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:Thanks (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 probably plenty of other issues come to mind to other people.
/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: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: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:ha! (Score:4, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/18/1429223/facebook-is-building-shadow-profiles-of-non-users
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 that could be useful for any kind of miscreant. She is not a techie, though, and I have trouble explaining to her that it isn't as simple as that.
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.
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.
Battle of the forms (Score:4, Informative)
Read up on the legal issue of a "battle of the forms". [thecontractsguy.net]
Re:A relevant link: (Score:4, Informative)
Whoosh it was an empty list