what Facebook does or does not have for functionality. They are not the only gatherer and publisher of information on their site.
If it's on the internet and publicly available, it's public. If you don't want something public, to everyone, forever, don't put it on the internet in a publicly available place. It really is that simple. Teens and other young adults frequently post wacky / private crap about themselves or their friends all the time. Do you REALLY want a future potential employer "Googling" you and finding all this stuff? How about a potential boyfriend / girlfriend / husband / wife? Hell, I can still find posts of mine from the late 80's via google - and google didn't even exist when I wrote them! I can also find via the internet archive copies of my web site from 7 years ago.
You can't put something out there, publicly, and then scream when someone you don't want reading it, reads it. That's sheer stupidity. Publishing a blog or having conversations on social networking sites such as myspace / facebook in open forums is no different than publishing it in the New York Times or broadcasting on CNN. You have publicly announced the information. You like to THINK that you have a tight little private group, but that's just an illusion.
Re:Boo-Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
You're also wrong on a few counts, have you ever used facebook? The privacy controls severely limit the number of people able to view your profile. Google's crawlers won't be able to index this information unless the folks working for facebook open it up to them. The privacy controls are of course only as trustworthy as the people working for facebook, and also if you're friending everybody under the sun you have removed the ability of the privacy controls to help anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic all privacy settings on websites/online networks are useless. Just because person A can relay a message to person B doesn't mean that I can't expect to be able to tell person A something in confidence without person B finding out. And it certainly doesn't mean that if I tell person A something, it's exactly the same as me telling both parties.
Unless you associate with a bunch of sociopaths you can expect a certain level of common courtesy amongst your peers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As an aside, it might be against Facebook's TOS for anyone to spider the site.
Member Conduct [facebook.com]
"you agree not to use automated scripts to collect information from the Service or the Web
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're ignoring that Google can't index Facebook profiles, and Facebooks own search engine obeys the privacy controls.
In a way it's silly yes, but the fact that so many people felt so strongly does indicate that the way people treat and perceive networks is a more subtle thing than anybody thought. There is, in fact, a difference between broadcast and accessible in a few situations, and Facebook is one of them. It's the difference between telling everybody something and telling only those who ask. It's no
illusions (Score:2)
>but that's just an illusion.
An illusion that seems to pervade the lives of many young folk, even outside the Internet.
More news flashes:
* When you talk really loudly, *everyone* can overhear you, not just the cool kids that you want to overhear you.
* When you wear that little thing (or maybe I should say "wear" that little thing), then even the nerdy and old guys will be able to see all the way to Christmas and halfway to the New Year, *no
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For many (most?) FB users this isn't about what information is strictly available. It about the social consturcts that govener when and where it is appropriate to use that information. Example: Your breakup causes you to change your "relationship status" from "in a relationship" to "single." Now, presumably your real friends know this without looking it up on facebook. People who are acquaintances (but "friends" on facebook) might not be aware until t
Re: (Score:2)
This is just manifestly false. It this were true there would be no RSS feeds. There's a difference between having to go out and find articles on X, and having articles on X delivered automatically. There's a difference between checking blog Y manually for updates, and having updates from blog Y sent to you. It's really basic. Call it "publish" vs. "broadcast",
Re:Mod parent up. (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree- however, none of that matters. All that matters is what your users think/perceive. Even if you are 100% right, if your users don't agree, even if your users are 100% wrong, then you will be out of business quick...
If the facebook users dont like the changes, and facebook wants to stay in business, they had better undo the changes...
Sort of like, you can have the right of way as a pedestrian in a crosswalk, but when the car runs you over you are still dead. I mean, you were right, but your still run over...
Re: (Score:2)
Sad, really. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a damn good thing the Web wasn't born yet when I was in school. If half the things I said and did in my youth were posted to the web, I'd probably never crawl out from under my rock. Hell, I'm still paranoid someone wil dig up the message bases from the old BBSes I used to frequent and say really stupid things on.
Re:Sad, really. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the "good old days," all the people on your street used to know what you were up to. If you did something, the grapevine usually got that information to your folks before you got home. Of course it wasn't a perfect system and if you worked at it, you could hide your deeds from prying eyes (that's what tree forts were for).
Now, people are actually writing down the things they're doing and placing that information where anyone on the planet can see it. It really should come as no shock now. Was Facebook wrong for not doing a better job of protecting privacy? Sure. Are people culpable if they're silly enough to put embarassing and/or potentially damaging information on the Internet? You bet. The fact is, the younger generations don't understand the whole "global neighborhood" concept and it taskes something like this to make them aware that something they think is local is most assuredly not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Boo-Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, others are allowed to submit content to your page (like to my wall). If they do, I may want time to respond to it before all of my friends read it. Sure, the old way one or two might see it, but that risk is low.
This funtionality, if cut back, would be very useful. A notification of when friends put up new pictures would be great. Some things should be exempt from the feed, or at least have the option to have them never broadcast, so that they can fly 'under the radar'.
A mini-feed program (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a website at one time that plugged into myspace to deliver a semi-similar feed. It watched the profiles of all your friends (or people you wanted "watched") and if their relationship status flipped to single you'd get an email.
I thought it was a brillant concept. (I believe it was shut down because the way it interacted with myspace violated that site's terms of agreement.)
What would it take for me to design and distribute a program that you can install on your own computer to do the same thing? (I figure if it interacted with facebook or myspace in a low key way, and basically surfed your friend's profiles as if you were doing it from your own computer, it might just pass TOA muster.)
It could do a a semi-regular feed of all your friend's walls. It could collect all the pictures from their profiles and put them into a nifty slideshow. It could surf all the profile's friends ad nauseum and create a neural network of the way people have friended each other which you could probably do something really nifty with.
Re: (Score:2)
Recreating that feed using a 3-rd party tool is not a trivial task.
Add/Remove Profile Info
Write a Wall Post
Comment on a Note
Comment on a Photo
Post on a Discussion Board
Add a Friend
Add/Remove my Relationship Status
Add/Leave a Group
Add/Leave a Network
The Feed gathered all that infor
Re: (Score:2)
first time I've logged into facebook in a while, its a breath of fresh air from myspace (which I logged into last month).
Re: (Score:2)
Security Through Obscurity (Score:2)
I thought that most people on slashdot did not believe in security through obscurity. If you want to keep your information secure, then secure it, don't count on the "data overload" to protect you.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider: You get wedding announcements. Ever get a divorce announcement? No. The two involved don't care if you find out (normally) but do not go around flaunting it (if they have class).
I don't see this as a security issue, as i really don't care if everyone on Earth knows that I french kissed Kelly Kapowski. I just want to be able to pick and choose what gets sent to everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "publishing on the internet" is not broadcasting information?
Well, then you better not publish it on the internet.
Push/pull news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Push/pull news (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people may prefer one to the other, but they are not the same thing The information you get, however, is. So this proves my point: that there's more to this question than just what information is available.
This is so manifestly obvious that it's frustrating to believe there are people too stupid to realize this, and thick enough to actually argue that it's not the case.
If only we could make stupidity more painful...
[thanks to whomever I ripped the sig from]
-stormin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Put me in t
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently that's where you belong. I say "there's more to this question than just what information is available" and then you respond by saying "the only informational difference..." That's like me saying "even though these boxes are both red, there's more to the question than color. This one is wood, and this one is plastic." and you responding with "yes, but if we restrict ourselves to just color..."
I'm not making the point that the information is different, I'm making
Re:Boo-Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Or how about how much you paid for your house? You have no problem with me sending a letter to all of your friends, neighbors, coworkers, etc telling them exactly how much you paid for it? That is most likely listed on the deed to your house which is a public record.
I disagree. There is a societal expectation that your private life not be broadcast even though it is "public." This expectation will probably change as tools like this become available. If you break up with someone, you may not care if people know, but just because your coworkers are linked to you on a social networking site doesn't mean you want that information immediately and easily available.
I perfectly understand how tools like this are deemed unacceptable and thats OK. It is how our society functions. If I have the time and effort, I can dig up dirt on anyone, but it will take more time and effort than I really care for. You can make a claim that this all goes out the window because its on the internet, but these sites are trying to mimic online what goes on in the real world, and enable real world friendships. However, making "stalking" like this so easy just deters people from making social connections. Just because I met a girl I kind of like at a bar last weekend and I made her my friend on Myspace does not mean that I want some girl I am seeing to get an immediate update of that fact. You are saying that this is obviously exactly what I want, and that is just not true.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to update your browser. It's not catching the sarcasm tags.
-stormin
Re:Boo-Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
No one previously thought that information they posted on Facebook anywhere was private (at least, from their friends). But now it is being aggregated and broadcast to every friend. If you think this is the same thing, then I suppose you also think that Google making the full-text of every book available on line is the same thing, whether they do it (as they are doing it) by allowing you to see only a snippet at time or whether they allow you to download the whole thing as a text file. The information available in either scenario is exactly the same, but based purely on how easy it is to get at that publicly available info one is fair use and the other is not.
It's just a simple fact, even IF information is public accessible, it still matters how accessible. Stop acting as though privacy is a binary proposition: either top-secret or totally-public with no differences in between. Facebook users are not posting info on the Net and getting annoyed that people aggregate it (which would be annoying but fair) they have joined a private networking group and then the rule's of that networking group got changed and it made a lot of them mad. Nothing private was revealed, but information that would have taken hours to aggregate every single day was suddenly available with 0 effort. That is a change, and not everyone has to be happy about it.
I say "them" because I didn't mind the changes. Now that the new privacy features have been changed, there's pretty much nothing left to talk about. The only complaint Facebook users have left is that the Feed disrupts the layout and (apparently) there's no way to turn it off by default so that you never even see it.
But considering how incredibly fast Mark and Facebook were to implement the needed privacy controls, I'm sure that this too will be available soon in the future. If only every company was as agile and quick to respond to its customers demands...
-stormin
Re: (Score:2)
You mean my analogy wasn't the same scenario as what we were talking about? Are you serious? Crap! Oh wait, it's an analogy.
The principle of spreading information still applies in both cases. That's like me making an analogy about how different OSs are like different car brands, and then you complaining that cars have wheels and OSs don't. The response would be... so? Unless my analogy relied on some intrinsic quality o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If a site advertises a certain level of privacy and fails to provide it, that's bad, but it's something the guys at facebook are trying to fix. However you cannot simply say "boohoo you put your info on the net, suck it down". These peopl
Re: (Score:2)
I laughed when I saw all the "Get rid of the new stalker tool" groups. Um, only people on your friends list get your news items. By joining those groups claiming the news feed was a "stalker tool", people readily said, "I added my stalkers to my friends list to artificially inflate my friend count." Way to go!
For every person angry about the news feed that blew it WAY out of proportion, there are ten people
Re: (Score:2)
I just found the feature to be really really stupid. I dont care that my friend added a favorite book to their list...
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
understanding people's perception of privacy (Score:2)
I can't disagree, but, at the moment, it's a fascinating experiment in human psychology (vis a vis people's understanding of privacy and their preferences for it.)
Perceptions plays an enormous role in social networking. Facebook's little institutional net may have felt safer, but I thought it was intolerably anti-privacy, and it's user agreement is worse than Myspace's.
It actually seemed that most people can articulate
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe there is a perfect device for what you describe here, the telephone. Remember those from back in the day?? When you wanted certain friends to know something, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you could use the telephone to keep people appraised about your plans for the evening, just like folks have been doing for the last 50-odd years (I think individual telephones in dorm rooms were uncommon prior to that), but that negates the value of the new technology.
What people want is something that lets them pu
Re: (Score:2)
As it is now, you have to go through multiple steps to put someone onto the "limited profile" list. I bet if Facebook streamlined the process, it would be much more useful.
You'd have a conveinent information-limited place for those "kinda-friends".
Re: (Score:2)
A demonstration? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that people believe a protest outside of the headquarters of a website that implemented an unpopular feature is a rational reaction. I mean, they haven't done anything to hurt anyone or anything illega
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I did not like the Facebook feed, I was always confident that they would intriduce some privacy measures. That is just the level of trust that they have established.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems to have gone over everyone's head on that story, but the reference to 'Quickest Patch Ever' was meant to be facetious, not a precise factual statement about Microsoft's entire history of patch issuance.
Re:A demonstration? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a Demonstration! Like the Good Ole Days! (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to sound like a patriotic tool ... but it was demonstrations that built America. It was the right to protest at the drop of a hat that made it so appealing. The fact that more people don't take to the streets when anything goes wrong in the government upsets me. We've really forgotten why this country was built and why so many millions gave their lives. We've taken for granted the right to protest and ignored it.
You're
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if they viewed MS the way they view Facebook... I'd hate to be in Redmond in the days after Vista rolled out.
"WHAT!? YOU'RE MISSING A DRIVER!?? PROTEST TIME!!! "
-stormin
Re: (Score:2)
Oh FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Has he really nothing better to do with his time? If you don't like facebook, just trash your account and leave.
Find something worthwhile to get upset about.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously -- one has to wonder how much someone spending his first week of college (UCSB, no less!) driving hundreds of miles to protest Facebook over this needs Facebook in the first place.
If anything, I'm pretty impressed with how well the company has handled this.
Oh I dunno (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone held up the notion of jumping ship when things got too hot, there would eventually be no ship to jump to, because they would all sink. A lot of people think that the current political and economic situation in the U.S. sucks, but if we just jumped ship to Canada or Europe, we'd eventually ha
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe someone should show up and hand out these fine products: http://www.cafepress.com/ebrushdesign/1727415 [cafepress.com]
Umm (Score:2)
1st - Facebook has already become a huge part of the social interacion of students here in the 1 year or so we have had it. Every few days we get notified by friends about upcoming parties and concerts, and it is an easy way to share pictures of say, our GIANT halloween celebration. I use my account alot, and I refuse to use MySpace(even pre-News Corp).
2nd - When you are a freshman, you really do have alot of time on your hands.
3rd - We
The money quote: (Score:2)
I hope he carries a protest sign that says "Dude, I'm Like Totally Creeped Out."
Why wasn't news feed disabled? (Score:2)
Also, the fix code was so hastily put together, several of my "home page" links and the "My Groups" link in the menu don't work anymore. Anyone else having these problems?
Re:Why wasn't news feed disabled? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Massive breach of privacy" my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod Me Up: Free Professional Advice Here! (Score:2, Informative)
I suppose. But from where I'm viewing this, this is more a matter of people having jumped into a pile of shit months ago and only now wondering why they're starting to stink.
Let's review the Rules for Living in a Networked World:
1. Don't put anything in an e-mail that you wouldn't want your boss, your wife, your child, or the Attorney General's Office to read.
2. Don't put anything on a website linked to
Oh, Yeah: The Correlary to #2: (Score:4, Funny)
Happy to Help.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that there's anything wrong with, I hasten to add.
kk, done now.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. When I was between 20 and 22 or so I wrote some stuff in a few posts to usenet, using my real name. Not that there's a lot of dirt there, but I shared more than I would have cared to. At that time one probably would have had to go to DejaNews to find it. Of course DejaNews is now Google
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While facebook proclaims "closed" networks, being "closed" doesn't help when your info gets copied and pasted, and sent around to others outside your "closed network". The reality is that it's not as private as people would like to believe. In fact, it's not private at all.
Re:Why wasn't news feed disabled? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I get really annoyed at the stupid people who can't tell the difference between making information available and delivering it to you all collated and sorted. Clearly how you present the information matters. But to call the Feeds a "massive breach of privacy" is really silly. Every single thing the Feeds announced was information already available to everyone that got the Feed. How is this a "massive" breach?
Massive breaches are when companies lose millions of social security numbers or credit card numbers. You seriously are crazy if you think just broadcasting to a group of friends whom you have already selected to see the information is really that horrible of a deal.
So for 3 days people had an easier time tracking your wall posts. Was it really so traumatic for you?
-stormin
Re: (Score:2)
You really don't have a leg to stand on when complaining about a free service. Read their policies - if you don't agree, don't sign up.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Since they didn't (back out the change), and they obviously still don't understand their business, what you and every other annoyed facebook user needs to do is delete your account.
Once facebook is out of business, smarter people will create better systems.
It wasnt a loss of privacy (Score:2)
seriously I dont care that someone I know added "V For Vendetta" to their favorite movies list.
I dont get the big privacy issue, it was just a lame annoying feature to begin with
Re: (Score:2)
Default settings should have been OFF (Score:2, Informative)
They added a new feature. They now have a "privacy" control which lets you select what is shown about you and your goings on and what is not shown. And the defaults, for someone who didn't even know about this, are to show everything.
This may end up being a nic
I Still Don't Like It (Score:4, Interesting)
They've managed to turn one of the more attractive looking pages on the Internet into an ugly mess cluttered with useless information about my friends joining groups I've never heard of, etc. I think they should either eliminate the feeds altogether or put them on a separate page.
Re: (Score:2)
There was pretty much no information on the home page before. Why exactly is that desirable? Why does it matter if the page is "one of the more attractive pages on the Internet"? Personally, I never spent more then two seconds on the old home page. I was either on my way to my profile, or on the way to my list of friends to see who had updated recently. Now the home page is actually useful, and that's a problem some
The whole world in Palo Alto? (Score:2)
The problem with facebook... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea about keeping your friends close, but even better if you can keep your enemies even closer: have every action they perform highlighted in red, and a little graph that shows exactly when they must have been up, in order to make that change. Also, intelligent aggregation should keep a tally of each time they report about having done the same thi
I still don't get it... (Score:5, Interesting)
NOTHING on your feed was something that someone couldn't have seen otherwise. In fact, there are many things that were specificly excluded, such as pokes, messages, things you rejected, and (most importantly) photos you deleted.
While it'd be good to be able to turn the thing off if you really don't like it (and that's what the protesters are still pushing for), I actually like the change. Instead of taking a look at profiles and guessing as to who has changed what, I can see everything in a single place.
I expect that in a few months this will be forgotten or considered overblown. Facebook has made something convenient, not malicious.
Re: (Score:2)
There really are some issues that the feed highlights. For example, messages about when people enter and leave relationships. This isn't the kind of information people want blasted around, but have no problem letting people know. It's simply something most people wouldn't notice, but now know the minute someone de-relationships someone on Facebook. The information that once had to be shopped around for is now readily available right on the front page. You can't miss it even if you try. For the last few days
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. Facebook basically just replicated the functionality of the Facebook Stalker [fbstalker.com] firefox extension. I haven't tried it yet, but I'm guesing FB Stalker's functionality still works.
Bad Acronym Association... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(with apologies to R. Kelly)
Why people cared (Score:2)
The real problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
shameless filmgroup plug Chamber 525 [notlong.com]
Brilliant! (Score:2)
I would not be surprised at all if this guy Hiller turned out to be on the payroll of Facebook (either now, or some day in the future).
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerks [wikipedia.org]
XSS for better privacy! (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:2)
Facebook misses the point (Score:2)
Facebook has done exactly what Microsoft tries to do. They take a list ("don't tell people when my relationship status changes", "don't tell people when I leave a group", "don't tell people when I change an interest") and fix that list. Remind anyone of how Microsoft complied with an antitrust ruling about bundling IE and "fixed" it by shipping a tool that lets you change your de
Round the clock coding? (Score:2)
Why are Slashdotters so dumb about Facebook? (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't want all of my friends and family being told when I go to the grocery store, or who I'm hanging out with at any given moment, or what my new driver's license number is, or what time I got to work today. There is tons of information about ourselves that is, by natur
It's not about privacy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider being at a restaraunt with a friend. You are at a public place, and so you really have no expectation of privacy. Now, do you expect everyone there to know about your conversation? Its not an issue of privacy because you aren't in a private place, but at the same time there is an expectation of exclusivity. If I'm talking with a friend in a public place, yes, people can eavesdrop, but I don't expect it.
The problem with the newsfeed wasn't that it was a violation of privacy, but rather that it globalized eavesdropping (per analogy). If someone wrote on the wall, that is something between them, much like the conversation in the restaraunt.
Newbies... (Score:2)
Welcome to the internet kids. It's PUBLIC if you put it up. Welcome to the real world Facebook, stalkers exist and people care about it - don't make it easier. Grow up all of you, oh wait, you're kids
In other news, Igor isn't going to be home at 4pm.
Flame-proof suit on