Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Social Networks Your Rights Online

Facebook Retroactively Makes More User Data Public 287

Posted by Soulskill
from the privacy-is-a-crutch dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Retroactively Makes More User Data Public

Comments Filter:
  • I'm glad.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ..that I left that sinking ship (Facebook) a long time ago. It wasn't easy (litterally), but worth it.

    • by Arthur Grumbine (1086397) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @10:07AM (#31967148) Journal

      ..that I left that sinking ship (Facebook) a long time ago. It wasn't easy (littorally), but worth it.

      FTFY.
      :-P

  • Don't worry (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @08:32AM (#31966622)

    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)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @08:35AM (#31966650)
      Actually, there is another category: the uninformed. A lot of people really do not keep up with the latest decisions Facebook is making with regard to personal privacy, or are even aware that Facebook can, at any time, reveal their data. I am referring, of course, to the same sort of people who are not sure what a web browser is or which browser they are using -- which appears to be the overwhelming majority.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Splab (574204)

        No, Facebook cannot at any time reveal whatever they want - there are such things as laws, when Facebook decided to start doing business outside the US they accepted they had to operate under foreign laws - last time they did something like this they got hit by the Danish data proectection agency, and trust me, once they got a sniff of this this will be removed (at least for Danes).

    • It looks like Facebook is trying to back into a Buzz style privacy uproar one step at a time. I wonder if a slow erosion of privacy will be swallowed easier than Google's 'Buzz gulp' of all-at-once exposure?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Undoubtedly, it will be more successful. I think people suffer from mass amnesia -- nobody seems to remember that they used to be careful about giving out their real name on the Internet. Few will notice that the latest erosion of privacy is actually built on dozens of other incidents.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mukund (163654)

          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.

          • by tomhudson (43916)

            Yet everyone is fine with web based email.

            Not everyone ... and even if I wanted to use web-based email, I wouldn't use a freemail-based one. There's no reason you can't self-host. Pool resources with family and friends, get your own domain, and host your own. It'll cost you what, 25 cents a month each? Isn't being ad-free worth that much?

    • Welcome to the new Facebook, the real time, always up to date, police forensics / NSA database : ) Saves them the trouble of gathering it all anyway. These new changes seem to benefit big brother more than anyone else. I can't really see any worthwhile benefit to the end user or advertisers.

      • Huh? Do you really think any TLA has troubles going to Facebook and prodding them for data, public or not? How'd they benefit from it?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by digitalchinky (650880)

          They would benefit from it simply by being able to dig through the connections to see what leads to where and to whom - it's exactly the same as mapping out telephone activity.

          Former TLA drone myself.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)
          Prodding them for it is official and leaves a paper trail outside the organisation. Public information, in contrast, can be crawled and added to private databases without the need for pesky things like warrants or even official requests.
    • Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nursie (632944) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @08:45AM (#31966706)

      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.

      • Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)

        by poena.dare (306891) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @08:52AM (#31966732)

        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: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by rudy_wayne (414635)

          Facebook is like a friend that can't keep his mouth shut. Don't tell him EVERYTHING

          Wrong. Don't tell him ANYTHING. Facebook, MySpace and all the other "social networking" crap is utterly useless, except for those people trolling through the data (advertisers, identity thieves, etc). You would be surprised how just a tiny bit of seemly unimportant information can be added together with hundreds of bits of other seemingly unimportant information to reveal a whole lot more than you want to be revealed.

          • Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Nursie (632944) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @09:25AM (#31966942)

            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.

            • by Fnkmaster (89084)

              You don't have to. There is an option in the privacy settings to turn off your publicly indexable profile. You can still be on Facebook, share info with people you want to, and just disable the ability of search engines and data miners to pull information out of a publicly available profile.

              I just enabled this option today now that FB has decided to put information into public profiles that, while not "secret" by any means, isn't stuff I want to encourage every data miner in the world to index about me.

              • Re:Don't worry (Score:4, Informative)

                by makomk (752139) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @10:42AM (#31967350) Journal

                There is an option in the privacy settings to turn off your publicly indexable profile. You can still be on Facebook, share info with people you want to, and just disable the ability of search engines and data miners to pull information out of a publicly available profile.

                That just stops your profile from showing up in search results. All of the publicly-available parts of your profile - name, location, pages, gender, friends list, etc - are still avaiable to every application that any friend of yours uses, and now also to approved third-party websites that they visit too. There's no way to turn this off.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by darjen (879890)

      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.

      • by causality (777677) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @09:56AM (#31967108)

        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?

      • by tomhudson (43916)

        meanwhile, government already has complete access to everyone's communication.

        Remember, the Internet routes around damage - IF you let it.

        Want to avoid government wire-sniffing or wireless-sniffing detection? Make use of RFC 2549 [ietf.org].

    • Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Alien1024 (1742918) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @09:31AM (#31966976)
      I used to think like that, but the worst thing about facebook privacy is not what you disclose about yourself (which after all is what you choose to disclose and nothing more), but what others publish about you. Here is some news for you: even if you don't have an account, you are probably already on facebook. Unless you live in a cave or avoid social life at all costs, chances are someone already uploaded a picture with you. It's preferable to have an account so you'll usually (though not always...) get to see those photos, comment on them, etc. That's the only reason why I signed up in the first place.
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      Anyone who ever had even a passing interest in personal data security and privacy has left Facebook months ago

      Stop making retarded generalizations. I have a passing interest in personal data security and privacy, but I don't post stuff to Facebook that it would be harmful to have known by the public, except where it's already a part of the public record. From my former writings and whatnot, largely accessible through google and the internet archive, you can tell what my full name is, my hometown, my high school. Why should I try to make these things private at this late date? I don't announce that I'm leaving my ho

      • by tomhudson (43916)

        The 5% of the world who live in the USSRA have forgotten what it was like back in the good old days of the former USA.

        Your life is already online for public review by anyone with letterhead, a fax machine, a business license, and a few bucks a month for access to ostensibly public-but-controlled databases like MERLIN.

        Not in countries that don't allow such things. We don't all live in the USSRA. Some of us live in countries that have laws prohibiting the government giving out your drivers license info or

    • Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Interesting)

      by RepelHistory (1082491) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @10:14AM (#31967180)
      Unfortunately, for a member of Gen Y, it is not a question of an interest in personal privacy. Facebook has become a legitimate part of our social identity. A great deal of communication and social interaction goes on through Facebook. While I agree that the changes to Facebook are horrendous, deleting my profile is simply not an option if I want to continue to have a full social life - for example, many events/parties/gatherings/whatever are coordinated solely through Facebook, and off the top of my head I cannot think of a single friend of mine that does not have a profile. Not having a profile at this stage would be akin to an 18th-century Frenchman deciding not to go to salons because he thought they were lame. It is simply not an option unless I want to become a pariah.

      Of course, the trouble is that Facebook knows how important it has become, and now can essentially do whatever it wants knowing that very few people will ever leave due to the reasons I expressed above.
    • Did you delete everything when you left? Otherwise everything you ever entered has retroactively been made semi-public (which is sort of like semi-pregnant I believe).
  • by CapeBretonBarbarian (512565) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @08:41AM (#31966678)

    I saw an opt-in/opt-out notice last night on Facebook for this change. I'm not sure why others have not. Perhaps they are rolling it out in waves or perhaps it depends on country (I'm in Canada).

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The opt-in / out notice I saw was for integrating with other sites and having "likes" or something appear on those other sites. To me, it wasn't immediately clear exactly what they meant (I didn't bother to study it, I just opted out). It doesn't sound like exactly this same thing though. For some time I had given Facebook certain pieces of real information and setup groups (lists) to set the security so that, for instance, "immediate family" and "indirect family" could see my cell number and address while
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by SpeedyDX (1014595)

      I'm also Canadian but did not see an opt-in/out notice. I went to check my public profile and discovered that it was indeed showing my "likes" amongst other things whereas my previous privacy settings explicitly forbade that kind of info being available to non-friends. I've since turned off my public profile altogether and you now get a 404-type page instead. This might be a good compromise if you don't mind people not being able to add you as easily (something I definitely don't mind).

  • by Culture20 (968837) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @08:43AM (#31966696)
    Confirm the Pages that will be on your profile
    Uncheck any Page you don't want to link to. Linking to education and work Pages may also create additional Pages, such as for your major or job title. If you don't link to any Pages, these sections on your profile will be empty. By linking your profile to Pages, you will be making these connections public. [emphasis mine]

    You are about to remove this information
    If you don't link to any Pages, the following sections on your profile will be empty:
    • Work and Education
    • Current City
    • Hometown
    • Likes and Interests

    So your options are all or nothing.

  • by jacks smirking reven (909048) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @08:45AM (#31966708)
    Why be on Facebook at all? They don't run it for warm fuzzy feelings. The bulk of the $$$$ is contained in its user data so they'll tap that well more and more as time goes on, not less.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Culture20 (968837)

      Why be on Facebook at all? They don't run it for warm fuzzy feelings. The bulk of the $$$$ is contained in its user data so they'll tap that well more and more as time goes on, not less.

      I'm not necessarily worried about privacy from Facebook or their corporate partners; I'm much more worried about what stalker girls would learn about me in the newly public information (and what's made public next, contact info, address, messages, chat logs?). Girls who stalk geeks are *crazy*

      • by gbjbaanb (229885)

        I'm much more worried about what stalker girls would learn about me

        don't worry - as soon as they link to your /. postings, you'll be totally safe from stalker girls, or any other type for that matter.

    • by Hott of the World (537284) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @09:19AM (#31966908) Homepage Journal

      Oh come on, there's a link on Slashdot right now to become a fan on facebook!

      Goddammit to hell.

  • Alternatives? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Threni (635302)

    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?

    • by Lehk228 (705449)
      myspace

      no really, just because many myspace pages look like shit, doesn't mean yours has to.
    • by IANAAC (692242)
      I have had an Orkut page for quite some time (since way before Google got them), but never used it.

      Out of curiosity, I went back to take a look. I kind of like what they've done. The page is really pretty lightweight, particularly in comparison with Facebook.

      I wonder why Google's not promoting the service. It could be a worthy competitor to Facebook. After all, pretty much everybody I know, tech or not, has a gmail account that could easily be associated with Orkut.

    • by srothroc (733160)
      Not really. In my opinion, most of facebook's power comes not from the platform, but the fact that so many people use it. Regardless of how good the platform is, if only 50,000 people use it, you're not going to get as much out of it because your friends are all on facebook because their friends are all on facebook.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by IANAAC (692242)

        ... you're not going to get as much out of it because your friends are all on facebook because their friends are all on facebook.

        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.

    • by selven (1556643)

      The Google empire seems to cover quite a lot of what Facebook offers. You can have your personal website on Google, link to those of your friends, you can see on Gmail if any of your contacts are online and start up an IM conversation with them, etc.

    • by jrumney (197329)
      Google Buzz seems to be aimed at Facebook status updates. Wave is more of a collaboration platform. But to get a critical mass to move across, you'd have to move all the pointless timewasting data collect^H^H^H^H^H games there too, so it would fairly quickly end up as bad as facebook.
    • by lee1 (219161)

      Is there something like Facebook but which doesn't suck so much?

      Yes: email. Most of what people use Facebook for can be accomplished better by sending emails to a list. If you want to get fancy, get a domain and put up a webpage.

  • Why (Score:5, Informative)

    by mukund (163654) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @08:58AM (#31966766) Homepage

    You still use Facebook? Call me a troll, but think. Are you being intelligent if you still use Facebook after all this?

    After my last Slashdot comment [slashdot.org], I deleted my profile. One of the sub-comments explains how to delete it instead of just disabling it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If I delete my account, I miss out on invitations to do stuff. For many of my friends, Facebook is now the ONLY way they communicate. As much as I dislike these latest policy changes, I think you can still use Facebook 'safely'. For instance, there's no information about me on my profile at all - not even gender. I haven't allowed any apps. I haven't uploaded any photos. I don't 'like' any pages. I delete all Facebook's cookies as soon as I log out. I've unchecked all the boxes and opted out of everything t

    • Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 1000101 (584896) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @10:06AM (#31967146)
      I use Facebook simply to keep in touch with friends, receive invites, etc. So my profile has some information about me:
      • 1. I 'like' a couple of bands that I like to keep up with
      • 2. I 'like' college football
      • 3. I 'like' some tech companies that I do business with
      • 4. I have a Computer Science degree
      • 5. I live in Atlanta, GA

      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.

  • I have to be amused that the first two lines of the page for me currently read:

    Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
    Your Rights Online: Facebook Retroactively Makes More User Data Public

    I suppose that since Slashdot is on the internet, and nothing on the internet is private, I shouldn't mind anyone knowing, right?
    Girls, where are you going? Oh, come back, it's not that bad, really! I just do it for the karma!

  • I was always taught not to accept candy from strangers that wanted to give me a free car ride. It looks like the ruse still works. I don't use facebook either.

  • by Nightjed (1102995) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @09:10AM (#31966860)

    People need to understand once something hits the internet its out there, no privacy promise by a huge corporation (that probably owns the data once it hits its servers and gave it self the right to change policy whenever they want in the wall of text) is going to protect it.

    The Cloud sound nice and all but the hype often forgets (intentionally ?) to make the dumb user aware of the consequences and dangers of putting something in a hard drive they cannot control

    • by Culture20 (968837)

      People need to understand once something hits the internet its out there, no privacy promise by a huge corporation (that probably owns the data once it hits its servers and gave it self the right to change policy whenever they want in the wall of text) is going to protect it.

      The problem is that usually the spread of info on the net outside of the usual corporate channels is done by human actors (viral videos, internet rumors), not by corporate actors. In this case, Facebook is randomly destroying their users' privacy for seemingly no reason. The corporate partners already had access, but now FB is giving everyone in the world access.

  • Long before the Internet became a household word, the accepted bit of "sage wisdom" was this:

    Never say on the Internet what you wouldn't want shouted from mountaintops.

    And never before has this been true. There is almost nothing on my Facebook profile I wouldn't mind being shouted from mountaintops. And for those few things I might care about are things I wouldn't want my Ex knowing about. But she hardly lacks the sophistication to discover these things. :-)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Fractal Dice (696349)
      addendum: never allow a friend to say anything on facebook you wouldn't want shouted from the mountaintops.

      More seriously, I think there is a different kind of privacy concern that comes from mass data-mining ... it's not the "will I be scammed/blackmailed" but more of a "will I be blacklisted". Will potential employers, governments or other organizations begin to define a sort of "social credit score" that imapacts my career, the rate at which I am "randomly" picked out for an audit, etc. I don't have
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by flajann (658201)

        addendum: never allow a friend to say anything on facebook you wouldn't want shouted from the mountaintops. More seriously, I think there is a different kind of privacy concern that comes from mass data-mining ... it's not the "will I be scammed/blackmailed" but more of a "will I be blacklisted". Will potential employers, governments or other organizations begin to define a sort of "social credit score" that impacts my career, the rate at which I am "randomly" picked out for an audit, etc. I don't have any secrets worth hiding, but I have a terrible fear of "death by random red tape".

        This is already going on. I've already had one place mention my postings on an online forum when I went in for the interview. They claimed not to take it against me, but I never got the job.

  • by zill (1690130)
    Phew, good thing this doesn't apply to me. I managed to retroactively reject their privacy policy update.
  • by uksv29 (167362) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @11:04AM (#31967506) Homepage

    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.

  • by Bryansix (761547) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @12:09PM (#31967912) Homepage
    Why is this so difficult? Repeat after me "I will not post anything to the Internet that I do not want the whole world to know". And also "I will not trust a third party company to keep my data private ever even if they pinky swear to it". Then if you don't post things you do not want revealed then when the company (facebook in this case) makes the data public or gets hacked then nothing of value will be lost.

    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.
  • by doomy (7461) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @12:33PM (#31968062) Homepage Journal

    You literally have to be an Internet Olympic hero to delete or remove your Facebook account after these changes. But I found this story/guide, by Mathew Ingram very useful when I removed my facebook presence.

    http://gigaom.com/2010/04/22/your-moms-guide-to-those-facebook-changes-and-how-to-block-them/

    Even if you are not logged into facebook, due to instant personalization, many websites that partner with fb can track you.

  • by schlick (73861) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @12:56PM (#31968220)
    For all of you that keep saying "I don't post private information on the intarwebs, so I'm safe" you are missing the point. Facebook is just the leading example but ther has been a fundamental shift in the way the Internet is being used since the 90's.


    Eben Moglen:

    We have a kind of social dilemma which comes from architectural creep. We had an Internet that was designed around the notion of peerage - machines with no hierarchical relationship to one another, and no guarantee about their internal architectures or behaviours, communicating through a series of rules which allowed disparate, heterogeneous networks to be networked together around the assumption that everybody's equal.
    In the Web the social harm done by the client-server model arises from the fact that logs of Web servers become the trails left by all of the activities of human beings, and the logs can be centralised in servers under hierarchical control. Web logs become power. With the exception of search, which is a service that nobody knows how to decentralise efficiently, most of these services do not actually rely upon a hierarchical model. They really rely upon the Web - that is, the non-hierarchical peerage model created by Tim Berners-Lee, and which is now the dominant data structure in our world.
    The services are centralised for commercial purposes. The power that the Web log holds is monetisable, because it provides a form of surveillance which is attractive to both commercial and governmental social control. So the Web, with services equipped in a basically client-server architecture, becomes a device for surveillance as well as providing additional services. And surveillance becomes the hidden service wrapped inside everything we get for free.
    The cloud is a vernacular name which we give to a significant improvement in the server-side of the web - the server, decentralised. It becomes, instead of a lump of iron, a digital appliance, which can be running anywhere. This means that for all practical purposes servers cease to be subject to significant legal control. They no longer operate in a policy-directed manner, because they are no longer iron, subject to territorial orientation of law. In a world of virtualised service provision, the server which provides the service, and therefore the log which is the result of the hidden service of surveillance, can be projected into any domain at any moment and can be stripped of any legal obligation pretty much equally freely.
    This is a pessimal result.

    read the rest here [h-online.com].
    if you're too lazy to read watch it here [youtube.com].

  • by SemperUbi (673908) on Saturday April 24, 2010 @03:27PM (#31969134)
    We are the product. We're what Facebook sells to advertisers in order to bring in their business. Facebook needs to offer just enough privacy and control to keep most of us, but not so much as to ruin the value of the product.

Lo! Men have become the tool of their tools. -- Henry David Thoreau

Working...