Facebook Retroactively Makes More User Data Public 287
mjn writes "In yet another backtrack from their privacy policy, Facebook has decided to retroactively move more information into the public, indexable part of profiles. The new profile parts made public are: a list of things users have become 'fans' of (now renamed to 'likes'), their education and work histories, and what they list under 'interests.' Apparently there is neither any opt-out nor even notice to users, despite the fact that some of this information was entered by users at a time when Facebook's privacy policy explicitly promised that it wouldn't be part of the public profile."
I'm glad.. (Score:2, Insightful)
..that I left that sinking ship (Facebook) a long time ago. It wasn't easy (litterally), but worth it.
Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who ever had even a passing interest in personal data security and privacy has left Facebook months ago (or, like me, never considered it a great idea to put your life online for public review). Everyone left will probably think it's a great feature.
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not even close to true (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Black and white much?
There's such a thing as only giving facebook the information you don't mind being public. I don't give much of a crap who knows who my friends are but at the same time I'm not posting credit card details in my status updates.
If you're that concerned about "privacy" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This terms of use agreement is subject to chang (Score:3, Insightful)
This terms of use agreement is subject to change at any time without notice. It is your responsibility to check the license page periodically for changes.
Lots of 'agreements' have terms like that. In a lot of jurisdictions they carry no weight at all.
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, some stuff is OK to be public. The stuff I don't want to be public I put "I DON'T WANT THIS INFO TO BE PUBLIC" in the fields. Oh and don't "like" anything you want to keep private.
Facebook is like a friend that can't keep his mouth shut. Don't tell him EVERYTHING, silly people.
Re:419 Scammers? No, it's really employers. (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt 419 scammers also... Employers maybe... Goverment, yes? The fact that I'm on a number of fanlists that would probably have me labled a radical conservative is not something I want available on my facebook page. (Even if people know by my posts and who know me, etc..) So I went into the profile options and figured I'd "customize" it. Well I changed it to "only me" option and logged out,etc. they still show up. So now the goverment can deploy a robot to crawl facebook and build a map of your "like" links and probably come up with a good profile of you opinion/politics.
Is there a paranoid group I can like too?
Where is the outrage?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Alternatives? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there something like Facebook but which doesn't suck so much? It shouldn't be impossible to have something which users like, and which the owners can make a profit from. Actually, I don't even care about the profit part. Seems like something Google would be interested in. I guess they have Orkut, but that never really went anywhere. Perhaps Wave?
Re:Don't worry (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm amused by the constant uproars people make every time facebook changes something. what the hell do they think the whole point of facebook is? that they are just providing this service for free? this is a classic case of people wanting their cake and eating it too.
meanwhile, government already has complete access to everyone's communication. you don't hear nearly so much about that anymore. I'm a lot more worried about law enforcement abuse than marketing products I might actually want at some point.
Re:Opt-in/out message (Score:1, Insightful)
This is the Internet. Nothing ever truly disappears here.
Re:419 Scammers? No, it's really employers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would Martin be sending me a .exe file?
Martin Prince [wikipedia.org] is a trusted, if not regularly abused, alpha-geek who just might be trying to send you something important. That's why.
Oh I get it -- in this scenario, I am stupid. Got it, thanks...
I don't think he was implying that it was limited to this scenario ... but that's just my take on ACtard's post. But just because you aren't stupid enough to open an 'exe' attachment from anyone doesn't mean most people who test negative for /. are smart enough to not open it.
/. take offense when a comment implies that we as individuals are apt to do something stupid when the comment usually is directed at the public in general, who usually are stupid enough to do something stupid when it comes to computer security.
I think many of us of
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not useless. It's a damn good way to keep in touch with friends all over the planet.
Yes, I know personal web pages, email and (god forbid) the phone is still there, but it turns out the status updates in fb keep just the right amount of info flowing to keep people like me interested.
Email and other forms of contact often get stale, you stop writing, you stop calling after a few months of not seeing each other. FB keeps a minimal level of contact going, and it keeps people together.
I'm prepared to have some of my data mined for that convenience. I doubt very much that identity theives could get very far with what's on there.
Re:419 Scammers? No, it's really employers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Divorce Lawyers....absolutely.
Re:Don't worry (Score:3, Insightful)
If the phone company recorded every single phone call, and allowed the phone owner to play them from a web interface whenever they wanted, the average telephone owner's head would explode :)
Yet everyone is fine with web based email.
Such is the irony.
Facebook Sucks...time, intelligence, health (Score:1, Insightful)
Just one more reason I will never create a Facebook page. It's a no-benefit time suck with no apparent purpose except to facilitate attention whores and their ilk.
Yes, it makes it easy to keep in touch with your friends. You know what else does that? A phone. A letter. Walking to their house and knocking on the door.
Further eliminating direct interpersonal communications in favor of digital communication is absolutely not beneficial for this society, country, or planet. If their wanton lack of regard for privacy and their users' data isn't enough to drive you away, I hope the chair ass and jelly rolls it induces will be.
Go throw a damn baseball with a real friend instead.
Re:Alternatives? (Score:3, Insightful)
You used to be able to say the same thing about MySpace. Now nobody uses it, because everybody's moved over to Facebook (or kept their MySpace page, but don't use it).
There's no reason something can't come along and supplant Facebook.
Bait-And-Switch: Why Make Excuses For It? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm amused by the constant uproars people make every time facebook changes something. what the hell do they think the whole point of facebook is? that they are just providing this service for free? this is a classic case of people wanting their cake and eating it too.
meanwhile, government already has complete access to everyone's communication. you don't hear nearly so much about that anymore. I'm a lot more worried about law enforcement abuse than marketing products I might actually want at some point.
In this case, particular bits of data were disclosed to Facebook with the written understanding that they would remain private. That was according to Facebook's own privacy policy. Later, Facebook reneged on this understanding and unilaterally decided to made them retroactively public. They did this without giving anyone a chance to opt-out and there was no period of notice (between announcing this and actually doing it) to give users a chance to remove or edit that data. This is your classic bait-and-switch. They said one thing, got people to accept what they said on good faith, and then they did another thing.
I understand that Facebook wants to make money. Every for-profit corporation wants to make money. However, that doesn't give them the right to use deception and that's what happened here. Reputable companies manage to make profit without making promises they refuse to keep to their users or customers. What Facebook did is like moving the goalposts or changing the rules while the game is being played. Can you understand now why saying "did you think they were providing you a free service" is a strawman and fails to address the actual issue here?
Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the big deal? This is all information I would share with a random stranger sitting at a bar in an airport. I do use the strictest 'privacy' settings, but that is just to put a little more control over companies using my information for their monetary gain - not because I'm terrified of people finding out about it (why would I put it online if I were?). I don't join groups or post comments regarding politics or anything else one might consider sensitive, but if used correctly, Facebook can be harmless.
Re:An old adage about the Internet... (Score:3, Insightful)
More seriously, I think there is a different kind of privacy concern that comes from mass data-mining
EU Data protection laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Its possible the retroactive parts of these changes are in breach of UK/EU data protection laws. The issue is that a holder of personal data may only use information for the purposes for which it was provided. If the person supplying the data wished to keep it relatively private and Facebook then later make it public without the informed prior consent of the user then there is a probable breach of the regulations.
Of course Facebook will say that they are not based in the EU but they probably do have servers and interests there and gain revenue from EU based advertisers.
Re:419 Scammers? No, it's really employers. (Score:4, Insightful)
The enemies of freedom in our country use the words "liberal" and "conservative" to lump people who are truly trying to effect positive change together with the various groups of screaming man-children depicted with those monikers on television. So since I believe that government should not interfere in people's lives except when fundamental rights are violated, I get lumped together with the Glenn Beckbeast with the word "conservative." I disagree with him and others like him on many points, mostly that there are no outrageous conspiracies to deny people rights.
Words like liberal and conservative are being twisted to deny people the ability to think rationally. In that sense there is a conspiracy and everyone who uses those words is part of it.
Re:419 Scammers? No, it's really employers. (Score:4, Insightful)
One's friends and the interactions with them is a privacy risk.
So even one posts a very basic user profile, such as the one you suggested, one's privacy is not safe. An interested party could fill in much of the blanks by tracking the interaction with others, including apps.
Even Facebook book users with strict privacy settings are still at risk, if they don't literally screen every "friend" they have to ensure they are legit (ie. not a stranger sneaking in as a "rogue" friend) and that will they respect their privacy, as well as, all "friends of friends" (equals the whole world, practically; six degrees of separation comes to mind, so good luck with that).
Facebook's business growth primarily comes from eroding user privacy to gather ever more specific, *personal data of each individual user* for marketing purposes, as well as, to grow its user base - more user profiles open to the public equates to more user interaction (ie. "friending", messaging, gaming, etc), and hence more traffic.
Ron
Just don't post it! (Score:4, Insightful)
I also don't understand people who have facebook pages set all to private. What is the point of that. If you want to send information to a small group of people then set up a mailing list. Why you would use facebook for that purpose is completely beyond me. Instead tap into the fantastic intrinsic value that facebook has in building a brand identity and value for YOUR name. Post things that will make future employers, future lovers and your parents proud. Then you'll have nothing to hide because what you want hidden you never posted in the first place.
Re:It wouldn't work. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you should retake that class?
Re:It wouldn't work. (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the defining features of arm-chair socialists is that they think that.
Re:Facebook Sucks...time, intelligence, health (Score:3, Insightful)
"You know what else does that? A phone. A letter. Walking to their house and knocking on the door."
Yes, writing the same letter to 50+ people is certainly a good use of my time.
Re:Why (Score:2, Insightful)
You have 7 friends, three of whom voted for (Whoever), and two of them support the (even more radically Whatever) Party, but voted for Whoever because he was the closest thing to Whateverism that had a hope in hell of winning.
You don't get the job because even though you said nothing about your political opinions, your potential employer needs to be able answer a firm "no" to "Are any of your employees now, or have they ever been, card-carrying (or FB-liking) Whateverists?", or your employer doesn't get the fat contract from the Other Party.
Whine all you want that it's guilt-by-association (it is), and that it's wrong (it is). It happens.
And you have no legal cause of action, nor even any idea it's happened, because all you know is that you didn't get called back for an interview.
Facebook users are NOT the customers. (Score:4, Insightful)
Somebody noticed! (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you that stupid? Really? (Score:1, Insightful)
I do use the strictest 'privacy' settings, but that is just to put a little more control over companies using my information for their monetary gain
You do realize that the information you listed *IS* being used for monetary gain regardless of what your "Privacy" settings are? You do realize that is the entire point of this article and Facebook, in general. Your data is already being sold.
Re:It wouldn't work. (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, another gold zealot.
Question for you: What intrinsic value does gold have that renders it more suitable for a store of value than a piece of paper? Answer: Nothing. You can't eat it, you can't plant it, you can't drive it, you can't breathe it, and it won't protect you from 'raptors. Gold is used for electronics and jewelry, and the fluctuating demand for those goods is the second largest factor controlling the price of gold. You may ask what the largest factor is, and I'll tell you: It's the bankers, who set the price of gold in closed meetings according to what they individually desire.
Gold is no better money than cowrie shells, and modern society has rightly left that sort of archaism behind centuries ago.
Re:419 Scammers? No, it's really employers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe we just don't need all the governments we have around the world, we just need people to have honor and uphold justice.
Really? The solution is that easy? If we just have honor and uphold justice our problems will all be solved? Too bad nobody thought of that sooner!
Seriously though, lets give people more credit they deserve and say that 99.9% of people on earth are on board with being honorable. That still leaves 67,000,000 people out there who won't be honorable. Then, you have to deal with the varying opinions on what is honorable and what is upholding justice. Honor and Justice aren't really singular things. There are hundreds, probably thousands of things that make up a system of honor or justice. People don't all think the same. Who has more honor? A Pro-Lifer seeking to save unborn fetuses or a Pro-Choicer seeking to allow woman the freedom to make decisions regarding their own body? Who has more honor, a person who wants to put violent criminals to death to ensure the safety of others or a person who wants to rehabilitate the criminal because everyone's life has value? Who has more honor, the solider that is willing to expend his life freeing people of a different country from the yolk of an oppressive regime or the person who thinks we should stay out of other peoples' business? You might think the answer to all of those questions is simple, but someone else may think that and answer each question the opposite of you.
Re:It wouldn't work. (Score:3, Insightful)
The value of gold is that it is relatively rare, cannot be manufactured, and is finite. A gold standard isn't about gold being inherently valuable - it's about governments being able to issue more wealth than they have available to back it.
Re:Don't worry (Score:2, Insightful)
If your social life consists mainly of events that are coordinated solely through Facebook, you do not have that great of a social life. You would do well to intentionally broaden your circles to groups that are not reliant on FB.
You can even continue to be part of your current groups; you'll just have to use alternate means of doing so. Try, for example, regularly ask a set group of people in the know what they're doing the following weekend.