Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Facebook Users Complain of New Ad-Based Tracking

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sunday November 25, @11:22AM
from the when-aren't-they-complaining dept.
Tech.Luver noted a story about facebook users complaining over ads where their shopping habits are shared with their friends as if they are endorsing products. The neatest part is that you can opt out- if you click a box that disappears after 20 seconds... wait to long, and they assume you are totally fine with it.

Related Stories

[+] Facebook Retreats on Online Tracking 95 comments
Nrbelex writes "Facebook is reining in some aspects of a controversial new advertising program, after users became extremely upset and threatened various 'protests' over possible privacy infringement issues. 'Late yesterday the company made an important change, saying that it would not send messages about users' Internet activities without getting explicit approval each time ... Facebook executives say the people who are complaining are a marginal minority. With time, Facebook says, users will accept Beacon, which Facebook views as an extension of the type of book and movie recommendations that members routinely volunteer on their profile pages.'"
[+] Facebook Caves To Privacy Protests Over Beacon 69 comments
jcatcw writes "After weeks of privacy protests over its advertising system, Facebook's CEO announced that users now can turn the system off completely. CEO Zuckerberg said 'We simply did a bad job with this release.' Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, called the announcement from Zuckerberg 'a step in the right direction.'"
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Adversitement (Score:5, Funny)

    by ickeicke (927264) on Sunday November 25, @11:24AM (#21471601)
    CmdrTaco has bought a Swedish-made penis-enlargement pump!
  • by blowdart (31458) on Sunday November 25, @11:26AM (#21471615)
    (http://idunno.org/)

    The neatest part is that you can opt out- if you click a box that disappears after 20 seconds... wait to long, and they assume you are totally fine with it.

    Not true; the FaceBook provides a secondary method of opting out, just like you can control lots of privacy tweaks already. There's a nice new option for "External Websites: You can edit your privacy settings for external websites sending stories to your profile." (this is not to say there aren't privacy problems with Facebook in general) [facebook.com]

    I guess actually looking before writing a news article would have been just too hard.

    • that's not the issue, though? by Animaether (Score:2) Sunday November 25, @11:37AM
    • by Coopjust (872796) on Sunday November 25, @11:44AM (#21471753)
      The main problem is that you have to opt out AFTER a site tries (or succeeds) at adding a story to your profile. If you don't respond to the popup (20 seconds OR a blocker), it assumes that you do indeed want to add the story to your profile. While you can disable it later, it might be a few hours or days before you notice if you're not a heavy Facebook user. And, you can only disable it on a site-by-site basis in this manner.

      Many nontechnical users that have hare angry. Many Slashdotters use NoScript or something to that effect.

      If you get the Blocksite plugin and block *.facebook.com/beacon/*, you can use Facebook normally and not have to worry about sites that implement it- the script that runs the beacon never gets to run, and there is no chance for the story to be sent.
      • by Garridan (597129) on Sunday November 25, @01:17PM (#21472393)
        Facebooks' policy is, and has always been, "It's better to ask forgiveness, than permission" with regards to policy. They claim to be for your privacy, but whenever they roll out a new feature that might be a privacy concern, they opt you in and don't make any sort of announcement so it can be months before you notice that you can close out such features. I used to be on facebook, and I recently closed my account because of such bullshit. A lot of my friends, my fiance, my mom, etc., acted rather put-out like I'm intentionally avoiding them or something. It's wierd how much pressure I've felt (though not from my fiance, she gets it) to re-join. News like this is just what I need to show people why I left.
        • Information leaks and "SkyNet" (Score:4, Interesting)

          by mcrbids (148650) on Monday November 26, @03:04AM (#21476199)
          (http://www.lookuplaws.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday November 18, @06:33PM)
          Facebooks' policy is, and has always been, "It's better to ask forgiveness, than permission" with regards to policy.

          Who cares about this? What's important is the long-term trend. Computers are networked. They are growing in power and complexity at an exponential rate. The algorithms for data processing and pattern-recognition software are being worked out at lightning speed.

          Computers are sharing information. And, once leaked, it's basically impossible to contain it. And once leaked, this information is available for an indeterminate period of time - forever?

          Why forever? Since storage capacity is growing exponentially, the need to purge old data is dropping exponentially, too. I have, on DVD, a hard disk image of my entire computer at around 1999. It's about 1 GB of data, and was a real hassle to get together back when I made it. But now, I've got a copy in a folder in my home directory on my Laptop, which has 160 GB HDD. It's not enough space for me to care - my disk usage is floating around 75% now, including my entire MP3 collection. (which dwarfs my old HDD)

          I'm probably going to keep that old disk image, along with its ancient copy of freecell.exe forever. Not because I care at all about freecell.exe, but because the cost of actually deleting that file is far greater than the cost of keeping it around.

          And so it is with leaked, marginally valuable information - the cost of leaving it "hanging around" is lower than the cost of identifying exactly what it is and deleting it. So this leaked information tends to "stick around" forever, and we have pattern recognition, AI, and search algorithms improving rapidly, which dramatically reduces the cost of identifying and reprocessing this marginal information. The end result is a human/machine meta-creature, a sort of swarm-like social animal like ants but with a common, shared intellect, lots like the GAIA from (you guessed it!) Asimov's Foundation series! [wikipedia.org]

          Asimov was a visionary in more ways than one...

          Guess I'm rambling. I'll stop now.
      • Re:I guess accuracy is too much to hope for by ebs16 (Score:1) Sunday November 25, @02:04PM
      • Thank you. by Valdrax (Score:1) Sunday November 25, @06:38PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • by irtza (893217) on Sunday November 25, @12:14PM (#21471929)
      (http://www.irtza.com/)

      Show your friends what you like and what you're up to outside of Facebook. When you take actions on the sites listed below, you can choose to have those actions sent to your profile. Please note that these settings only affect notifications on Facebook. You will still be notified on affiliate websites when they send stories to Facebook. You will be able to decline individual stories at that time. No sites have tried sending stories to your profile


      I hope you are not suggesting that I wait until after a site sends something to my profile to have means to stop it? This would be ok, if you alone are notified of the attempt before it can be successfully carried out. What if someone doesn't notice the little blip they put up on the external site? Can they still block others from seeing something even if its only once? I won't have to worry about this because my account is registered with an email I don't use for shopping, so I am asking because I can only find out from others experiences. That at least is the point most people here are getting at.

      Anything other than having the default be no consent, there seems to be something wrong with this model. I think this may mean people will start shopping with a non-facebook registered email address.

      My solution from a while ago was to create a new email address for every site I register with (it is a mail forwarder - i don't actually check dozens of email addresses). This gives me the ability to delete the address if it starts getting too much spam (selling of email addresses was one of the original reasons for me to do this). a sideeffect is that it hinders (though does not block) sharing of my info amongst businesses.
    • I just checked my facebook privacy settings and it just gives a stupid message and has no options to opt out. I guess my privacy has to be violated first and only then am I able to tell them that I didn't like it.

      Show your friends what you like and what you're up to outside of Facebook. When you take actions on the sites listed below, you can choose to have those actions sent to your profile. Please note that these settings only affect notifications on Facebook. You will still be notified on affiliate websites when they send stories to Facebook. You will be able to decline individual stories at that time. No sites have tried sending stories to your profile
    • Re:I guess accuracy is too much to hope for by $random_var (Score:3) Sunday November 25, @12:20PM
    • Opting Out (Score:5, Informative)

      by megazork (953335) on Sunday November 25, @12:35PM (#21472087)
      If you look at it more closely [facebook.com] you can't opt out of the service generally. Every time a new site tries sending stuff to your news feed you have to go back to the Facebook privacy page and opt out of that particular site.

      Aside from AdBlock, you can do the following to effectively de-activate this service:
      1. Get Firefox
      2. Download and Install the BlockSite plugin for Firefox.
      3. After restarting Firefox select 'Add-ons' from the Tools menu.
      4. Click the 'Options' button on the BlockSite extension
      5. Click the 'Add' button
      6. Enter http://facebook.com/beacon/* [facebook.com] into the input box
      7. Click 'OK'
      8. Click 'OK' again and you are good to go.
      • Re:Opting Out (Score:5, Insightful)

        by vux984 (928602) on Sunday November 25, @02:08PM (#21472787)
        Aside from AdBlock, you can do the following to effectively de-activate this service:

        I think closing ones account and would be an infinitely preferable option. Yours only resolves this one issue. But what about the next one? And the one after that?

        They say don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and that's fine, but I think the facebook baby went down the drain a while ago, and all that's left is a mass of humanity puttering around in its own dirty bathwater.
      • Re:Opting Out by garbletext (Score:2) Monday November 26, @03:26AM
      • Re:Opting Out by burndive (Score:2) Monday November 26, @12:33PM
    • Re:I guess accuracy is too much to hope for by pcwspunkmaster (Score:1) Monday November 26, @03:59AM
    • Re:I guess accuracy is too much to hope for by burndive (Score:2) Friday November 30, @03:30PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Personally, I think it's a fair trade. What do you expect when you put all your personal information in to a web-site that is free to use? They have to make money some how and the easiest way to do that is to sell your information on to other people or come to agreements with other companies to find ways to market to you.

    If you don't like that then don't use Facebook!

    If you want your own soap box under your own rules then get your own site. You can even run these out of your own house now provided you're with a civilised ISP.

    Simon

  • What happens when... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stoicfaux (466273) on Sunday November 25, @11:27AM (#21471627)

    What happens when someone shops at an adult store and there are minors on their friends list...?

  • by man_ls (248470) <jkoebel@gmail . c om> on Sunday November 25, @11:27AM (#21471635)
    Facebook > Privacy > External Web Sites

    Any site that has attempted to send something to your profile via the Beacon can be revoked and the stories deleted.
  • Facebook users... (Score:2)

    by owlnation (858981) on Sunday November 25, @11:37AM (#21471717)
    Hardly a week goes by without Facebook users whining about something.

    If only they would harness that energy and complain about something really important. There's a lot of bad things happening in the World where their incessant and perpetual vociferousness could help invoke real social change.

    If they don't like Facebook, there are MANY Web-2.0-social-networkized alternatives. They should just go use them instead (and quietly). I feel really sorry for the guys who started Facebook sometimes, they have a really tough crowd to deal with.
  • by Paul Neubauer (86753) on Sunday November 25, @11:39AM (#21471733)
    Even if there is a simple opt-out in the general privacy settings, if one hasn't needed it before it's a rude shock to find it suddenly is needed. Sharing information in aggregate is one thing, being used as a product endorser is quite another.

    This is yet another illustration that people want opt-in so they can decide and marketers want opt-out so people can get stuck with crap they don't want. That the individual opt-out disappears after a short time shows the real attitude: We don't even want you to have that option, really. Just like the spammers who try to claim that proper verified opt-in is "double" as if it made more work for their victims.

    The only real surprise in all this is that people don't set the opt-out as a matter of course when they sign up for the service. Of course, they have to know about it to set it. Not having, nor desiring, a Facebook account I don't know if it's made plain right up front or if a person has to go searching for the controls. And then hope the settings stick. Some places (*cough*LiveJournal*cough*) "forget" settings from time to time.
  • Personally, I would be more upset about the Microstatus feature they're testing right now [pttbt.ca]... at least you CAN opt out of the ad one...
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Gigiya (1022729) on Sunday November 25, @11:52AM (#21471803)
    Adblock Plus [mozilla.org] and Adblock Plus: Element Hiding Helper [mozilla.org] will take care of those text ads or any element on a website you want to hide. I had already been using ABP but found the Element Hiding Helper just to get rid of those damned things.
  • DPA (Score:1)

    As my lecturer said (in a Data Protection Act lecture in Britain*): "the biggest threat to the data protection is not criminals but american companies". It seems your protection laws are remarkably slack.

    *That's BritainEnglandUKEurope to my friends over the pond
  • by DustyShadow (691635) on Sunday November 25, @12:07PM (#21471889)
    (http://www.metalismylife.com/)

    Those users say they never noticed a small box that appears on a corner of their Web browsers following transactions at Fandango, Overstock and other online retailers. The box alerts users that information is about to be shared with Facebook unless they click on "No Thanks." It disappears after about 20 seconds, after which consent is assumed.
    How do Fandango and Overstock know that the buyer has an account on Facebook? How do the two get linked up? Cookies?
    • Re:Wait...I'm confused (Score:4, Informative)

      by sitarah (955787) on Sunday November 25, @12:26PM (#21472005)
      "How do Fandango and Overstock know that the buyer has an account on Facebook? How do the two get linked up? Cookies?"

      Any site that is part of the Beacon affiliate network has a script that can read your Facebook cookies. The code is here, for any interested. http://www.facebook.com/beacon/beacon.js.php [facebook.com]

      You buy a product on Overstock. It gets some information on your Facebook account, then asks if you wish to 'publish this story' to your Facebook account. You can click:
      1) Learn more.
      2) This isn't you. No publish.
      3) No thanks. No publish.
      4) Close. Publish later.
      5) Ignore. Publish later.

      4 is the problem; you can ignore or close the box, and it will, instead of thinking that means a No Publish, ask you AGAIN when you log in to Facebook. If you ignore that one, too, or do anything but specifically click No (the X in this case), it *will* publish. It's unintuitive.

      Whether this is user-error or intentional design, users are also reporting that they have to opt-out of these affiliates site by site to stop publishing, because opting out of Beacon itself is insufficient or not possible. That's why people are irritated -- they never downloaded an app or asked for Beacon, didn't realize they had to specifically tell it 'no', and can't figure out how to turn it off.
    • Re:Wait...I'm confused by pavera (Score:2) Sunday November 25, @12:31PM
  • by Dr. Spork (142693) on Sunday November 25, @12:09PM (#21471903)
    I guess I'm just too impulsive to ever put off my longing - right now, I'm feeling an indeferrable longing for a proofreader at Slashdot!
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Like most (Score:1)

    by Matt867 (1184557) on Sunday November 25, @12:19PM (#21471957)
    Like most social networking sites on the internet, facebook started sucking as soon as it became popular.
  • That's called negative agreement (Score:3, Informative)

    by Z00L00K (682162) on Sunday November 25, @12:21PM (#21471983)
    and it's actually illegal in some countries.
  • It was for precisely this reason that I recently quit Facebook [cydeweys.com]. I was a member of it mainly for contacting people in college, but I've since graduated, and have found myself spending less and less time using it. Meanwhile, its infringements on my privacy have grown more and more.

    The first whiff of displeasure I got when using Facebook was when people could tag me in photos without my permission and have them display on my profile. Understandably, there's lots of pictures one would probably not want the world to see, especially during a job search. I did eventually find the option to disable this "feature", but it was many months afterwards. Similarly, I expect there's a way to disable this privacy-infringing commercial thing, but the simple fact is, it's turned on by default for users, and you have to actively figure out how to disable it.

    That's not how this kind of stuff should work. It should be opt-in, not opt-out. Am I supposed to babysit my Facebook account into the indefinite future, disabling each new feature as it comes out, hopefully in time to prevent revealing information that I didn't want revealed? No thanks. I'll just quit Facebook. I did, and you should too. The more people who put up with this kind of crap, the more emboldened they will be to keep doing it.
  • "wait to long" (Score:1)

    by BarnabyWilde (948425) on Sunday November 25, @12:27PM (#21472025)
    Hey, phonetic editing!

    If it *sounds* right, it *must* be right!

    Nice!

  • My favorite part of Facebook (Score:2, Interesting)

    by holdemrico (1021469) on Sunday November 25, @12:59PM (#21472257)
    Is that you cannot actually delete all of the information in your profile with ease. You can deactivate your account, but all of your information is still on their servers and will load right back up if you log in again. To actually delete your profile you have to delete EVERY SINGLE THING from it. That's right, every post on your wall, every picture, you have to individually delete each of them. Fun times.
  • Currently, Facebook possesses an *unknown* tactical advantage in opposition to Google's *unknown* willingness to commit strategic resources and influence. But once Facebook's advantage is quantifiable, I suspect that Google will guesstimate and commit enough resources to win the battle. The odds are good that Facebook's growth rate of change will hit an inflection point in the next few months. These user complaints are a direct result of Facebook trying to push a tactical advantage for strategic gain.

    http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entry=social_networking_meme [realmeme.com]

    Once Facebook hits an inflection point, its scope of influence is bounded, i.e. predictable.

    Facebook needs to change the game to increase their chances of winning.
    At this point, I give them a 50/50 chance.
    There's power in coalitions (see IBM's strategy with Eclipse, Sun's strategy with Java & JCP).

    If I owned Facebook, I'd redo the Facebook API by combining some of the ideas of OpenSocial, then build a coalition along the lines of the Java Community Process to manage it, abdicating 49% of the power and responsibility to other companies. If Facebook does that now, they can leverage their current development community and possibly force Google's hand. If they wait, the true extent of their power will eventually be revealed and challenged.
  • by jolyonr (560227) on Sunday November 25, @01:25PM (#21472465)
    (http://www.mways.co.uk/)
    Ok, Facebook do appear to have been doing something very stupid here, but let's get a list of all the vendors involved. Can we not have a list of all the vendors (Amazon and the like) who are happy to release your private sales information to a third party without your express permission?

    I think it would be very important to promote a list of online retailers who it's NOT safe to shop with. Ignore the fact that Facebook are showing the information where they shouldn't be, the retailers who are offering the information out in the first place are the ones to really be angry with.

    And if it isn't in cooperation, and there's some kind of stealth applet in the browser (as it sounds like there might be) listening in on third-party site traffic then that sounds like either a browser security hole (which should be patched) or some kind of malware that should be removed from systems.

    Unless, this is just some overblown incident of user stupidity where they are telling facebook more than they should be. I haven't seen the thing in action myself.

    Jolyon
    • by garbletext (669861) on Sunday November 25, @02:48PM (#21473065)
      This might be a partial list, as I've heard reports of participating sites not on this list. But Here ya go:

              * AllPosters.com
              * Blockbuster
              * Bluefly.com (NASDAQ: BFLY)
              * CBS Interactive (CBSSports.com & Dotspotter) (NYSE: CBS)
              * eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY)
              * ExpoTV
              * Fandango
              * Gamefly
              * IAC InterActiveCorp. (NASDAQ: IACI) sites (CollegeHumor, Busted Tees, iWon, Citysearch, Pronto.com, echomusic)
              * Expedia (NASDAQ: EXPE)'s Hotwire
              * Joost
              * Kiva
              * Kongregate
              * LiveJournal
              * Live Nation (NYSE: LYV)
              * Mercantila
              * National Basketball Association
              * NYTimes.com (NYSE: NYT)
              * Overstock.com (NASDAQ: OSTK)
              * (RED)
              * Redlight
              * SeamlessWeb
              * Sony Online Entertainment LLC (NYSE: SNE)
              * Sony Pictures (NYSE: SNE)
              * STA Travel
              * The Knot (NASDAQ: KNOT)
              * TripAdvisor
              * Travel Ticker
              * Travelocity
              * TypePad
              * viagogo
              * Vox
              * Yelp
              * WeddingChannel.com
              * Zappos.com

      from
      http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/11/22/facebooks-creepy-ads-put-your-mouth-where-your-money-is/ [bloggingstocks.com]
      which sources the info from
      http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20071106/AQTU20606112007-1.html [prnewswire.com]
  • by urcreepyneighbor (1171755) on Sunday November 25, @01:42PM (#21472599)
    reality is a threat.
  • ...that requires your REAL FUCKING NAME about privacy issues?

    Hilarious.

  • Faceook Architecture (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ewhac (5844) on Sunday November 25, @03:12PM (#21473229)
    (http://ewhac.best.vwh.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 18 2001, @10:28PM)
    I just opened an account on Facebook recently -- mostly to see what the big deal was. It seemed harmless enough until I got a request to join a particular Facebook "app", in this case an app that compares tastes in movies.

    I use Firefox exclusively with NoScript installed. I clicked on the link, and... What the hell am I doing on this completely different site? And why is it trying to run JavaScript at me? Further, why is it trying to run a cross-site script from Facebook?

    It was at this point that I began to suspect that the pages Facebook is presenting me are not, in fact, always generated by Facebook's servers, but instead can be cobbled together from any number of sites and servers located anywhere, and that these sites all exchange data transparently with Facebook.

    I haven't read their developer's pages or their API specification, so I'm only guessing here. Does anyone know if this is in fact true?

    Because if it is -- to borrow one of Jon Stewart's terms -- then it's an absolute catastrofuck of a design, and everyone but everyone should run screaming from Facebook as fast as they can.

    Schwab

  • silence? (Score:1)

    by Kusuriya (633870) <kusuriya@NOSPAM.gmail.com> on Sunday November 25, @07:55PM (#21474613)
    well the old addage is scilence is compliance
  • hmm. (Score:1)

    by Rub1cnt (1159069) on Monday November 26, @10:13AM (#21479137)
    Welcome to the new social norm in the world. The "sheeple" are mad because someone is trying to profit from the mindless social jabber on these megasites. Plus Microsoft is trying to recoup the loss from the google fakeout. :) Gee, looks like Microsoft, who is now processing the ads on the site is doing quite well..I still say they need to lace an ad in the queue with a flawed WGA validator and go RIAA on these people. OH..sorry, your Windows is pirated, pay us 3000$ and we'll look the other way. :) We skip steps 1-3 and go straight to 4. Profit. :) $ocialnetworking...ain't it grand? :) In other news, Nigerian spammers are offshoring work to India...
  • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Sunday November 25, @12:38PM (#21472107)
    Let me tell you something, buddy. Once you go black ... you never go back.
  • Re:What a bunch of whiney bitches! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rnswebx (473058) <rnswebxNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Sunday November 25, @10:00PM (#21475133)
    While I don't agree with the latter part of your post, the first two sentences seem appropriate enough. If you agree to the privacy policy (which is a god damn nightmare of a policy, imo) and then turn around and cry bloody murder when your information is used in ways that are covered in the policy, take a look in the mirror when you start pointing fingers.

    I don't agree with the way they use information, and coincidentally I don't have an account with facebook. Seems pretty simple to me.
  • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.