Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Social Networks Your Rights Online

Facebook's Zuckerberg Says Forget Privacy 415

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the speak-for-yourself-not-your-users dept.
judgecorp writes "Privacy is no longer a social norm, according to the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg. Speaking at the Crunchie awards in San Francisco, the entrepreneur said that expectations had changed, and people now default to sharing online, not privacy. It's all right for him, but does he mean it's ok for bodies like the UK government to monitor all citizens' Internet use?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook's Zuckerberg Says Forget Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • by mbstone (457308) on Monday January 11, 2010 @06:14PM (#30729812)
  • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Monday January 11, 2010 @06:31PM (#30730062) Homepage

    Since it doesn't allow you to distinguish between "work friends" and "party friends" and "closet friends"

    It does if you set it. You can assign your friends to various lists, and then hide content from certain lists, making it visible only to those you wish to show it to. It's the most intuitive and flexible system sometimes, but it can still be used to ensure privacy. The problem is that people simply don't use these tools are much as you think. While corporate greed is an issue here, there's much truth to the idea that people nowadays are just natural attention whores, even when it's against their own best interest.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11, 2010 @06:37PM (#30730136)

    Well said. It's not that FB users no longer expect privacy, it's that they're coming to the realization that they can't expect privacy from Facebook.

  • by vlm (69642) on Monday January 11, 2010 @06:53PM (#30730326)

    Young people are the most likely to suffer from our current economic problems, unemployment is rampant amongst the under 25 crowd. People have less opportunity, less privacy, less control over their lives, fewer real life friends and more online acquaintances. So how, exactly, is life better?

    Mostly free internet Pr0n

  • by bit9 (1702770) on Monday January 11, 2010 @07:17PM (#30730640)
    That depends entirely on whether or not Facebook keeps a cache of your old data. Something tells me if you change your name from Joe Miller to Fred Flintstone, and then cancel your account 10 minutes later, that won't be enough to purge your real name from Facebook's databases. Also, what do you do about photos? It's a near certainty that when you delete a photo from your FB account, that photo still resides somewhere on their server, most likely in multiple locations.
  • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Monday January 11, 2010 @07:23PM (#30730686) Journal

    So how, exactly, is life better?

    Mostly free internet Pr0n

    Yes, thank you Internet Porn. Thanks to you, I've become so desensitized to normal human sex that I have to watch midget-goose gang bangs to get hard. What an improvement.

  • Re:Better ads (Score:5, Informative)

    by FlightTest (90079) on Monday January 11, 2010 @07:41PM (#30730934) Homepage

    Here's the problem; you've never registered for Facebook, but have your friends? Your family? How many pictures of you are on Facebook regardless of your non-participation? Did one of your friends post a picture taken that night you all got drunk and maybe did something you'd prefer you mother (or a potential employer) didn't hear about?

    The problem is that your friends disregard for their privacy translates into their disregard for your privacy, and suddenly a "reasonable person" no longer has an expectation of privacy.

    Facebook may already know you, like it or nor.

  • Re:Better ads (Score:3, Informative)

    by timeOday (582209) on Monday January 11, 2010 @07:55PM (#30731088)
    If he posted his SSN to Facebook, you would have a point.

    Look at the direct quotes attributed to Zuckerberg in the article. Ignore the spin of the article, the more extreme spin of the slashdot blurb, and the yet more extreme spin of most of the comments here. Zuckerberg is not saying that spying is OK or that people should be forced to disclose information. He is observing that social norms have changed, and more people are choosing to be more public. I am fine with that, so long as it is voluntary, and the option for privacy remains for those who choose it.

  • by fyngyrz (762201) on Monday January 11, 2010 @08:01PM (#30731144) Homepage Journal

    If one chooses to put any particular detail on Facebook, then one is explicitly saying I am sharing this with the "friends" I have selected on Facebook; in that regard, because those other people are party to the information, they may elect to share it further, or not -- because you gave the information to them openly, without any particular agreement, that information now belongs to the other party as much as it does to you.

    Depending on the user agreement one accepts when one joins Facebook, you may have also stipulated that Facebook itself is party to your information, and in that case, again, Facebook can share it, or not, according to the terms of the agreement you accepted in order to enjoy whatever it is Facebook offers.

    However, assuming you have even one friend on Facebook, by the very act of posting something there, you're taking the risk that the other person or people in your friends list may elect to further share that information. This is a choice you made. Your information may now travel to places you didn't plan on because you chose to share it. You still had a choice, and if "sharing" is something that you want to do, then you must accept the potential that the other parties may consider your information not part of the class of things they will won't share. This arises naturally because information that is important to you may be (probably is) of little consequence to others. And of course this applies to Facebook as per the user agreement you agreed to.

    In a nutshell, privacy arises as a consequence of socially understood boundaries relating to access; the understanding can arise formally, as an agreement (like Facebook) or it can be culturally infused, like you don't read someone else's diary. It can be legally backed up, such as opening a letter addressed to someone else. It can often be hardened: encryption, bars, etc. In all cases, boundaries that are in the most basic sense (prior to being hardened) easy to cross, are laid out, and you are expected not to cross them.

    If you want to know more (or argue) about how privacy actually works, I've written at length about it here. [fyngyrz.com]

  • Re:He's wrong (Score:3, Informative)

    by pla (258480) on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @12:23AM (#30733276) Journal
    *Specifically* social networking sites like Facebook where there are real names attached to accounts and visible out in the open.

    Advertisements? Real names? I don't know what all of you have started smoking, but two words: "Adblock" and "lie".

    "My" Facebook account has absolutely nothing to do with me. I made it as a place to placate friends who kept asking if I had a FB account - So I do, named after one of my pets, with not one single shred of information on it that links back to me (unless you already know what my dining room looks like, with my cat sitting in the window).

    Now, the apparently required SMS authentication Facebook uses disturbed me somewhat... Until I got a random Google Voice account. So congrats, Zuckhead, you can now connect two throwaway accounts and send SMS spam to one throwaway phone number.


    Granted, it does indeed get harder to protect one's privacy every day... But at the moment, anyone who cares, still can.

Help me, I'm a prisoner in a Fortune cookie file!

Working...