Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Facebook Privacy

Facebook To Overhaul Data Use Policy 216

Posted by samzenpus
from the all-your-data-are-belong-to-us dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook To Overhaul Data Use Policy

Comments Filter:
  • A relevant link: (Score:5, Informative)

    by twjordan (88132) on Sunday September 01, 2013 @10:09PM (#44735347)

    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.

    • 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

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • > 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

    • 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.

      • by peragrin (659227)

        facebook doesn't actually delete anything though.

        it is all still there waiting for facebook to use it however they see fit.

    • by davester666 (731373) on Monday September 02, 2013 @12:32AM (#44736099) Journal

      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:

      • by Camael (1048726)

        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.

        Facebook has agreed to explain how it uses a name, profile picture, content and information in connection with ads after it got into hot water over its Sponsored Stories function, which – without prior consent – served adverts to Facebookers featuring the faces and names of people who had "Liked" a particula

    • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Monday September 02, 2013 @01:23AM (#44736357)

      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.

      • by Monoman (8745)

        Facebook vs email (with the NSA snooping). That is quite a dilemma we have today.

      • 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

      • by w_dragon (1802458)
        I wish that idiotic 'you are the product' meme would die. We have perfectly good words to describe our relationships with Facebook, twitter, slashdot, and all the other similar services on the Internet. Most of us are the audience. Some of us are also the content producers. We create content that drives people to the service that allows the provider to make a profit. Saying that a person is the product is just a bit of rhetoric designed to invoke an emotional argument, it doesn't actually say anything usefu
  • by AHuxley (892839) on Sunday September 01, 2013 @10:23PM (#44735455) Homepage Journal
    http://rt.com/news/facebook-profile-picture-recognition-208/ [rt.com]
    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.
  • by NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) on Sunday September 01, 2013 @10:28PM (#44735497)

    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

  • What The Fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wrackspurt (3028771) on Sunday September 01, 2013 @10:30PM (#44735505)
    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. Genetics? Like a different genetic strain of our species which makes hundreds of millions willing victims just as long as they get noticed and pretend friends.

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 01, 2013 @11:41PM (#44735843)

        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)

        by Tippler (3027557)
        You seem to be postulating that the use of Facebook is indicative of low intelligence. As a recent graduate of a top 20 medical school, I can confidently say that greater than 80 percent of my peers use Facebook. The percentage is similar in my residency program. Are you saying that hundreds of at least moderately intelligent people with the motivation to go through four years of college, four years of medical school, and 3 or more years of residency are not candidates for your company because we choose t
      • by denzacar (181829) on Monday September 02, 2013 @01:28AM (#44736391) Journal

        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.

      • by multiben (1916126)
        First of all, some of the smartest people on the planet have facebook accounts - it is not solely the domain of "stupid" people and "idiots" as you put it. There are also plenty of people who have enough self discipline that they are able to refrain from using facebook while they are at work and do not spend every waking moment taking selfies and posting pics of food they are about to eat. That you are unable to see this and instead implement a blanket hiring policy which eliminates candidates based on thei
      • by drkim (1559875)

        ...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..."

      • by cornjones (33009)

        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.

    • 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

    • 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

    • 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.

      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;

      • Gotten the latest updates on my boat's upcoming re-union.
      • Linked a gentleman in a submarine veterans group up to his boats re-union association.
      • Discusse
  • 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

    • by Virtucon (127420)

      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

      • by Todd Knarr (15451)

        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'

        • by Virtucon (127420)

          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

          • by Todd Knarr (15451)

            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)

        by Animats (122034) on Monday September 02, 2013 @01:54AM (#44736533) Homepage

        Read up on the legal issue of a "battle of the forms". [thecontractsguy.net]

      • by Sir Holo (531007)

        ...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)?

        • by Virtucon (127420)

          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

    • 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'm not on Facebook, I never have been, and I never will be. I also have the magic ability to translate their legal garbage. Let me see...I think it's pronounced "We want to provide you with the best opportunity to MONEEEEYYYY!!!!!!" but that might be a letter or two off. Considering all circumstances, I believe that means I've done it. I win at Facebook! That's right, it was all an elaborate game that over a hundred million people lost at by being gullible and in denial. But nope, winner here!
  • All your face are belong to us

  • 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

    • by hedwards (940851)

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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 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.

    • by hedwards (940851)

      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

  • Our goal is to deliver advertising and other commercial or sponsored content

    Plain speaking is such a wonderful thing isn't it?

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.

Working...