Why Facebook Won't Stop Invading Your Privacy 219
GMGruman writes "Every few weeks, it seems, Facebook is caught again violating users' privacy. A code error there, rogue business partners there. The truth, as InfoWorld's Bill Snyder explains, is that Facebook will keep on violating your privacy, no matter what its policies say, what promises it makes, or how shocked it claims to be at the latest incident. The reason is simple: Selling personal information on its users is how it makes money, and Facebook is above all a business."
Well, duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this news? Nothing to see here, move on please...
Re: (Score:2)
Slow news day?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Facebook won't give up invading users' privacy until they get replaced by a site that cares about user privacy.
I think you mean "until they go out of business." The reason that they go out of business isn't terribly important, but as long as they're in business, this is the business they're in.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, where is it.
Diaspora: non finished.
Appleseed - no traction.
http://opensource.appleseedproject.org/ [appleseedproject.org]
Not sexy enough.
What else?
Re: (Score:2)
Help with Diaspora? GitHub is set up. I just set up my pod yesterday. Help be part of the solution by testing and suggesting changes/fixes.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess this the intro page for onesocialweb?
http://onesocialweb.org/ [onesocialweb.org]
Looks promising.
Re:Well, duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am cynical, but if a site comes along that does respect user privacy, they won't make the ad revenue, unless other funding is obtained.
FB does not make a dime from the people who have accounts with them, other than the gift services. The real customers are the advertisers and the developers like Zygna. To FB, account-holders are considered whining maggots, a necessary evil so advertisers can be handed their information and in return, hand FB cash.
TANSTAAFL. Want to know how to change this? Have a social networking site paid for by either subscription fees, or by grants from governments/universities/funds in return for privacy/security guarantees of user data?
Re:Well, duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Advertisers are not handed the information. Advertisers specify the characteristics of the user they'd like to advertise to. I helped a friend advertise her bistro. We said who we'd like to show the ad to. Facebook then said how many people it was shown to each day, but never who. For all I know they could have lied on the number and charged her credit card anyway, but her fan count definitely took off quicker with the advertising and business went up. Was it the advertising onFacebook? It appears so, but I can't prove it.
As for application developers, of which I am one... Please tell me how you expect the social aspects of the games are supposed to work if I CAN'T pull information? Sure you can lock everything down. These are the same people who can't lock their account down. They're going to bitch when things don't just work in the games because they can't figure out how to open them up.
Here's what I tell people: If you don't want it known, don't tell it to Facebook. Belong to the Church of Satan, but don't want people to know? Don't put it in your profile. And maybe take 10 minutes to go through the privacy controls they're not that hard.
Still don't like it? Don't open a damned account. It's nice that you put up solutions, but the possibility of any of those happening is zero to nil.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The social stuff can work, but FB's app model is all or nothing. You hand over not just your info to any app developer who comes along, but your friends' info too. I have yet to see a FB app developer ask for anything less than the whole shebang for their stuff.
The "love it or leave it" argument isn't valid either. I know when I was looking for work that I was turned down for jobs because I didn't have a FB profile, thus HR reps thought I was a dinosaur. I was even asked about it in interviews, and when
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Facebook won't give up invading users' privacy until they get replaced by a site that cares about user privacy.
And such a site would not survive without eventually pulling the same tricks or charging their users somehow. I'm guessing the server resources needed to run facebook are not small. Something distributed like Diaspora might work but only if everyone runs their own server (so they are not trusting a service who may sell the data anyway) and installs security updates promptly (otherwise Joe Bloggs will get exploited and immediately all his info and anything the accounts on his server has access to).
And I can guarantee that that caring attitude will last precisely long enough to bury Facebook as a competitor before they start doing exactly the same thing.
Exactly. E
Re:Well, duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. Facebook won't give up invading users' privacy until they get replaced by a site that cares about user privacy. And I can guarantee that that caring attitude will last precisely long enough to bury Facebook as a competitor before they start doing exactly the same thing. Users just have to accept they can have privacy or Facebook, but not both.
I don't think this is limited to facebook.
Our privacy has been successively eroded over the past 20 years since companies realised how valuable information about their customers could be. We have gained many "free" services as a result of this that we otherwise would have had to pay for, but we have don so under the small print proviso that we would be allowing them to make money by selling information gleaned from watching us.
Even before the current days of the web customer loyalty cards were built on this premise. They could give us a small discount on our shopping in return for the data they could gather on us as a result of us identifying ourselves every time we purchased something.
The only way facebook would ever be overtaken by another company that did not behave this way would be if people cared enough to leave because of it, I have sneaky feeling that most people do not.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Well, quite, but I don't think "duh" really captures it.
Duuh. Duuuuh. Duuuuuh DUUUUUUUUUUUH!
For extra points, add "spazz face". I mean, really, this is a "Bakers secretly intend to continue turning flour into bread" level revelation.
Re:Well, duh. (Score:5, Interesting)
I find myself re-iterating this fact to my family members every month.
See, yesterday or the day before the Wall Street Journal published an article, I guess they sent someone in and investigated the whole Facebook Application scheme, and found that 10 out of the top 10 developers are selling the information they gather and that it's not unusual for LOTS of Facebook apps to do so. This is technically a breach in the "privacy policy" set forth by facebook, but no one has ever done anything about it, ever, so its still rampant.
Of course, my mother works downtown in a nice tall skyscraper and she catches a glimpse of this, catching the words like "Facebook - Privacy - Security - Breach - Applications - Farmville" so she went and formed her own little news snippet in her head completely different from whats actually going on. She sends an email to the entire family along the lines of "Facebook announced that some popular apps like Farmville have been hacked, so double check your personal/financial info to make sure none of your banking credentials were stolen!"
My first reaction was a double take with a massive head jerk thinking that the makers of Farmville (Zynga? w/e) had managed to make their application place tracking cookies or other devices in the browser that could do simple keylogging and report back to their server. I immediately pull up my browser and start searching for anything regarding the subject matter - only to find nothing but that Wall Street Journal Article.
So I had politely drafted up an email to everyone in that email explaining the whole privacy issue with Facebook right now - making careful to note that their computer hasn't been hacked by accessing a facebook app - but any information they've put on Facebook is essentially on there, has probably been sold to advertising companies, and can't be removed.
I can't seem to get it to stick...
Re:Well, duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an unfortunate chain of events. When you explain the facts and the "OMG, they're hacking my bank accounts" panic fades away, the truth winds up seeming a lot less grim. People may not be able to work up the appropriate levels of concern. Relief you haven't been shot may keep you from reacting to the fact you're being robbed.
Re:Well, duh. (Score:4, Informative)
I can't seem to get it to stick...
Because, in the end, users do not want privacy. They want their Facebook, Gmail, et al for free, and are unable or unwilling to make the connection that "free" has a non-monetary price to them. These companies know this and will continue to do whatever they can get away with to make the money that keeps it "free" to the audience.
Re:Well, duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
you can lead a brain to knowledge but you can't make it think.
Re: (Score:2)
The key insight conveyed in the parent post is that the real reason why Facebook violates its users' privacy is not merely because that is part of its business model, but because its users are either too ignorant to understand what such violations actually entail, or if they know, they don't care because they feel Facebook offers them sufficient value in exchange for that data.
What makes Facebook successful is that EVERYBODY seems to be on it. As long as people collectively think they get some kind of soci
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well then you're missing the actual issue - it's not that Facebook has the data. We get that, it's that they've essentially gotten around the hassle of having to keep the data private. I have a confidentiality agreement with my bank that they can't sell information regarding my purchases. People have an agreement with their Shrinks not to disclose the information discussed in their meetings.
Facebook - at first, claimed that the data gathered would not be distributed in any way shape or form. The problem cam
Re: (Score:3)
So thats why it's getting so many attacks on it - there's a LOT of holes in the system and its not just "You gave it to Facebook" - it's a sort of "You gave me a check box that said ONLY people on my friends list could see it. Now an App developer has that information and is selling it. WTF"
Nah, it really is as simple as "you gave it to Facebook". Putting info on the internet is making that info public, period. If you believe Mark Zuckerberg when he says "trust me honey, I'll pull out in time", that's just your naivete. Companies tell you lots of things when they want you to use their product, all lies, and yet people are somehow surprised that this one specific company lied to them? Please.
If you put it on the internet, expect it to become public, simple as that. That includes email, VOI
Re:Well, duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Email is effectively public, unless you encrypt it. Don't fool yourself. The law is increasingly treating email like post cards, where there's no expectation of privacy for the contents.
And your banking history is an open book to the government, and (especially for credit cards) plenty of personal info is sold to marketers, unless you carefully opt out (and even so, some stuff goes to the credit agencies). And, of course, if you don't encrypt your session with your bank, your money WILL get stolen. Encyption provides most of your (transactional) banking security.
Re: (Score:2)
Bet me to it - what else can you say ?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this news?
Because sometimes, the truth needs to be repeated many, many, many times for it to finally sink in.
How many times were you told as a kid that candy rots your teeth and makes you fat? How many of you, despite that, would have eaten candy until you were sick as a kid?
Granted, with the slashdot crowd, some of you may have come back with "correlation is not causation" and in depth critiques as to the statistical relevance of "4 out of 5 dentists say so." A good number of you probably just shouted "first post!
Re:Well, duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product." (I wish I could claim credit for the quote, but I can't. And I've heard it from so many sources that I don't know the origin.)
As the great Aussie band the Saints sang, "Know Your Product," alternately, "No, You're Product."
Shocking. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Why Facebook Won't Stop Invading Your Privacy (Score:2, Funny)
Because it's a perv?
We should be used to it by now (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
s/zero-day exploit/API/; s/hackers/business partners/
True, hackers will also occasionally discover how to do it, but that of course isn't intentional, since there's no profit for Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
It's always easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to get permission.
Nah, it's easier to do neither. And a good business model, apparently.
To quote someone on Metafilter: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're not paying for the service, you are the product, not the customer.
Re:To quote someone on Metafilter: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To quote someone on Metafilter: (Score:5, Informative)
You're correct, but the problem with Facebook is that it needs you to share lots of information in order for them to sell it to others. It's well known that opt-in services, whilst being great for consumer privacy, typically have a lousy take-up rate. I'm amazed at the number of people who have completely open profiles, probably because they didn't know that they were like that.
Therefore it is in Facebook's interest (and their bottom line) to ensure that you have to opt-out and preferably in a way which is convoluted enough to make you not bother but not so convoluted that they're accused of being evil*.
Their goal of helping your connect with friends has long gone as the functionality available today is more than adequate for that purpose. All new features added in the last year or two are solely geared around you sharing more information that can be sold.
(* with the exception of Facebook Places, which they've blatantly decided that you cannot block check-ins from your friend stream without completely blocking the friend - presumably in the hope that you'll be persuaded to actually use the service)
Re: (Score:2)
And, even if you are paying for the service, you may still be the product. Which is why advertisers on TV think you should be obliged to watch their ads.
In short, you're always the product.
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
...water is wet, the sky is blue, and Elvis is still dead.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
No, Elvis is not dead, he just went home.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
I just knew that would be the first reply I got. Thank you, Slashdot, for not letting me down.
Facebook is NOT violating privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure this will be an unpopular post, but Facebook is NOT violating privacy.
Really, if you post something on the internet and expect it to be private, you are an idiot. You can't reasonably expect privacy on someone else's servers. Once you release information in the wild, you have no control over what happens to it. None. Those privacy settings mean jack shit. They are only veils. In fact, those privacy settings aren't even guaranteed.
If you don't want people to know something about you, don't post it o
Re:Facebook is NOT violating privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure this will be an unpopular post, but Facebook is NOT violating privacy.
Really, if you post something on the internet and expect it to be private, you are an idiot. You can't reasonably expect privacy on someone else's servers. Once you release information in the wild, you have no control over what happens to it. None. Those privacy settings mean jack shit. They are only veils. In fact, those privacy settings aren't even guaranteed.
If you don't want people to know something about you, don't post it on the internet. It really is THAT simple. If you don't want the evidence to make it to your wife, your boss, or whatever, don't put that evidence in an archivable medium AT ALL. And lastly, if you don't like the way Facebook uses your information, DON'T USE THE GOD DAMN SITE. If you aren't using it, they can't "violate" your "privacy."
Bullshit. When you do online banking, you expect your information to remain private. When you click a box on Facebook that claims to protect your privacy, it dammed well better.
Re: (Score:2)
No, when I do online banking I expect privacy because if I don't get it I will take my money somewhere else. The bank makes money on the money I put in the bank.
Facebook makes money on stuff I put in facebook, but I can't take it out once I put it in.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that and the federal laws the require it.
Don't give up on that indignation thing though. That's fun too. :-P
No one cares (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's what's so sad about this. When friends encouraged me to get on Facebook I told them about the profit model and why they shouldn't contribute to it, but they all had the same response, "who cares?" It was hard enough for them to understand why their personal information would even be profitable in the first place, but for them to actually care was impossible. Lets face it, Facebook users have the same view of privacy Zuckerberg has: they don't value it and they don't understand why anyone would (unless, of course, they had something to hide).
I value my privacy and I find Facebook to be the finest example of everything that is wrong with capitalism. But that's why I'm here on Slashdot and not there.
Re: (Score:2)
What private information can facebook sell? My name? that's not private. My public posts? that's not private. Seriously, what private info do they sell and to who?
Re:No one cares (Score:5, Funny)
My posts aren't supposed to be public. They are supposed to private, just between me and my 5,000 closest friends.
Re: (Score:2)
My posts aren't supposed to be public. They are supposed to private, just between me and my 5,000 closest friends.
In Norway there recently was a case about whether it's OK for the media to quote from Facebook postings on a closed profile. The PFU (Norwegian media regulatory commission) concluded that it was fine. Since the guy had 2700 friends, several journalists amongst them, it constituted a public expression.
Here is a somewhat strange translation. [google.com]
Re:No one cares (Score:4, Insightful)
Even the private messages that go between you and someone else on Facebook are still technically posted "To Facebook" so it is "Facebooks Data" and within "Facebooks Data collection" and permissable for them to sell or do whatever they want to.
But that's not really the thing. Your name IS private. When there are only two parties involved, yourself and someone else, and they ask you your name, you can choose not to disclose that information. This is where aliases online became popular to help anonymize people. Facebook discourages anonymizing and wants to identify people, makes it easier to aggregate their data.
When I log onto facebook and when my girlfriend log onto facebook, we'll see different advertisements. Why is that? Clearly they've collected enough information on me to know that I like video games and she likes Jewelry. Simple enough matter - perhaps thats just gender profiling? Well when I log on compared to my brother, I see ads for MMO's, he sees advertisements for sports and poker.
The point is that basically all the stuff about you, even stuff you don't generally make public - ends up getting grouped together into a profile that gets sold to advertisers so you are constantly bombarded by the stuff you are most likely to buy. Just by creating that profile, and then clicking on certain links - that info gets put to work profiling you. Hey, you like Mafia Wars? This kid probably likes the idea of Gangs and guns. Lets grab some related clothing and see if he clicks on the ad that says SALE!
Then, when someone messages you "Hey, whats your Phone #?" Facebook gets that info. When someone asks "Hey where's your house again?" They get your address. "Whats your email?" - yada yada yada.
The big fear everyone has is that this will go much farther reaching than advertising. Oh hey, you were looking up medical conditions, you have a self diagnosis app on facebook... Health Insurance company buys the info... Oh look your premiums are going to go up, they suspect you might have something. You came down with something? Well theres some searches you made 5 years ago that suggests it might have been present before buying the insurance, so no payout.
Things like that.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought your name really was Monkee Dude. Thanks for ruining it.
Re:No one cares (Score:4, Insightful)
If Facebook is the best example of everything that's wrong with capitalism, capitalism would appear to be a pretty good system. I doubt socialism is an inherently privacy-valuing system... it would seem to me that for a socialistic model to work, more of your privacy would have to be violated?
Socialism 101, and Privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Socialism 101: the employees own their place of employment. It could be directly, such as a partnership, or via proxy (ie. shares of stock). Period.
Some people prefer a more indirect proxy (ie. a Socialist government). Obviously, *that* model has had problems.
Social Democratic parties prefer the employee-ownership part. But, rather than require it and overturn the whole apple cart, accept that yer gonna have owners exploiting employees, and use social welfare programs to ameliorate the "getting screwed" par
Re: (Score:2)
When I joined facebook in '04, it actually seemed like they cared about privacy. They had reasonable privacy controls, they made it easy to establish how much privacy you wanted on your profile, and they hadn't started selling ad-space of any kind, nor mentioned what their business model would really be. Unfortunately, by the time they began changing, selling user info etc., *everything* at school ran on facebook. *everything*. You couldn't be involved in student government, either as an official or just a
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your last points there, but not enough to stop me from creating a Facebook account. If my Facebook account gets sold out, well, I didn't reveal anything really private there anyway. But if my Slashdot ID were outed and linked by some app to my Facebook account, hrmmm, that wouldn't be pretty. I wonder if it could be done?
Re:No one cares (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets face it, Facebook users have the same view of privacy Zuckerberg has: they don't value it and they don't understand why anyone would (unless, of course, they had something to hide).
And they're 100% right -- for if they do not see value in their privacy, then their privacy has no value.
For those whose privacy does have value - they'll do as you do, and avoid Facebook et al entirely.
Re:No one cares (Score:5, Interesting)
When friends encouraged me to get on Facebook I told them about the profit model and why they shouldn't contribute to it...
Wait... *why* shouldn't they contribute to it? You say that as if it's a given, but please, elaborate on this point for me.
Because it seems to me this is a classic example of a win-win situation: the users give information to Facebook, which Facebook deems valuable, and the users, in turn, receive a service they find useful.
Now, certainly people can choose whether they want to participate in that arrangement, and I can see why *you* shouldn't. But I fail to see why no one else should.
Re: (Score:2)
So rather than ranting about how stupid your friends are, how about breaking down why you're so concerned about that sort of information being private?
Re: (Score:2)
Telling Facebook your address falls under one of those not very smart things that you shouldn't do. Posting your vacation pictures before you get back possibly isn't very smart.
On the other hand, you're referring to a VERY small set of incidents. A lot of people are using Facebook and not getting robbed.
This is why we can't have nice things, children! (Score:3, Insightful)
I already know I'm going to get modded down to -1, Troll or -1, Flamebait for posting this, but you can't escape the cold hard truth that so many of you have not been wise, and now you're paying the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Paying what price? huh? people keep saying shit like that, and yet no one can point to where facebook actually makes money from selling any private information.
Re:This is why we can't have nice things, children (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Your name is generally a matter of public record. It's not private. Pretty much the opposite, in fact.
If you post any actual private information on a social networking site then you're taking a risk. You might be an idiot, or you might have weighted the costs and benefits and made an informed decision.
Re: (Score:2)
..informed decision
Don't you see, that's my point: most people haven't made an "informed decision", they didn't even think about it! All my friends are doing it, I should do it too!
Re: (Score:2)
So? Why do you feel the need to protect everyone?
And really, what are they losing? Probably the same stuff we've all already given to Google.
You did realize that Google collects information on you, right? And (assuming you use any Google services) you made an informed decision to use it, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you are here posting comments on a site that features a nice threading model so that other people can easily reply. Maybe if you don't like that, you need to ignore it.
You think what appears in a Google search is all the information they have about you? And you're calling all social networking users idiots? Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is most people's informed decisions fail to take into account the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of a business that has a vested interest in breaking any sort of privacy promise they make to you.
It's in facebook's best interest to lure you in with promises of shelter from the public, and then whip out their TOS to throw you under the bus by reselling your soul to the advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually use your real name and personal information on any social networking site, then you are an idiot, plain and simple.
Well, except maybe linkedin.
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually use your real name and personal information on any social networking site, then you are an idiot, plain and simple.
Because...?
Come on, the least you could do is, like, actually present an argument.
I already know I'm going to get modded down to -1, Troll or -1, Flamebait for posting this
Ahh, classic. The ol' "I know I'm going to get modded down for thus, but..." insurance game... it's amazing the idiot moderators actually fall for it. *sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone has their birthday there.
Re: (Score:2)
and in many cases, it's people you never even met in person who you allowed on your friends list in the neverending quest to have more "friends" than your buddies do.
I think this is the big mistake people make, coupled with Facebook's "friend of a friend" permission that allows people you really don't know (aka strangers) to troll your profile, friends list and photos.
Outside of people I knew in high school or college, I make a point to turn down friend requests from business/work acquaintances and people
Re: (Score:2)
Do I post my entire personal history on there? No.
Do I like reconnecting with friends I had 10 years ago? Yes, so the extremely minor amount of information that is gleaned from my profile is worth it to me. That doesn't make me an idiot and you should probably watch out when you generalize like that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you actually use your real name and personal information on any social networking site, then you are an idiot, plain and simple.
Exactly!
That's why I always walk around outside wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, a biohazard suit and use a different alias at every shop. Can't let just anyone know my real face or true name - and who knows what dark magics they might weave with a lock of my hair?
Plus it makes everyone who comes to the help desk at work really quiet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny thing is, GP didn't say he "had nothing to hide" - he said that the stuff he posts on facebook isn't that private anyway, and he doesn't care that it's up there, or that Facebook knows it. He didn't say "I post every deta
the nature of the beast (Score:2)
"No privacy" is (almost literally) coded into Facebook's DNA. The very premise of the site is that privacy is a thing of the past. The fact that this dovetails nicely with its business model of selling access to information is simply the reason it's financially successful.
True, The Zen of Zuckerberg (Score:2)
"No privacy" coded into Facebook's DNA... so true. Reading Zuck's interview in the Sept 20th New Yorker [newyorker.com] allows one to better understand this explicit point, beyond the coarse Harvard email zingers. As the writer points out, Mr. Zuckerberg can afford to take the "open book" approach to life, since he's been on the favored side of the US economy - with the means to protect his livelihood - literally since childhood.
Isn't that the point? (Score:2)
I thought the whole point of facebook was that you could put all your information online. You can't have your cake and eat it too, right?
This point keeps getting made (Score:4, Interesting)
The Zuckerborg (Score:2)
Listen! And understand! Zuckerborg is out there. He can't be bargained with! He can't be reasoned with! He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until your privacy has been violated!
The trick... (Score:2)
Paid subscriptions (Score:2)
.
Facebook's days of dominance are numbered (Score:2)
The same thing will happen to the Facebook social networking service as happened to the Compuserve electronic mail service. New, open protocols and standards will negate the network effects it currently enjoys, and it will become one of many inter-operative social networking platforms.
Losing your privacy doesn't cost you anything (Score:2)
In other words, most people don't care if their public
Sites that collect no PII can't sell or leak it (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Been tried before. [wikipedia.org] I'd advise you to learn from their mistakes, but I'm not sure what they could have done to avoid their fate.
Why? Because people won't stop using it (Score:4, Insightful)
"Privacy is Dead" Philosophy (Score:4, Interesting)
Within this philosophy each move that Facebook makes isn't some sort of violation or theft. You can't steal what someone doesn't have. Instead, it is an object lesson to the unenlightened. I, for one, believe this is total bullshit. Then again, I'm also not on Facebook. The movers and shakers in technology have been all about this for a long time: dragging the masses kicking and screaming to that future only he has the genius to see. Usually, they have limited it to technical or economic matters, a'la Bill Gates. Or, like Steve Jobs, they have an overt social vision behind their technological heavy-handedness, but folks generally haven't been too offended by it. Zuckerberg is upping the ante in a dramatic way.
FB cares about privacy (Score:5, Funny)
Facebook is a business (Score:2)
No. That's not correct. Facebook is an unethical business. It lies. It deceives its users. Deceit is not required to be in business. There are ethical and unethical businesses and which type of business they are depends on the morals of the people who run them. Dishonest people run unethical businesses. Honest people run ethical businesses. Do not lump the honest people in with the dishonest ones. They are nowhere near being alike. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Expectation of privacy. (Score:2, Insightful)
You put your data on its server for the purpose of sharing it with others. Any expectation of "privacy" on a system designed to share information seems misinformed, especially when all that information is further shared with third parties (apps) over whom Facebook has no control. You might reasonably expect your FB inbox to be private but that's about the only type of information on the entire site that isn't "shareable."
Plus, if you're not accessing a service exclusively over SSL, do you really care how
Surprise! (Score:2)
I came here to say that people are almost certainly over-analyzing the issue. Really, it's simple: Selling personal information on its users is how it makes money.
Except in this case, they didn't over analyze it at all! :-)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing and no one should have first amendment restrictions.
FIRE!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21, @11:51AM(#33974432) rapes babies and strangles puppies!
The military is conducting an operation at coordinates x-y at 11:00AM (EST) on October 22.
Corporations funneling money into political campaigns are merely expressing their political opinions!
Need any other examples?
Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech is about expressing beliefs and opinions and facts, that is what the ruling about "FIRE" is all about you are not free to tell blatant false hoods when they could case clear and present danger. This is also how liable, defamation, and slander laws are still permissible.
Beyond this there is no reason to curb freedoms of speech. The whole corporate campaign donations thing is a red herring. That ruling in and of it self is correct. The problem there if you will is the legal fiction that corporations are people and therefore can hide behind the bill of rights in the first place. Corporations are nothing like people:
they don't die eventually as people do
you can't jail them when the misbehave
because their size, wealth, and resources vary so widely as compared with individuals they don't have an equal sensitivity to fines and other defined civil penalties.
If you want to fix this country (USA) for real one place to start would be getting rid of the legal fiction corporations are people, drafting up a fare corporate bill of rights, which might leave some limitations on things like speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech is about expressing beliefs and opinions and facts, that is what the ruling about "FIRE" is all about you are not free to tell blatant false hoods when they could case clear and present danger.
But didn't the 'fire in a crowded theater' argument originate in a Supreme Court case where the government was trying to justify locking up anti-war protestors in WWI?
Certainly I remember reading that one of the Supreme Court judges who agreed with it later said that it was the worst decision he made in his life.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that the First Amendment to the US Constitution is all about preventing the government from restricting your rights to speak freely. It says nothing whatsoever about preventing individuals from restricting other individuals' rights. That's why a corporation can, and does, demand that you agree to certain terms that include privacy (they are agreeing to honor or abuse the information you give them as the case may be), and it's perfectly legal. For the most part.
So blanket stances don't, unfortuna
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's good to have Facebook users keeping up pressure on Facebook to keep things reasonable, but some data sharing is the price of using their service. Like any service provider, the clients should have a say in negotiating the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use it either, but the calling of the dark side with promises of friends, fun and casual sex is powerful.
It is articles like this that are setting me straight. Thanks /. !
Maybe time to make a profile. Keep the info false and see what happens. I am sure I would not be the first to have a mostly false facebook, myspace, linkedin, etc. profile.
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful, it might violate the FB TOS. And then the feds would try to give you a hole new meaning to casual sex.
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful, it might violate the FB TOS. And then the feds would try to give you a hole new meaning to casual sex.
The Feds only care about the hole that is involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)