24-Year-Old Asks Facebook For His Data, Gets 1,200 PDFs 291
chicksdaddy writes "Be careful of what you ask for. That's a lesson Max Schrems of Vienna, Austria learned the hard way when he sent a formal request to Facebook for a copy of every piece of personal information that the social network had collected on him, as required under European law. After a wait, the 24-year-old law student got what he was seeking: a CD with all his data stored on it — 1,222 files in all. The collection of PDFs was roughly the length of Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace, but told a more mundane story: a record of Schrems' years-long relationship with the world's largest social network, including reams of data he had deleted. Now Schrems is pushing Facebook to disclose even more of what it knows."
It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
What if I want them to? Version control, anyone?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
You might be legally retarded.
Huh?
His point is perfectly valid. Wikipedia is, for example, all about version control. Somebody defaces a page? Revert.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) You could revert the next day. The OP didn't say it should be deleted instantly, just within a reasonable amount of time. Keeping data for 1 month to allow user reversals and another 5 months for backup tape recycling is reasonable. Keeping your data for years like they do now is a different matter.
2) This backup/restore function you speak of is not available in Facebook anyway, despite them having the data available forever.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about you stop trying to decide what should happen to other peoples data for them.
My reaction to that statement is - WHAT!?!?!?!
It's the owner who is removing it, not someone else. Just because you want your data to be stored for years, doesn't mean that I should be deprived of the option to remove it permanently. If anything, current situation takes away my choice to remove the information permanently, while not affecting you in any meaningful way.
PS: And if they want to do business in EU, they have to comply with the rules people of EU set out.
Deleting data isn't as simple as it sounds (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree, it should be your choice. However, I'm one who really, really likes the idea of keeping an edit history for posts if one so chooses.
And I can understand why Facebook doesn't actually delete the data, but just flags it as hidden/deleted -- it's a real bear to update and nullify all the object id references to a post in such a mammoth system. There are links all over the place from people whose "feed" pages may reference your post. There are forwards and reposts of your post which create a commented link to your post -- does your right to delete your post mean you have the right to delete the posts of people who've commented on it?
Given that some of the content links could be in archived databases instead of mainline storage or cache, updating them could be virtually impossible.
Canada is facing the same issue with it's Long Gun Registry being shut down by Harper's Conservative government -- the data is cross-linked throughout government and law enforcement system, with over a decade of archived databases referencing the LGR databases. Truly deleting the data requires restoring the archived external databases, updating their contents to remove the references, exporting the database for an updated backup, and archiving it for storage.
Now there's the cascade effect -- any references to the archive disks now have to be updated to reference the new archive database content instead of the original.
They're currently expecting it to take over FIVE YEARS to purge that one database, and it's pitifully small compared to Facebook or Google.
Never mind the potential legal issues of external and archive systems that are mandated to be write-only by government legislation, and which have to be retained for 7-10 years in many cases.
Realistically, a versioning system or flagging content as deleted instead of purging it is the only option available for large systems that maintain historical data of any significant size.
There is a clear difference (Score:3)
His point is perfectly valid. Wikipedia is, for example, all about version control. Somebody defaces a page? Revert.
There is a clear difference here. Wikipedia tells you that's the deal up front. You don't have to file a foia request to find out.
Re: (Score:3)
IIRC it is in facebook's TOS as well and if I can guess correctly it is in the
TOS of pretty much anything on the Internet that has a TOS document
Re:There is a clear difference (Score:5, Informative)
I think I agree with you. I never understood why people complain about what sites do when all of what they do is in the terms.
From what I can tell, pretty much everything there is to know about how your data is used by Facebook is on:
http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms [facebook.com]
http://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy [facebook.com]
http://developers.facebook.com/policy/ [facebook.com]
http://www.facebook.com/ad_guidelines.php [facebook.com]
All that comes in at about 15000 words. Sure, this will probably take you more than a few minutes to read and understand, unless you are Lt. Cmdr. Data. But if it is so important to you, than why not spend the time?
I have an feeling that people are either too lazy for their own good, or just like to see injustice where there is none because they like the feeling of righteous indignation
Sorry, I don't usually rant; please, anyone, do not take this post as impugning you personally; and I am probably missing many good counter-points.
Re:There is a clear difference (Score:4, Informative)
In addition to full legal documentation, there should be a brief summary in point form for the average user to get a basic understanding of what's what. If he then wishes, he can gain more information from the legalese docs, or otherwise agree.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
What if I want them to? Version control, anyone?
You haven't deleted it if you expect it to be recoverable from a version control system.
But when I have a reasonable expectation for something to be deleted forever (like when I empty my Gmail trash folder), then the carrier should take reasonable steps to make said item unrecoverable within a reasonable timeframe.
Re: (Score:3)
But when I have a reasonable expectation for something to be deleted forever
Not when their data usage policy [facebook.com] spells out when it ISNT deleted, and gives no guarentees.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:4, Informative)
The data usage policy is illegal under EU and most other european law ... so?
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
"backups"
That's why I said "reasonable timeframe". I don't expect them to delete the data immediately, maybe provide for 90 - 180 days to allow off-site tapes to be recycled. I'm not even asking for a secure delete, I'm ok with the data being technically recoverable from a disk or tape using forensic analysis.
Maximum retention times are nothing new in the corporate world.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Very few people understand the technical ramifications of 'deletion' on large infrastructure. It's very likely that facebook can't actually 'delete' much the same way InnoDB can't recover disk space after a delete (which means the data still exists on the hard drive).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Should it also be illegal for me to keep a record of your appearance in my mind once you leave the room as well?
>Making up arbitrary emotionally motivated "this should be illegal" arguments on the fly.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Funny)
That should be illegal.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Informative)
Moderating a Funny post Informative, that should be illegal.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:4, Funny)
Meta-auto-moderation, that's a paddlin'.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your personal knowledge of a prior event concerning me does not raise privacy concerns. Your automatic and routine compilation of all prior events concerning me and sharing of that information with intelligence agencies, law enforcement, and commercial partners does.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your personal knowledge of a prior event concerning me does not raise privacy concerns. Your automatic and routine compilation of all prior events concerning me and sharing of that information with intelligence agencies, law enforcement, and commercial partners does.
Your life isn't nearly as interesting as you think. Your mundanity is your privacy. Your value to Facebook is your eyeballs and the ads they can serve.
And if your life was any interest to anyone, there'd be people working a lot harder to penetrate your privacy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone's looking for you. Thanks to information on the internet, they find you. Then they murder you.
Okay, that probably won't happen to me personally. But guess what? It (not necessarily that extreme example) has to happen to someone. And that someone could be me (not that I don't care if it happens to others).
Someone will inevitably be interested in someone else's life. Pretending that because it doesn't happen to you, it doesn't happen to anyone, is foolish.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be a step in the right direction.It's been ages since I've gotten a new line, but I seem to remember having to opt out of being listed.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your mundanity is your privacy
Perhaps, as long as you remain obscure. But once you become a research target -- being suspected of a crime, mentioned in a news story, or applying for a security clearance, for example -- then all that data can provide seeds for speculation about your motives, integrity, or personality.
The public IP addresses of my servers are buried in relative obscurity, just another 32-bit number among millions. But if I post a log file to a support forum then you can bet that I'll strip that IP address out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your life isn't nearly as interesting as you think. Your mundanity is your privacy. Your value to Facebook is your eyeballs and the ads they can serve.
And if your life was any interest to anyone, there'd be people working a lot harder to penetrate your privacy.
In other words, if you behave yourself, act like a good little citizen, pay your taxes, and don't complain you have nothing to fear, right? And of course, if you don't, you have no rights, and you shouldn't, either, because you are a Bad Person.
Re: (Score:3)
> Your life isn't nearly as interesting as you think. Your mundanity is your privacy.
But but but... I thought I'm special and unique, like a snowflake?!
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are special AND unique, just like everyone else...
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone is interesting to somebody, even if it's just their local bartender/coworker/pizza delivery guy/romantic rival... Now it used to be the case that it didn't matter as none of these everyday "mundane" acquaintances had the time, access or expertise to pull together a dossier but today it's pretty trivial.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Interesting)
And if your life was any interest to anyone, there'd be people working a lot harder to penetrate your privacy.
You're trying to look at an elephant through a microscope. The danger isn't the violation of any one person's privacy. The danger is the emergence of a kind of "total information awareness," where inferences can be drawn on larger social scales. For instance, detecting when a protest is about to materialize, measuring the effectiveness of propaganda techniques, tracking politically unfavorable trends in conversations, etc.
I'm not in principle opposed to the ability to do that, but right now the ability is very one sided. Facebook (as well as any government who can order them to do things) has all the information. We don't.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:4, Insightful)
If I'm really that uninteresting, and my only value is in my interests and the ads respond best to, then why the hell is Facebook retaining practically everything about me?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's not always posted by the person to whom it applies. Personally I don't care about what other people post about themselves. I do however care very much about the things that they post about me. That and the crackers that trojaned TD Ameritrade and released my contact information to the net at large.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Should people think twice before they post every stupid detail of their lives on Facebook? Yes
Should it be illegal for Facebook to do what they do? No.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is this, 1985? You think it takes an "army" of people to go back and delete data?
Tell you what, if Facebook was ever charged with some legal wrongdoing and expected subpoenas, I bet they'd be able to "sanitize" their data post haste without an "army" of people, and without deleting anything critical to their operations. Funny how that works, no?
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Reliably? Yes. Sure, it's easy to delete the copy in the production database. It's harder to prove that if the disks backing the production database were stolen and analyzed, it would be impossible to recover the data. It's harder still to locate and redact every backup of the database that contains the data. (It's even harder still to prove that a copy of the data doesn't persist on another user's hard drive as a result of having viewed the data in a web browser.)
This is the Cloud Era; you can't reliably delete data any more.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are like any organisation I've worked for, they over write the tapes. So no, they don't.
All they have to do is actually delete stuff when a user asks them to, instead of telling the user they have, and then snickering behind their hands like naughty school kids. The buttons on the webpages are marked "delete", and any user should have an expectation that the button would do what it says it does.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure the buttons actually say "Remove" which is a nifty semantic cheat around that problem.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
So they should have an army tasked with sanitizing all the backup tapes whenever I delete a photo?
No, backups are fine. But if I tell Facebook to delete something, they should delete it so that it fades out of the backups. Not keep it in their working data, but marked as deleted.
This goes 10 times as much for email providers, as well as credit card numbers, SSN's, etc, once the legitimate need for that information is finished.
Yes, someone may have already copied (or stolen) the data. But this is just about a service provider acting like we expect them to act, not secretly collecting personal information for their own purposes.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:4, Insightful)
A simple confirmation prompt for a delete would be enough to prevent most unwanted deletions. If you happen to delete a photo you want back, you should have done your own local backup of that file to re-post.
This really comes down to an issue of data trust with organizations you give your data to. Facebook has shown little reason to trust them with personal data, yet people keep sending it to them. Facebook's entire company value is based on how much information they amass on people. It is therefore not surprising in the least that they don't let people arbitrarily delete data and thus reduce their value.
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt any large website uses backup tapes. They just keep 3 or 4 copies of everything, in different physical locations. So yes, if I want something deleted, it should be just as easy to delete four copies as it is to delete one.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Funny)
and no matter what arbitrary laws or draconian regulations you force companies to abide by,
We're going to mandate that they both delete data instantly to protect privacy and that they implement mandatory data retention periods so that data can be subpoenaed in the event of a crime.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
It might be that the problems suggest, not that the proposed solution should be discarded, but that an alternative solution incorporating both the motivation for that solution and the problems inherent in executing it should be proposed.
For example, perhaps all non-archival copies of the information could be deleted. Furthermore, if the backup system is constructed with the privacy goal in mind, it is possible to give the user control over the ability of the corporation to restore that user's information--a user, for example, might be permitted to order the company to destroy a key that allows decryption of backed up data entered by the user.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
-a user, for example, might be permitted to order the company to destroy a key that allows decryption of backed up data entered by the user.
+1 insightful.
GP deserves his Informatives too, but P makes a very good point as well.
Rather than pick positions (e.g. delete it instantly vs. it will be around forever) and evaluate the relative merits or possibilities, it is perhaps more fruitful to understand the motivations for a user to want FB to delete his data, and for FB to keep redundant backups for long periods of time. Once we understand the motivations behind the positions, we can come to a better negotiated outcome (such as the examples P gives) that satisfy both parties. This is the essence of Principled Negotiation [colorado.edu].
(My boss made me read "Getting to Yes.")
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Who said anything about "instantly"?
And as far as deleting backups on redundant servers, it sounds like it could be done with a few lines of code.
Now that's kind of a dumb question. This isn't about what some individual does while data is available online. It's about what a company whose business model depends on collecting and monetizing such data does with it. And what they should be allowed to do with it.
But then, I think that anybody who uses facebook has to know that facebook is all about collecting data on people and monetizing it any way they can. Which is why I will not use facebook. I once created an account there because I needed to do something that required a facebook account, but never really posted anything personal, or real for that matter. I don't have any use for what facebook does and if I did, there are better ways to get it done. I'm just not willing to pimp out my privacy that way.
Re: (Score:2)
> And as far as deleting backups on redundant servers, it sounds like it could be done with a few lines of code.
You have obviously never done anything at this scale. Deleting all copies of information on a significant system is a very hard problem to solve. Demonstrating to an auditor that you've deleted everything makes it even harder.
There's actually an entire Defense Department specification/procedure that attempts to describe how to do it: http://www.google.com/?q=DOD+5015 [google.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was trying to avoid some typing with the DOD reference, but that obviously didn't work, so let's try a couple of examples. The basic point is that easy-to-access and easy-to-delete are not same thing; data is just too easy to copy.
Example 1: I send you an email with a pdf attachment. You read it, and then we decide to delete all copies of the pdf. Where do we need to look?
Re: (Score:3)
This is an almost entertaining conversation. Everyone's thinking so linearly. User puts content up on Facebook. User deletes content from Facebook, It's all done.
In reality, user puts content up on Facebook.
Facebook compiles, refines, and disseminates that information to various other parts of the company, and to third parties. Those third parties buy and sell that information. Once it's out there, there's no taking it back.
Facebook could ask
Price Social Networking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you use Facebook? Because it should be obvious how your homemade solution would not do what people use Facebook for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In short, what they have to do is remove all data that can be removed. Obviously that would exclude backups written to CDs, but not backups on easily modifiable systems. Otherwise, they are in breach of many countries privacy laws.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
I find this attitude so ignorant. How does a company instantly delete backups on redundant servers? How do they delete redundant hard copies kept in closets separated by meatspace? Furthermore, if you upload something to Facebook, and someone ELSE downloads it and saves it to a CD, and you delete it off facebook, should THEY be forced to magically know you deleted it, and delete their copy as well? Does Google have to delete their caches of your facebook page? Or maybe you are saying that Facebook, Google, etc should never make backups?
Few large companies are using tape when they already have redundant disk storage in redundant datacenters, so typically deletes happen at the speed of replication.
But if there was interest in enforcing a non-retention policy, regulators could say that no user deleted data can be retained longer than XXX days (maybe 90 or 180 days). This gives time for off-site tape backups to be rotated back and recycled. And plenty of time for remote disk replication to occur. A smart company could think of even more clever ways to quickly and securely delete data. Maybe instead of deleting the data itself, the pointer to the data is deleted (which also holds the decryption key to decrypt that piece of data). Then once that pointer is deleted (along with any backups), the data is unrecoverable even if it's on a WORM drive.
The truth is that once you upload something to a site like Facebook, it becomes publicly viewable and accessible and ANYONE can download it. The unfortunate truth is that you can never really UNDO that action, and no matter what arbitrary laws or draconian regulations you force companies to abide by, you can never truly take it back, even if you hit the delete key.
That depends on where I upload it. If I upload an photo where the visibility is set to only allow my girlfriend to see it, then I delete it 2 days later, why should it be recoverable at all? I understand that she may have downloaded it and emailed it to her mother, but I trust her not to do that. So why can't I trust Facebook to not allow it to reappear later in a legal subpoena? Or to resurface 2 years later in a new "undelete" feature that makes all of my deleted content visible?
The paradigm shift needs to be in how people view sites like Facebook, Photobucket, etc: Don't upload anything you want to keep private. If you want to keep it private, upload it to a company that guarantees your privacy... NOT Facebook.
Why not a paradigm shift for companies that acquire personal data that requires them to protect that data.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find this attitude so ignorant.
I find you so ignorant...
How does a company instantly delete backups on redundant servers? How do they delete redundant hard copies kept in closets separated by meatspace?
By deleting the fucking encryption key. This shit isn't rocket surgery folks.
Oh, it's not encrypted? WHY THE FUCK NOT? Seriously, Best Security Practices Rule #1: Don't Be Sony
Even my Media Library's SQL metadata is encrypted. I keep that database backed up, but if I want to INSTANTLY DELETE BACKUPS THE WORLD OVER ON REDUNDANT SERVERS, I simply wipe the decryption keys. Now, if I can do this, there's really no reason for them to not be able to. If you're concerned about sc
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:4)
I promise you that their TOS doesn't say they will delete shit when you tell them to. I get you're point, but you're being a colossal douche about it. Please calm down.
Re: (Score:3)
If you actually want privacy, i'm not sure why would you use either the word of "upload" or "a company".
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't have to be deleted instantly, as long as they're making good steps to delete it. In the UK, we have data protection laws that stipulate that data must be retained for a certain period after it is no longer in use, and then must be permanently deleted after that. The vast majority of "grown up" companies (such as the big banks) are bound by this and manage to do it just fine. If Facebook can't do this, it's their problem. They shouldn't be in the data centre game if they can't abide by data protection laws properly.
One problem is that data uploaded to Facebook is not always uploaded by the person who it concerns. There are dozens of pictures of me on Facebook, every single one of which uploaded by one of my friends or family. If one of my friends uploads a picture of me I disapprove of (a picture of my bank statement, say, with all my private data clearly visible) and I ask them nicely to remove it, I should have every expectation that the hosting company (Facebook) will not only "remove" it, but also set about deleting it in line with data protection laws. No excuses.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be illegal for these companies to keep user generated content once the user deletes it.
It's legal because the user agreed to let them keep it. I'm sure it's somewhere in those 6000 words nobody reads...probably something along the lines of "content uploaded by the user of the system becomes the sole property of the system" only more legalese sounding.
Re: (Score:2)
It should be illegal for these companies to keep user generated content once the user deletes it.
It's legal because the user agreed to let them keep it..
No. No matter what Facebook say, they can't override European/Irish (in their case) law.
I don't know the specifics of Irish law, but for example, personal data must be deleted once it is no longer needed.
Re: (Score:3)
personal data must be deleted once it is no longer needed.
Once it is no longer needed by whom? I think it's amusing that people think they own the data they post to facebook.
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. In europe and canada an individual has final say on their personal information. And if it's deleted the company must delete any backup or cached data relating to that person too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It should be illegal..... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that is only true for the US. And I would bet it is in fact only true for the US. For Europe and that is not only the EU but nearly every country I ever heard about, this is not true. Law > "any agreement", already the fact that a company writes such a "proposal" wanting you to "agree" is arguable illegal. Nevertheless, regardless to what you agree (by checking a check box) if it is illegal by law, the agreement is void.
Just because you americans are used to your retarded law/legal system you should not assume the rest of the world is equally backyard stuck in 1750 ...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If a user shares content, it belongs to everyone who it was shared with.
Removing it because someone deleted it isn't a clear cut as people here make it seem.
YOU put it out there (Score:2)
Why, you yourself made this data available to another person the moment it was uploaded to a service you do not control.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Clicked on this, clicked on that (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, a flood of data looks mundane, but combing it with the right filters probably tells lots of interesting stuff, like the DNA of relationships and interests. I can only hope mine is utterly meaningless. I've tried very hard to ensure that eventuality.
Uh, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh, what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It contained one big surprise to him: everything that he thought was "deleted" was still there.
LOL (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, they're getting better, but there are inherent problems in the methodologies of stylistic analysis that make any claims of being able to identify authors based on style alone open to extreme skepticism. To put it another way, the only people claiming they can ID you based on how you write are marketing droids or snake-oil salesmen.
I did some work in a highly related field, stylochronometry. That's the measurement of change over time in a single author's style. The classic problem set for this kind o
No delete (Score:3)
This really shouldn't come as a surprise for anyone here.
Not that uncommon (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not that uncommon (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for the company's own data, of course: then they manage to remember how to really delete data, e.g. old emails after N days, so that no future nosey prosecutor can dig it out of the database.
Re: (Score:2)
My database has a "not deleted" field instead. And when I mark it "deleted" I set it to zero. It's called the profile_enc_key field. Furthermore, I don't back up this key along with the other records. It's kept in a separate database that's still retrievable and redundant, yet easy to zero out when it comes time to do so.
There are two types of companies in this world: Those that learned from Sony's mistakes, and those that will make the same ones themselves.
Gentlemen, We have the technology... The
If Only Slashdot Asked Itself... (Score:2)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/11/16/0239232/facebook-holding-back-personal-data [slashdot.org]
And yes, it links TFAs that mention this story already.
Try to write down everything (Score:2)
Now ask yourself one question: might 1.2k pages not be a little bit excessive after all?
Is this guy's data really 1200 pages (Score:2)
Not that I expect Facebook to make it nice and presentable to this guy. He got his data dump and Facebook is now putting the onus on him to sort through it and raise any further requests.
Not surprising (Score:2)
I'm more interested... (Score:3)
I'm more interested in seeing the CD contents of someone that has never intentionally used Facebook--someone like me.
Re: (Score:3)
"What's stopping you filing a request for that data?"
Well, a few things.
First, I have to have an account in order to fill out the form--I don't. That does not mean they do not have data on me.
Second, I have to GIVE them all the data on that form, as well as verify it as being correct...in order to see if they have data on me. Something inherently wrong with that, and I shouldn't have to point out what.
Re: (Score:3)
Oops, accidentally hit submit instead of preview...
Third, I have to let all of their scripts run on my machine just to view the form, and we all know that scripts are a good thing. The process of asking for information has been corrupted and made part of the data gathering effort.
Fourth, there is also the requirement that every person must know the law under which they have the authority to even ask--suggesting that they will not comply unless compelled by law to do so. This is a blatant attempt at obfuscat
Wow, a CD (Score:3)
What format did he expect it in? Is he pissed off he had to download a PDF reader or something? I think it seems reasonable.
Also, who do you think gave Facebook this information in the first place? The same douchebag who wasted their time ordering the info. I hope they billed him for their time.
Should include (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
no.... not for attention to himself but for attention to the huge problem at hand... the old ''i have nothing to hide'' excuse for ignorance won't fly here.. everybody should be worried, and not just facebook users.
i wonder.... can he also do the same with google?
Re:Pushing for more of what it knows... (Score:4, Insightful)
And if the "attention" he gets convinces some people to stop using facebook or not to start using it in the first place, then he has done something worthwhile.
Re: (Score:2)
And rightfully so: getting attention for the huge amount of personal data Facebook gathers of every single user of their site. It is something too many people do not realise: whatever you put on Facebook is there, out in the open (don't worry about "privacy settings", they have little to no meaning), and is there forever (don't worry about "delete" because it doesn't do what it says).
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, really. I'm yawning, and all the discussion I've seen in this thread so far are on the same single point - should Facebook keep data after you've pressed the Delete button?
Other than that...