Facebook To Overhaul Data Use Policy 216
dryriver writes "The new Facebook advertising policy: 'Our goal is to deliver advertising and other commercial or sponsored content that is valuable to our users and advertisers. In order to help us do that, you agree to the following: You give us permission to use your name, profile picture, content, and information in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you. If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.' — Facebook also made it clear that the company can use photo recognition software to correctly identify people on the network. It said: 'We are able to suggest that your friend tag you in a picture by scanning and comparing your friend's pictures to information we've put together from your profile pictures and the other photos in which you've been tagged.' — It [Facebook] said it was also clarifying that some of that information reveals details about the device itself such as an IP address, operating system or – surprisingly – a mobile phone number. The Register has asked Facebook to clarify this point as it's not clear from the revised policy wording if a mobile number is scooped up without an individual's knowledge or as a result of it being previously submitted by that person to access some of the company's services. Importantly, Facebookers are not required to cough up their mobile phone number upon registering with the service. At time of writing, Facebook was yet to respond with comment."
A relevant link: (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-site-governance/section-by-section-summary-of-updates/10153200989785301
The post is pretty bad without a link to the actual updates. ./ has fallen a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-site-governance/section-by-section-summary-of-updates/10153200989785301
The post is pretty bad without a link to the actual updates. ./ has fallen a bit.
Poor Sarah Rose and the rest that posted they will not allow that, they are posting under that ToS so of course they do.
I want nothing to do with facebook, I don't trust Mark Zuckerberg and want no part of him.
I made mention on /. that I disabled my account 4 years ago but it wasn't, I went through the motions
but it claimed I could revive my account by logging in again. Someone replied to me how to really delete your facebook account.
I logged in with my old info and there it was -my account I closed out
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure you did it right in your hosts file? You should go ask APK just to make sure, nobody knows hosts files better than he does.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you did it right in your hosts file? You should go ask APK just to make sure, nobody knows hosts files better than he does.
Yes, thanks for that. I do run APK once in a while to update my HOSTS file (sits at 4.377 MB now)
but this was at the Router level, blocked sites (I have a HotSpot available to whoever).
After the reply I went and added it to the HOSTS file itself and it's blocked. I just reinstalled Windows 7 this last week so still tweaking it.
Re: (Score:3)
> I have blocked Facebook at the router level but still able to read that ToS,
> many lines in my HOSTS file deal with facebook yet I still get through.
A hosts file will block one or 2 small outfits. For a monstrosity like Facebook, you need to block ip address ranges. Here they are...
31.13.24.0/21
31.13.64.0/18
66.220.144.0/20
69.63.176.0/20
69.171.224.0/19
74.119.76.0/22
103.4.96.0/22
173.252.64.0/18
204.15.20.0/22
Here are the corresponding whois entries
31.13.24.0 - 31.13.31.255
IE-FACEBOOK-20110418
Facebook I
Re: (Score:2)
The post is pretty bad without a link to the actual updates. ./ has fallen a bit.
It was bought out and is now a corporate tool for Dice. All the original editors have moved on. It's just a dead husk now.
Like Facebook soon will be; I'm advising all my friends to turn their profile pics all black and delete all personal photos and "likes", unsub from all groups, etc. Basically, gut your profile and delete all your past posts, etc. Just leave a stub.
Re: (Score:3)
facebook doesn't actually delete anything though.
it is all still there waiting for facebook to use it however they see fit.
Re:A relevant link: (Score:5, Funny)
What a huge surprise.
Their existing data use policy is too restrictive.
It would be simpler to just have:
We promise not to use your data in the following ways:
Re: (Score:2)
Their existing data use policy is too restrictive.
It would be simpler to just have:
We promise not to use your data in the following ways:
Why would FB tie themselves down by committing not to use the data in any number of ways?
If you read TFA, FB makes it clear that under current policies they will use your data as they please.
Re:A relevant link: (Score:4, Informative)
Whoosh it was an empty list
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha I get it. Nice. =)
Re:A relevant link: (Score:4, Insightful)
They've repeated lied in the past and will continue to lie in the future.
Understand if you post on Facebook, you have no privacy.
Even if other people post about you on facebook, your privacy is going to be impaired.
Understand *you are the product being sold*.
It's a challenge for me. I finally withdrew from facebook. It's taken a while for people to start emailing me. At first they were annoyed that I needed special handling and they couldn't just set the event up on facebook. But now there are more of us avoiding facebook so email is coming back.
I wouldn't have withdrawn if they hadn't been such weasels about privacy settings.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook vs email (with the NSA snooping). That is quite a dilemma we have today.
it's the business model, stupid. (Score:3)
For all the kneejerk 'Google is Evil' memes that flare up whenever it is revealed how they read your email, etc., Google has been pretty consistent about their business model. They gather info on your habits and use it to present targeted ads *to you*. This has proven to be an effective form of advertisement (in search, at least), and has made Google lots of dough without selling your info directly to anyone - or even getting too intrusive with their advertising (and you can use AdBlock, if that's too muc
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: A relevant link: (Score:5, Funny)
I have, for years, been WRONG!
My Slashdot replies have been unwittingly posted in a masturbation forum called "Point Stroke".
It seems to have been taken over by armchair satirists and political screed-writers.
Oh, What? That is Slashdot? You don't say!
All the extra faces :) (Score:3)
http://www.ibtimes.com/facebook-create-facial-recognition-database-profile-photos-1401665 [ibtimes.com]
Welcome to a wonderful facial recognition database for US users (vs privacy issues in Europe).
Try and forget the US government electronic surveillance program.
/etc/hosts jokes aside (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a real excerpt from my /etc/hosts file, saves me no end of trouble:
0.0.0.0 www.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 facebook.com
0.0.0.0 www.static.ak.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 static.ak.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 www.login.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 login.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 www.fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 fbcdn.net
0.0.0.0 www.fbcdn.com
0.0.0.0 fbcdn.com
0.0.0.0 www.static.ak.connect.facebook.com
0.0.0.0 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what is your opinion on the changes proposed by the new Facebook Data Policy [facebook.com]?
Oh that's right, you can't read it.
Re: (Score:2)
Being technical enough to block it, if he ever cares to, i am sure he can get the data (google translate, if nothing else). Other than seeming a bit over the top to me, it is likely a good answer to the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:/etc/hosts jokes aside (Score:4, Informative)
0.0.0.0 is invalid, so should cause an immediate fail without attempting to connect. If you run a webserver on your computer, a loopback address may actually hit the webserver and require a response.
Re: (Score:2)
What The Fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anthropology suggests each of us normally has about half a dozen close friends at any one time. About that many friends make sense when you consider the emotional and temporal investments and returns. Facebook just makes no sense. It's like people so pathetic just getting noticed no matter the reason or the cost is some twisted form of self validation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never used Facebook exactly because of shit like this. I just don't get how it got so big and stays so big.
Your confusion, as you express above, can be alleviated simply by remembering that average I.Q. is 100.
That average is found at the peak of the "bell curve" which represents the distribution of I.Q. scores in
a population.
What you need to remember is this : half the population has an I.Q. of 100 or lower. This means that half the
population is not very smart, to express it in charitable terms. A lot of behavior which doesn't seem to "make
sense" can be therefore explained by the fact that a very large number o
Re:What The Fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds like a really stupid policy. Instead of trying to weasel around the issue simply ban non-work related sites on company time and tell people interviewing that that's your policy. Employees violating company policy are instantly fired. There's no reason to be sneaky about it.
There are valid uses for FB. Not everyone knows how to setup custom RSS feeds for their favorite news sites. Follow what you want and you get all their stores in one place. No need to go visit multiple websites. Sadly it's still the easiest way to share pictures among a group of semi-related people who all went on a hiking trip. The discussion coming up with the trip's time, location, drivers, etc.. and it's results (pictures, videos, etc...) are all right there in one place. Sharing baby photos with grandparents, siblings, and a few friends is still easiest on FB. Almost all email providers limit email sizes. Most people don't know how to setup personal server space to share photos. FB makes it easy. It's original purpose of letting old buddies get back in touch with you is still valid. Not everyone with a FB account uses it to constantly spam the world with their self delusions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
So, the article at the top there is about selling advertising, which is a way to facilitate business people to communicate with their customers via Facebook. And you're suggesting that the idea of doctors communicating with their customers via Facebook is a ridiculous proposition which would have no application in the real world? Please come back when you're put a tad more thought into this, Anonymous Coward.
PS: I personally know at least two doctors treating chronically ill patients with whom they regula
Lovely arrogance there... (Score:5, Informative)
What you need to remember is this : half the population has an I.Q. of 100 or lower. This means that half the population is not very smart, to express it in charitable terms. A lot of behavior which doesn't seem to "make sense" can be therefore explained by the fact that a very large number of people are just plain idiots.
Your understanding of IQ, social interactions and your purported hiring practices match up really well.
First off... That 100 average IQ is a normalized value.
It will never change, no matter how many "stupid" people or geniuses are out there. 100 will always be average.
Now, thing with bell-shaped curves is, they have this nasty habit of being evenly distributed on both sides.
Also, there's this thing of them having 95% of all values within 2 sigma - which are in this case conveniently situated around that 100 IQ average.
What that means in real life is that 95% of people in the world fall within 2 sigma from 100 IQ.
I.e. Almost everyone is within IQ 70 and IQ 130.
Leaving ~2.5% people with IQ over 130, and just as much of those with the IQ of under 70.
Now here's the fun part. It's a bit counter intuitive, so try to keep up.
First of all, those with IQ below 70 don't really count. We're talking "definite feeble-mindedness" [wikipedia.org] there.
Those people are not what you can in any way call active members of the society.
Then comes that second sigma - those falling in that group between 70 and 85.
Within those 15 IQ points falls 14.591% of humanity. And guess what? Most of those don't count either!
Cause those ranging from 70 to 85 IQ points are what we call "borderline deficient", "borderline impaired or delayed", "well below average" or "borderline mentally retarded". [wikipedia.org]
Again... this being the place on the scale where those number really count, about two thirds of those people are closer to retarded than to plain old "stupid".
You're pretty much not interacting with them online, and very likely not in real life either.
Which leaves us with 95 - 9.7 - 47.5 = 37.5% of humanity that falls within 80 - 100 IQ range, which you might call "stupid people".
In all fairness, actual number of "stupid people" is closer to 30%, as the closer you get to that average of 100 IQ, the more people there are and there is a greater chance that many of them are closer to 100 than measured.
Now, one third of humanity MAY seem like a "very large number of people" - but they are actually a MINORITY compared to the 50% of humans who are of ABOVE AVERAGE intelligence.
So... umm... yeah... Your "arguments" about all those idiots? More like arrogance.
And that's more dangerous than plain old low intelligence cause it masquerades as wisdom creating that warm feeling of being right - even when you're completely clueless.
BTW, love the way you managed to weave in a (completely meaningless and valueless) comparison of YOUR company with those on F500 list though nobody asked for it AND though you're posting anonymously.
Arrogance will also leave you safely inside your cocoon of cluelessness regarding human interactions beyond those that you can hire out or were born into.
Or you would have figured out or guessed by know that people tend to have these groups of people called families, friends, acquaintances, school friends etc.
None of whose IQ or personal preferences or simply lack of paranoia regarding privacy they can't control nor can they just cut out those persons from their life or ignore them when they reappear in their life.
And many of those people just happen to find social media like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr etc. as highly useful/entertaining/practical/fun.
And if you're really limiting your own pool of potential talent by adding such an arbitrary limitation as you say you do - you might as well be chucking out all people who's favorite color is blue.
Or green. Or whatever.
But hey... Do keep up with that.
I'm certain your competition has nothing against the idea of you limiting your own options.
I sure love it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...that average I.Q. is 100... ...What you need to remember is this : half the population has an I.Q. of 100 or lower.
I'm guessing your company isn't selling Wolfram Research 'Mathematica.'
You're confusing 'average' and 'median.'
The 'median' is the number that half the numbers in the set are above, and half the numbers in the set are below.
From Wiki:
"The current scoring method for all IQ tests is the "deviation IQ." In this method, an IQ score of 100 means that the test-taker's performance on the test is at the median level of performance..."
Re: (Score:3)
Bell curve.
Mean = median = mode.
It's a defining characteristic of the distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the hiring process at my company involves finding out
if a prospective new hire uses Facebook. If they do use Facebook, they are not hired.
Says the guy posting on /.... wtf?
reminds me of people bitching about the evils of science by posting on the internet.
Re:What The Fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a wise choice. I know Facebook isn't the only app employees might waste your time on, with their phones. Every time I see someone's employee fiddling with their phone -- usually while not providing customer service, but always while stealing paid time -- I wonder how they manage to remain employed.
Flexibility runs both ways - if you're going to be a dick and prevent employees from taking the occasional 5 minute break (because it's "stealing" from you) then they're not going to be inclined to do anything over and above their contract either. Don't expect someone to stay late to clear up some problem (because that would be you "stealing" from them) if you're never going to return the favour.
FWIW, an old employer of mine started doing the kind of shit you're suggesting - I got a massive bollocking for ending up 5 minutes late due to traffic one morning... the previous night I had stayed 2 hours late to finish some work. Needless to say, I never stayed late again, and left the company relatively soon afterwards... in fact, most of my colleagues also got pissed off with them and quit - they lost 75% of their technical staff in a 2 month period.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because "friend" refers also to relatives, classmates, or anyone else the person wants to keep in touch with, which would total far more than their close friends.
As for how it became so large, it's a combination of a few things:
-- The company started out by luring in university undergraduates as a way of coordinating schedules, knowing what was going on with one another, and so forth when each of them had a reason or the interest required to look at their "friends."
-- When open to the public, it became
Re: (Score:3)
I've never used Facebook exactly because of shit like this. I just don't get how it got so big and stays so big.
IMO they overtook Myspace because they actually respected the users more with regards to advertising. Facebook was a real step down from Myspace in features and usability at the time (once again IMO), except for one thing, the intrusive advertising on Myspace. You would look at your little sister's page, and it would show giant ads for things like adult-friend-finder. Who wants to see that?
If the advertising gets too intrusive, people will leave, but Facebook has a good system in place to let them know ho
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't get it by now (it's been explained in the comments on numerous /. articles on Facebook), you're either seriously dense or just trolling/karmawhoring.
Here's what I've done on Facebook today... it's a fairly typical day actually;
Terms of Use (Score:2)
I wonder what would happen if you sent a nice letter to Facebook's CS department, copied to Legal, saying:
You have stated that you wish to use my likeness in commercial content that will earn you revenue. If you wish to do so, my standard rate is $10 per view of said likeness. You may not use my likeness without compensation to me. By using my likeness you agree to pay my standard rate for each view. If you do not wish to pay, you must refrain from using my likeness. By using my likeness you agree that the
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder what would happen if you sent a nice letter to Facebook's CS department, copied to Legal, saying:
You have stated that you wish to use my likeness in commercial content that will earn you revenue. If you wish to do so, my standard rate is $10 per view of said likeness. You may not use my likeness without compensation to me. By using my likeness you agree to pay my standard rate for each view. If you do not wish to pay, you must refrain from using my likeness. By using my likeness you agree that the terms of this agreement and the rates stated therein apply to you, that you will pay them, that this agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements and that no future agreements may supersede this agreement without an express agreement in writing between myself and Facebook.
You forget, you don't control their ToS. If you don't agree, don't use it, period. What's repugnant about these changes is the fact that Facebook buries their opt-out settings or as the NYT reported, disables your ability to opt out. With the usual weasel-clause in most ToS for sites, "We reserve the right to change our ToS at any time without your consent..." you have little choice but to stop using them if you disagree. I think in the case of Facebook, that's something everybody should do, including
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I put that part in about this agreement superseding any and all prior agreements, and about any agreement needing to be in writing to supersede it. That's to make it so if they use my likeness they agree that this agreement, not their TOS, controls (one of the terms they agreed to is that my terms supersede the TOS). And they can't claim my future use restored the TOS since they agreed they couldn't do that unless it was done in writing (their TOS isn't agreed to in writing).
They probably wouldn'
Re: (Score:2)
Well there is such a thing as a unilateral agreement such as "This is a final binding agreement and supersedes all others..."
It's a weasel clause and invalidates your premise because you agreed to their terms when you signed up or keep a profile/account. It also keeps them in complete control of the agreement unless it's superseded by any local laws that may override what they put in there.
And if we look at Facebook's Terms Here: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms [facebook.com]
We find under Section 19 Other.
2. This Statement makes up the entire agreement between the parties regarding Facebook, and supersedes any prior agreements.
And then
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I say it'd be interesting to argue. If it were just my use of their site, those clauses would make them safe from modification of the TOS. But it's not just my use of their site, it's their use of my likeness for commercial purposes. Normally, absent some agreement with me, they don't have that right, and it was them acting by using my likeness and not me. If they argue that implicit agreement is valid, then regardless of their TOS they agreed to my terms and agreed to modify the terms of their T
Battle of the forms (Score:4, Informative)
Read up on the legal issue of a "battle of the forms". [thecontractsguy.net]
Re: (Score:2)
...You forget, you don't control their ToS. If you don't agree, don't use it, period...
Define "use."
If you formerly had a profile, or have not logged in even once in a few years, are you still using their service (to host the profile)?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh agreed. Once you have a profile these sites never let go and sometimes it can crop up in ways you least expect.
I recently had a problem with a third party payment processor for a product I use, and have used for the past few years. Every year I pay for a new subscription for this service and have ever since I started using it. They just use this third party to handle payment processing/fulfillment. Anyway, last month I get this e-mail notification that my software will be automatically renewed by thi
Re: (Score:3)
Makes me wish I still worked in radio. Back then, I had a clause in my contract stating that I could not allow my name, voice, or likeness to be used for promotion of any product, service, or organisation without the station's prior approval. Now *that* would be interesting to see FB's legal department deal with.
I'm sure there are lots of folks with FB pages who have similar, existing contractual agreements.
Cue the lawsuits in 3... 2... 1...
*places bag of popcorn in m-wave*
I win (Score:2)
In other words... (Score:2)
All your face are belong to us
The app now asks to import non-member data (Score:2)
When I had my mother's phone download the Facebook app and set it up for her yesterday, the first thing it did upon login was pop up a screen with three choices -- to not import any contact info from her phone (synced with a Google account), to import all contact data she has for Facebook friends, or import all contact data to Facebook, period. It was quite clearly not offering to merely see which contacts were on Facebook or send out invites to those that weren't.
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure it d
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious as to how that doesn't violate any sort of anti-spamming regulation. Doesn't matter if your mother gives them permission to send me an email, they still aren't any more permitted to do so than if I were a complete stranger. Seems like some BS from FB to try and get away with sending unsolicited emails.
Android App (Score:2)
I can only assume that the iOS app is similar, but the Android app uploads not just your phone number (which is scraped without your explicit permission), but also your call history every time you log in.
Let me repeat that: Facebook uploads your entire call history every time you open their Android app.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only assume that the iOS app is similar, but the Android app uploads not just your phone number (which is scraped without your explicit permission), but also your call history every time you log in.
Let me repeat that: Facebook uploads your entire call history every time you open their Android app.
I switched to the Atrium app a few months ago, having got fed up with the intrusive ads on the official app and knowing that I could never upgrade the official app because they had massively expanded the permissions it required (there was no way I was going to give it permission to do things like see what apps were running, etc). I've been pretty please with it so far - a couple of slightly niggley bugs, but on the whole its good.
Re: (Score:2)
I use LBE, it prevents applications from accessing that information without your say so. You can bar them from doing it each time or you can permanently bar them from doing. It's been quite enlightening as to which apps think they need to know where I am, or to access my contacts. Sometimes it's benign, but unexpected, like when Swype wants to see my contacts, presumably to add those names and addresses to it's library for my convenience. But, I don't let it anyways, just because they're already in my conta
It's good that it's finally out in the open (Score:2)
Our goal is to deliver advertising and other commercial or sponsored content
Plain speaking is such a wonderful thing isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between selling advertising and selling user information.
And until around the turn of the century companies were able to get along quite well doing just the former (yes, some companies made a business of collecting and reselling information about people - "business intelligence" - but these were uncommon and spent their own money collecting that data, rather than tricking their users into giving it away for free).
The world - and the Internet - can get along quite well without the busine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I quit Facebook (and deleted my account) several weeks ago - right after the stuff about their shadow profiles came out.
It sucks because Facebook can have its uses - it's definitely a much easier way to keep in contact with some of my friends and family that live across the US and in Europe. But, in the end, what Facebook is doing to its users just is too high a price for me to willingly pay.
What's interesting is it's been obvious for a while that Facebook is trending downward - it's the older folks (my pee
Re:ha! (Score:4, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/1429223/facebook-is-building-shadow-profiles-of-non-users
Re:ha! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm talking about the more recent revelations [in.com] that came out this past June - regarding how the "friend finder" was slurping up information like your friends cell phone numbers etc. and storing that in shadow profiles (which got exposed because of the Facebook bug in their profile download tool).
The existence of Facebook and Google+ shadow profiles has indeed been known for a while.
Re: (Score:3)
I quit facebook after the Obama campaign revealed that they got special permission from FB to ignore its ToS and allow campaign workers to hoover their friend data and send it to the campaign for analysis. A very dirty trick, IMHO. The ToS basically means nothing, its assurances are meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I'm pretty sure that posting in a "fb group," or reading posts in a "fb group," can be an international communication to thousands.
Just a thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ha! (Score:4, Funny)
Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.
No, he can't do that because it would be a HIPAA violation, but just about anything else would be correct.
Re:ha! (Score:5, Informative)
No, he can't do that because it would be a HIPAA violation, but just about anything else would be correct.
Nonsense.
It *might* be a HIPAA violation for him to tell everyone he sold your kidney, but HIPAA has nothing at all to do with the waiver you signed allowing his doctors to swoop in and *take* your kidney.
HIPAA is about health information privacy and has nothing to do with the fact you clicked through a Kidney Sales Agreement form...
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.
That's probably a decent description of his present state of mind, considering he also supports the idea in his original business card [news.com.au] in a succinctly summarized but less eloquent form. Funnier then when it was without any hindsight about the ramifications.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe you are. The real Zuck would have a cute PA correct his grammar before posting.
Re: (Score:2)
Mark Fucking Zuckerberg. We just changed the TOS, and no we I'm coming for the other one. That's what you get for signing up with Facebook. Fucking stupid rube.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
First, that wasn't a discussion. Beyond that: we could discuss how this plays into Facebook's long-term prospects; how this plays into user's expectations; whether this sort of thing would be likely if Facebook wasn't public and had no aspirations to be public; whether this is actually legal and whether it should be legal -- for instance, changing terms to include your name and likeness in advertising would seem egregious if a brick and mortar store had that as a requirement for entering the premises; and p
Re:Thanks (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody forced your friends to use it either, but no one is stopping them from using it either, and by some of their possible actions, you're using it whether you want to or not....
Re:Thanks (Score:5, Funny)
It's sadly the case...
One of my friends has a wife who decided it'd be cute to post pictures of me on her Facebook account despite my telling her plainly that I didn't want that to happen. I got the pleasure of sitting and watching her do it, and giggle about it throughout my protests.
Nothing can be done to stop it. It's not like I'm going to steal her camera and delete her pictures. So, I'm in their system, despite being really well known as the paranoid "they're out to get me" guy to pretty much everyone who knows me.
No matter how careful we are individually, the ignorance of others certainly can affect us strongly these days...
Re:Thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
So, I'm in their system, despite being really well known as the paranoid "they're out to get me" guy to pretty much everyone who knows me.
And this is why privacy/data protection laws need to be updated to have far more teeth than they have today. When you have an organisation as influential as Facebook and it is actively encouraging other people to do things like providing your picture or your phone number with or without your knowledge or consent, any argument that some use of that data about you is permitted under their ToS has no weight if you're not a Facebook user yourself, but it seems clear that they're storing the data anyway. Actually, I'm not sure how that's not already illegal, at least within the EU, but the regulators don't seem in any hurry to take action and even if they do the penalties are little more than the change in Zuckerberg's pocket.
FWIW, I am similar to you, being well known among my friends as someone who doesn't want to share his personal details with Facebook. I feel sufficiently strongly about this that in the situation you described I would have made it very clear to my "friend" and his wife that I would no longer consider them friends if they thought it was funny to violate my privacy in that way, but then again I'm also confident that I would never have to go that far with anyone I consider a friend in the first place. I'm sorry if you're not always in such a happy position with the company you keep.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So, I'm in their system, despite being really well known as the paranoid "they're out to get me" guy to pretty much everyone who knows me.
FWIW, I am similar to you, being well known among my friends as someone who doesn't want to share his personal details with Facebook. I feel sufficiently strongly about this that in the situation you described I would have made it very clear to my "friend" and his wife that I would no longer consider them friends if they thought it was funny to violate my privacy in that way,
Empty threat. You cannot unfriend them without a Facebook account.
Re:Thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
ask her how she'd feel if you took a photo of her, printed it with her name, address, phone number, email address and any other personal information you can think of, and then posted hundreds of copies of it on bus shelters, lamp posts, walls, bulletin boards, etc all over town.
then tell her that that is exactly what she's done to you.
if you're feeling really pissed off, don't pose it as a question, just go ahead and do it.
Re: (Score:2)
A photo posted on facebook doesn't automatically provide
Did you miss the part about facial recognition? Or perhaps the numerous times Facebook has been caught using their cookies to track *everyone* even when you're not logged into Facebook or even a friggin member?
Facebook's entire business plan is to link data to actual people. This gives them the face to do it even more.
Re:Thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
It depends. I had a party at my house once, and someone posted photos to Facebook from their phone, tagging my house as a location. I have never been able to remove this. Even flagging the photos doesn't remove the "check in" as my house as a public location. Trying to complain doesn't work, since my house isn't actually associated with me, according to Facebook, I am not the owner of this "venue". So, despite me never telling facebook my address, and removing all location data from everything I share, Facebook now can associate me with an address.
The problem with things like Facebook, is that you have no power over what others can do with your information. You can abstain from using it, or use it as responsibly as possible, and it doesn't matter once someone posts something about you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well go ahead and post her picture and real phone number to an adult dating site whilst she watches you.
For bonus points giggle about it (in a mocking impression of her) whilst you're doing it.
See how much she likes that.
Re: (Score:2)
...
Nothing can be done to stop it. It's not like I'm going to steal her camera and delete her pictures. So, I'm in their system, despite being really well known as the paranoid "they're out to get me" guy to pretty much everyone who knows me.
No matter how careful we are individually, the ignorance of others certainly can affect us strongly these days...
Threaten to sue the person who posted your photo without your signing a release. Make it expensive for individuals to violate your privacy. Spread the word on Facebook and elsewhere that destroying the privacy of individuals is a potentially costly exercise. Learn from the MPAA/RIAA and other intellectual content cartels that using your image or quoting you on FB without a release is costly. I charge $100 per IP address that could potentially view my image and given that IPV4 has 4.3 billion addresses...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not entirely accurate... (Score:5, Informative)
The Facebook users beware. Nobody forced you to use it.
That's the end of USEFUL discussion.
Facebook is reported to have been creating profiles for peoplel who have never signed up. http://www.zdnet.com/anger-mounts-after-facebooks-shadow-profiles-leak-in-bug-7000017167/ [zdnet.com]
And that is also not entirely accurate... (Score:3, Informative)
Another reason not to do Facebook, though, so I won't. I do maintain an interest, however, because my wife is an active FB user, on the grounds that she says she never posts anything th
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, yes, and we'll continue to use fake pictures, fake names, and build a profile of lies because they can't really stop that either.
Facebook is a worthless social tool, there's no reason to be honest. Meanwhile Linked-In is a repository of highly accurate data but it's not a lot of fun, nor does it have the mindshare facebook has. Facebook needs a new gig, it has a lot of viewers, it has very little useful facts and if pushed, they'll find it becomes increasingly factless.
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile Linked-In is a repository of highly accurate data
Well other than all the made-up skills that people can assign to you without your involvement.
'King of France', 'Maximum Awesome', 'Knife Skills'...
Why am I being endorsed for skills and expertise I do not claim on my profile? [linkedin.com]
Re: (Score:2)
People endorse me for skills that I have that I may not necessary want to be known for because they are less lucrative, or pigeon hole me in to a job role that is being offshored (i.e. board design/system engineering). Yet they are factual and I spent a hunk of my life doing those things. If the economy takes a dump perhaps I'd do those things again until I could find something with a future. But as with any career, what one did in the past is likely not what one wants to do in the future, and you shape tha
Re:Thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook for most people was a phase.I see more kids get over it earlier as their parents spend more time on it. Now companies are using it to try to reach a generation that is not on tv, and it me moving from a phase to a cost of doing business. No one forces you to cut out coupons to buy name brand products, but we do. It could be that facebook ends up being the broker of the kind of relationships that some people like to have with retail brands, in which case value will be added for some people. And the kids who like the freedom that facebooks gives them will not go away, just like when we smoked ciggarettes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm only friends with two people, but I have dozens of bands and band members' accounts in my news feed.
Then you may want to go back to MySpace. I hear they are ditching the failed attempt at being a Facebook clone and are going back to their roots as a music lover's haven.
Re: (Score:2)
Closed my Facebook account mere minutes ago. Side note: a friend of mine closed his a while ago and the captcha he had to type was "Treachery"
Re: (Score:2)
It's like a blend of 1984 and Brave New World. Just like 1984 they will be monitoring you through your real life telescreen [iclarified.com] but like Brave New World it won't actually be forbidden not to have one, but the people will no longer have the motivation to think or act outside what they were indoctrinated to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Black electricians tape?
Re: (Score:2)
*and state licensed electricians - you do have your license papers right?
Re: (Score:3)
Under Social networking the site lists https:buddycloud.com [buddycloud.com], https://diasporafoundation.org/ [diasporafoundation.org] http://friendica.com/ [friendica.com] http://movim.eu/ [movim.eu] http://pump.io/ [pump.io] and the https://tent.io/ [tent.io] protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't say anything about social networking, but I do endorse Retroshare as an IM/mail program.
Re: (Score:2)
Picasa itself will do that same thing locally. I have all my photos taken from my DSLR in folders that Picasa can sort (yeah, it sucks for editing some of the multiple exposure, but it's nice for sorting the finished ones). The local app recognized family members from several angles, but if I filled in any of that information (by relation, ooo, google knows that guy's name is 'dad', scary!) it didn't do anything with it. It just let me sort the pictures in a different way. I could pull just pictures of cert
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not paying for a product, you ARE the product. I'm quitting today.
"I'm not in the business. I am the business."
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of applications do that without warning you that they're doing it, or giving a plausible explanation for it. I don't use iOS, so I'm not sure what apps there are, but for Android, I use LBE that prevents the applications from accessing the GPS or various parts of the handheld that they don't need. If it doesn't have a reasonable reason for requiring my location, I decline, and even if it does, I make it ask for permission before it does it.
Why this is even legal is beyond me. There is no informed cons