Facebook Beacon Privacy Issues Worse Than Previously Thought?

An anonymous reader writes "Further developments in the Facebook Beacon affair ... According to PC World, a Computer Associates researcher claims that Beacon, when installed on participating sites, is sending data about users' activity back to Facebook, even when a user is logged out of Facebook - despite Facebook's claims to the contrary."

Comments

FredDC

[FredDC]

No privacy on a social networking website? I am shocked!
</sarcasm>

Re:FredDC

[Anonymous Coward]

no privacy OFF a social networking site.. you should be shocked. repeatedly.

Re:FredDC

[RuBLed]

Well, that's why you should reload a clean image in your VM when you're going to surf at another site...

Re:FredDC

[Skrynesaver]

Or install privoxy and write an appropriate filter

Re:FredDC

[Anonymous Coward]

write an appropriate filter

Such as?

The Privoxy devs couldn't have made a worse configuration system if they tried.

Re:FredDC

[empaler]

In the face.

Re:FredDC

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Facebook denied that.

What? Surely a company's word counts for something around here? Who's with me? ...anybody?

Re:FredDC

[cubic pd]

heh, this takes me back to my middle school days.

Re:FredDC

[zenetik]

What made Facebook different from other social networking sites is that, in the beginning, it was a social network available only to college students. Within that exclusive bubble, members existed within communities limited to members of their college or university. By default, profiles were only available to be seen by academic peers -- the people you have class with or pass by on campus. Before Facebook opened its doors to everyone, most Facebook social connections were those that already existed in the real-world, so privacy wasn't as big as an issue because it remained private within a limited community of peers. Facebook built its success on this exclusive-access strategy and Facebook users have become accustomed to a certain level of privacy not found on other social networks such as MySpace, where social connections are less about adding actual friends as they are about racking up a huge number of virtual friends they've never actually met. In this sense, Facebook has broken the trust with the very users that have made it successful by taking away people's decision to decide what to share with their friends and what not to -- and going a step further by making that information available to third parties. Facebook users view this as a betrayal of an unspoken social contract and they have every right to feel this way because it is a sudden and drastic change of direction from what they've been led to expect over the past few years.

Re:FredDC

[BungaDunga]

Yeah, and how many on facebook have heard of Privoxy? 5%? 2%? Not that it's not a good suggestion, just that it's not exactly going to be used by many. The most I'll do is run NoScript, which (I assume) would block this, but I don't know. How are the external sites getting the info and sending it back to Facebook, anyway?

Microsoft and $$$

[vaderhelmet]

What were we to expect with money to be had? They need something to justify that ridiculous price tag they've given themselves. Users = dollar signs to them. It's funny how every time they add a feature that invades the users' privacy to make money, they release some statement like "Oh, once users calm down, they'll find these services to be useful." Putting in privacy controls and restrictions later means they get away with more and only have to patch what users find out and complain about. That being said, don't claim malicious intent where ignorance is just as likely the cause. (Full Disclosure: I was one of the users who has been banned from Facebook for posting negative comments ("spam") during the mini-feeds debacle. So I have some negative bias.)

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[rucs_hack]

This is all a bit silly to me. Ok, so people are annoyed at Facebook, and I see the story has been tagged BigBrother. That's utter rubbish for a start, but of exactly the kind you expect from people who don't really know what big brother represents in 1984, or never read the bookt.

Why can't it be Big Brother? It's an elective free service, which is two things that the figure Big Brother in 1984 most definatelly does not represent. You are under no obligation to use it. That's all there is folks, don't like it? Don't use it, problem solved.

People do like it though, most of the people I know who are on it don't care about this new storm+teacup, which they view as, well, not worthy of notice. Facebook does what they want, end of problem. I use it too. Ok I block the sidebar beacon adverts, but otherwise I like it.

Oh yes, and online shopping is going to be tracked by everyone who can possibly manage it soon. It's big, big money. So Facebook are doing it now, well, give it a year or so and try to find a free online service of this type that doesn't do tracking, or promises not to in the future.

I think you better look up Diogenes for advice first mind.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

What does this have to do with Microsoft? This isn't the first time that Facebook has made some questionable decisions regarding user privacy. The mini-feed (aka stalker feed) had no option to opt out when it was first introduced and people were protesting over that as well. The Microsoft investment happened recently and given the amount of work that has gone into Beacon (merchant integration etc) it seems doubtful that this was something Microsoft concocted. I don't recall any huge privacy fiascoes with any of Microsoft's online Live services either.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[mrbluze]

Why can't it be Big Brother? It's an elective free service, which is two things that the figure Big Brother in 1984 most definatelly does not represent. You are under no obligation to use it. That's all there is folks, don't like it? Don't use it, problem solved.

Now, if I remember correctly (I haven't read 1984 for a few years now), it is Big Brotherish. I mean, sure, it's not enforced, default, systematic spying by a government, but the Big Brother scenario did not get that way overnight in the book. It took many years of phasing in. I think it's discussed in the part where the main character is reading Emmanual Goldstein's highly illegal and very sensational alternative history of the world. (Even that bit is ringing true nowadays)

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[insertwackynamehere]

Yeah but it was the government doing it and 1984 represented an extreme communist/authoritarian state. If it's corporations doing it in a capitalist market where the consumer decides what they want as opposed to the government doing it and not letting the consumer decide anything except to obey or die, then the worst that could happen is on the other end of the spectrum from 1984. Free market economy and personal freedom is the anti-1984 and communism fails in practice. That was the message of 1984 and of George Orwell. Facebook is definitely indicative of capitalism and success (college dropout becomes billionaire is becoming a type of American hero in our tech driven world).

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[karolo]

In think you are presenting an partial conclusion on what 1984 is about, for starters Orwell was a communist, only not of the type that Stalin liked.
The point of 1984 is how power perpetuates itself through the establishment of a reign of fear (like Stalin did with the purges) through constant surveilance of the people and the presence of an external enemy, whether real or imagined, as tools to control dissent and keep power for its own sake. There is nothing in a capitalist society to stop that from happening, I would say more, because of the way people are lulled into a sense of security an advanced consumerist capitalist society are more likely to fall for it because they feel they have more to lose if the "enemy" wins, and they are more ready to let the changes creep in in the name of security and comfort.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[QuickFox]

You're sending cold shivers down my spine. Sheesh!

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

"definatelly"

Wow!

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[wish bot]

You're going to seriously tell me that when all these people joined FB of their own volition that they wanted their web browsing habits to be tracked, stored, and probably acted on in some fashion? I think it's more likely that they joined so they could hook up with their friends...you know, kind of like what FB was actually about. The subsequent invasion of privacy, tracking and collation of personal habits certainly IS very 'big brotherish' if you want to participate in modern society in any meaningful form. Or you could sever all ties to the internet, "opt-out" and go and live under a rock, is that the choice that what you call 'capitalism' has given us?

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[wish bot]

Things like the Microsoft deal don't happen overnight either. It's quite possible the deal was contingent on a way to 'capitalise' on Facebook's user-base. This may not have been Microsoft's doing however...rather something that was offered to them.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[CaptainZapp]

Yeah but it was the government doing it and 1984 represented an extreme communist/authoritarian state.

Yeah, and now the government is in an even better position. They don't need to get their hands dirty on the privacy front (as if they ever cared), but can let corporations do the collecting and then come in with a subpoena, or with one of those "security letters" the FBI is so fond of abusing illegally.

Come to think about it, companies like AT&T (government says: "bend over". AT&T asks: "how deep do you want to shove it in and which kind of lubricant do you prefer?") make it unnecessary to even spend a quarter for a phone call to a judge.

There are a lot of people who will very thoroughly regret their participation in such site for years to come...

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[faraway]

Orwell was a socialist. Communist and socialist are not the same thing.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[Walter Carver]

Why can't it be Big Brother? It's an elective free service, which is two things that the figure Big Brother in 1984 most definatelly does not represent. When it starts as a trend it's optional. Later it becomes mandatory.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[krazytekn0]

To make a blanket statement that Orwell was communist belies the fact that your only exposure to him was through "Ninteen Eighty-Four", there's a slight possibility that you read "Animal Farm" also but completely misinterpreted it. However his collective works are deeply anti-communist. You are correct that he didn't like Stalin. Orwell did not argue for or against "Capitalism", but for democracy/republicanism. People seem to think that Communism and Capitalism are complete opposites, if you take the roots of the words and break them down this is true. However, in the real world, communism represents a Political as well as Economic system, and capitalism represents an Economic system only. Further, capitalism and communism do not represent a binary choice, since Orwell never claimed to be a capitalist does not imply that he was communist. (I don't think that the proposition there is true anyway)

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[ericspinder]

If it's corporations doing it in a capitalist market where the consumer decides what they want as opposed to the government doing it and not letting the consumer decide anything except to obey or die, then the worst that could happen is on the other end of the spectrum from 1984.

That's like claiming that Orwell's 'Animal Farm' cannot have any meaning as it's about talking pigs and such, not people. One of '1984's leading themes was the surveillance state, were one's every action, even at home, should be mindful of those who watch. Granted Microsoft/Facebook are not yet, ^H^H^H^H^H^H always have been the government.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[keithjr]

Or you could sever all ties to the internet, "opt-out" and go and live under a rock, is that the choice that what you call 'capitalism' has given us?

OR, you could stop using Facebook and move on to another social networking site. If people still continue to use it, despite the blatant invasion of privacy, then the Facebook team will see it as a job well done. I ditched FB last summer when they made it clear their databases were open to ad mining, and haven't looked back. Continued controversy simply amuses me.

Anybody who continues to use facebook is either already living under a rock (and not hearing all of this), or is simply foolish.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[neomunk]

That's the short of it, yes, but I think the GP can be forgiven for using the word in this particular instance.

From the wiki:

He joined the Independent Labour Party contingent, a group of some twenty-five Britons who joined the militia of the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification (POUM - Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista), a revolutionary Spanish communist political party with which the ILP was allied. The POUM, along with the radical wing of the anarcho-syndicalist CNT (the dominant force on the left in Catalonia), believed that Franco could be defeated only if the working class in the Republic overthrew capitalism -- a position fundamentally at odds with that of the Spanish Communist Party and its allies, which (backed by Soviet arms and aid) argued for a coalition with bourgeois parties to defeat the Nationalists. In the months after July 1936 there was a profound social revolution in Catalonia, Aragon and other areas where the CNT was particularly strong. Orwell sympathetically describes the egalitarian spirit of revolutionary Barcelona when he arrived in Homage to Catalonia.

According to his own account, Orwell joined the POUM rather than the Communist-run International Brigades by chance -- but his experiences, in particular his and his wife's narrow escape from the Communist purges in Barcelona in June 1937, greatly increased his sympathy for POUM and made him a life-long anti-Stalinist and a firm believer in what he termed Democratic Socialism, that is to say, in socialism combined with free debate and free elections.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[smallfries]

I think you massively overestimating the difference between a communist / authoritarian state and a capitalist / authoritatian state. They are still both totalitarian entities. I realise that the gist of your point is that this type of tracking is being done by corporations rather than by the government. But how many AT&T scandals does it take to realise that the government has access to any corporate data that it wants to ask for?

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

" ... don't claim malicious intent where ignorance is just as likely the cause."

Excuse me, Sir. After you have seen it a thousand times that companies make such 'errors' which are always in favor of them, if you still believe the above quote, you must reconsider your mental model of American Corporations. Sorry to be cynical, but "don't get caught" seems to be becoming their motto.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[Pendersempai]

OR, you could stop using Facebook and move on to another social networking site.

That's not really a viable option. The facebook community is a network, and as such we are locked in because of network effects.

As an (exaggerated) example, imagine being pissed off that AT&T is handing all your private calling data to George W. Bush in exchange for friendly legislation. Okay, so switch carriers. But unfortunately AT&T is the only carrier that can serve your area or all the ones that can are similarly in the business of giving away your personal info whenever anyone with a government title asks nicely. Now imagine that I come in and helpfully tell you:

OR, you could stop using the telephone network and move on to another means of communication, such as email or the post office. If people still continue to use it, despite the blatant invasion of privacy, then the phone company will see it as a job well done. I ditched telephone service last summer when they made it clear their databases were open to the Bush Administration, and haven't looked back. Continued controversy simply amuses me.

Not exactly a useful bit of advice, is it?

When Friendster, MySpace, and all the others (1) have privacy policies that are enforceable and will prevent this kind of violation of privacy, and, crucially, when (2) they are all interoperable with Facebook, then your advice would be useful.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[keithjr]

A good counterpoint, albeit indeed exaggerated. There are more alternatives to Facebook than there are telecom companies. But the next one to get big will simply follow the same business model (chicken and egg problem, but the problem exists nonetheless). My advice is useful because social networking is not nearly as essential as telephone communication. It's the latest internet craze, but that doesn't mean it is essential by any means. It's a commodity pass-time, at best. The take-home message from the Facebook debacle(s) is that we are not, as a culture, prepared for this phenomenon. The concept of creating a public profile is (should be) becoming less appealing as users realize that the network creators would like to demolish the walls that separate private from public.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[Pendersempai]

It's the latest internet craze, but that doesn't mean it is essential by any means. It's a commodity pass-time, at best.

I disagree. It is, among other things, an online business card repository. Much of the benefit of going to a college or graduate school is the networking, and much of the networking happens via Facebook. Students do not carry around business cards; ask one for their contact info, and they'll likely direct you to Facebook. Certainly, there are degrees of necessity to be considered -- I don't think I'll fall over dead if I quit Facebook, for example -- but it's really not fair to claim that it is nothing more than an online diversion for which the likes of Tetris would be a decent substitute.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[keithjr]

I used to think so, back when I was still in school. I was a freshman when Facebook started up, and times were indeed good. There was some measure of reason and privacy, as the format was still structured and regular.

I graduated just as everything started tumbling downhill. It really began when the site was opened up to the public instead of being restricted to college students and alumni. The end result was that Facebook now had a cash cow and was ready to milk it. It's somewhat depressing; I was hoping to keep in touch with my friends with the help of Facebook, but had to purge my account and then disable it (in that order) because I knew it could no longer be trusted to not sell my information.

I'd love to see another secure, closed networking platform emerge. It wouldn't be able to compete, however, so I doubt that'll happen. Facebook would serve as a wonderful business card repository if it were SAFE. But it isn't. I am not comfortable with Facebook for the same reason that I'm not comfortable handing my business card to every advertising company that asks for it. The fact that so many people ARE is what scares me.

You're correct though, I was too harsh in calling online social networking a fad. Its current methodology seems transient, but that depends on people's willingness to put up with it.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[rmerry72]

here are more alternatives to Facebook than there are telecom companies. But the next one to get big will simply follow the same business model (chicken and egg problem, but the problem exists nonetheless).

Its not a chicken and egg problem; its an economic reality. The only way to make money - even cover costs - is to sell adverts and advertisers want a more "targeted" audience. Your personal details are the currency of the advertising world.

Well, unless Facebook moved to a subscription only model. Would you pay a monthly fee to be part of this network that you can't live without? If not, then your privacy and personal details are the only thing worth anything to anybody else - and worth less and less as the months pass.

Unless you are a telecom there are only two ways to make money off a pure internet business: sell subscriptions or sell ads.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[Capsaicin]

Orwell was a socialist. Communist and socialist are not the same thing.

Orwell fought for the Trotskyist POUM in the Spanish Civil War, he was a socialist of the communist variety. Being agaist a powerful state and being a communist are far more easily reconciled than being in favour of a strong state and being a communist. Remember, according to Marxist theory, communism was only achieved after the state had "melted away."

In any case OPs point stands, Orwells point was not that Stalinism alone is an evil, his critique was aimed both at the Eastern Bloc and the Western "Democracies" which in his view were sham democracies. The book is so titled because it reflects, in a hyperbolic fashion, how Orwell say the political state of the world in 1948.

Re:Microsoft and $$$

[Capsaicin]

If it's corporations doing it in a capitalist market where the consumer decides what they want as opposed to the government doing it and not letting the consumer decide anything except to obey or die, then the worst that could happen is on the other end of the spectrum from 1984.

Please see my sig.

Hmm...

[ccs.gott]

Tom will be happy to hear this!

(myspace reference)

How to avoid Beacon

[Conanymous Award]

From a comment on TFA:

Facebook users who also use Firefox to browse the we can prevent facebook's beacon from reporting by doing the following: download the BlockSite Add-on for The Firefox Browser. Under the tools menu, select "add-ons" Select the BlockSite Add-on and edit the preferences. Under the Blacklist, add a new site with the "add" button. enter the URL "http://*facebooks.com/beacon/* Hit return twice and you are good to go.

I wonder if he actually meant "*facebook.com" without an S, though.

Re:How to avoid Beacon

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe more effective is to avoid sites which partner with Facebook. No better way to vote than with your cyber feet:

        * Art.com
        * Blockbuster
        * Bluefly
        * CBS Interactive
        * eBay
        * ExpoTV
        * Fandango
        * Gamefly.com
        * Kiva, Kongregate
        * LiveNation
        * Mercantila
        * NY Times
        * Overstock.com
        * Redlight Mgmt
        * Seamless Web
        * Six Apart
        * STA Travel
        * TheKnot
        * Travelocity
        * Viagogo

Not sure how this works

[Anonymous Coward]

Could somebody explain how exactly they tie your other sites to Facebook if you are not logged in? Is it by email, by checking for cookies? I use throwaway emails on a lot of these partner sites so I'm not sure exactly how they're going to tie spam_address2@mail.com to myname@school.edu.

Re:Not sure how this works

[Achromatic1978]

I would presume that rather than removing cookies upon 'logout', they keep a note of the fact you're logged out, and continue to track that cookie, knowing that the last logged in user was you.

Re:Not sure how this works

[Pofy]

>I would presume that rather than removing cookies upon 'logout',
>they keep a note of the fact you're logged out, and continue to
>track that cookie, knowing that the last logged in user was you.

Well, not nesecarilly "you", could be someone else on the same computer.

Re:Not sure how this works

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably 'web bugs'. These are usually 1x1 pixel images, placed on the 3rd party page but served from Facebook's domain. The web bug can then access all your Facebook cookies and pass details onto the 3rd party site.

A trick borrowed from spammongers, who embed these things in emails to vaildate email addresses.

Re:Not sure how this works

[Takato-chan]

That's how I'd imagine that "feature" or "security hole" would work. Imagine what would happen if one of these beacon sites were subjected to code injection to steal those cookies which are now publicly available. There enough information on there to do much more than conventional identity theft (stealing credit cards, SSN, etc), you could impersonate someone's entire life. Maybe someone should try that and see how popular Facebook and their violation of privacy is after that!

Re:Not sure how this works

[cbart387]

From the horse's mouth on their techniques (emphasis mine).

Third Party Advertising

Advertisements that appear on Facebook are sometimes delivered (or "served") directly to users by third party advertisers. They automatically receive your IP address when this happens. These third party advertisers may also download cookies to your computer, or use other technologies such as JavaScript and "web beacons" (also known as "1x1 gifs") to measure the effectiveness of their ads and to personalize advertising content.
See original here.

Re:Not sure how this works

[arobic]

You might want to look here for more details on the procedure, but yes, it involves cookies. I would guess that if you clear cookies from your browser before buying online, you are pretty much protected against having your name (through your facebook ID) associated with your purchase information, if I understood TFA correctly.

Is *that* what that was?

[brogdon]

I was playing some rinky-dink flash game on kongregate.com and all of the sudden a little DHTML window panned up from the bottom of the browser and said "Tower Defense has added a story to your Facebook profile."

At that point I had three questions:

1) What is a flash game site doing talking to Facebook?
2) How do you know what my Facebook ID is?
3) Where the fuck do you get off?

I had to go several menus deep in Facebook to figure out how to opt-out of this crap. I haven't been back to kongregate since. Absolute crap.

Re:Is *that* what that was?

[RuBLed]

TFA said it could be the cookies. (the usual culprit) I guess the "delete private data..." functionality of popular browsers should do the trick unless Beacon is "saving" it somewhere else.

Re:Is *that* what that was?

[jrumney]

I had to go several menus deep in Facebook to figure out how to opt-out of this crap. I haven't been back to kongregate since. Absolute crap.

And yet you still go back to facebook, the source of this crap?

Re:Is *that* what that was?

[presidentbeef]

I had to go several menus deep in Facebook to figure out how to opt-out of this crap. I haven't been back to kongregate since. Absolute crap.
Privacy -> External Websites ?

Privacy Settings for External Websites

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:Is *that* what that was?

[empaler]

Still, if you can't trust the sties that you visit to respect your privacy proactively, then you shouldn't visit them. That means not only Kongregate, but also Facebook.
I've just installed Flock for the social networking stuff; that does keep some semblance of privacy, plus it checks all the normal stuff for me (I've turned off all the annoying email fluff, even if it was only alias mail boxes I made for the sites)

Re:Is *that* what that was?

[creativeHavoc]

I thought I would be premtive. Turn this off before it starts doing this for me. I found it in the privacy settings. It's set to level 3 by default... whatever that means. When I select "edit settings" I get this:

Privacy Settings for External Websites Back to Privacy Overview without saving changes. 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

Let me remind you, I am set to mystery setting 3 right now. As you can see there is no option to change this, I assume until it starts reporting from sites I have visited.

Does anyone know how to turn it off before it starts?

Re:Is *that* what that was?

[QuickFox]

Does anyone know how to turn it off before it starts? Yes! In fact that's quite easy to do. It's only six steps:

1. Log out from Facebook.
   
2. Leave the Facebook site.
   
3. Delete all your Facebook cookies from all your browsers.
   
4. Never log in on Facebook again.

Re:Is *that* what that was?

[Von Helmet]

Point the first: You apparently can't count.

Point the second: You know that's not really the solution anyone is looking for.

Re:Is *that* what that was?

[QuickFox]

Point the first: You apparently can't count. Of course I can count. You forget the obligatory two final points that somebody is bound to add any moment now:

    5. ...
    6. Profit!

Point the second: You know that's not really the solution anyone is looking for. Sadly, that's true, people will indeed keep sponsoring that site with their presence no matter how badly it tramples them. But precisely because of this, my solution is the only solution that makes any sense.

This would never happen

[Hanners1979]

I'm sure Facebook would never monitor my activity on other si

It looks like you're writing a comment criticising Facebook! Would you like to:

- Delete the comment
- Tell everyone how great Facebook is?
- Add some more useless junk to your Facebook profile?
- Spam all your friends with a picture of a 'cute' travelling bear?

Re:This would never happen

[StarfishOne]

- Make a custom design to guarantee excruciatingly slow page loading times? - Add CowboyNeal to your friends?

Re:This would never happen

[VGPowerlord]

"Go away you paperclip! No one likes you!" -- Stewie Griffin

Let them know

[$random_var]

It's very timely to see your comment, as I just got done emailing kongregate.com. I let them know, in a short and sweet email, that their partnership with facebook and participation in the Beacon program meant that I would no longer be patronizing their site. There are plenty of game sites on the internet, and they will only participate in a program like Beacon if it gives them a competitive advantage.

Let them know that Beacon is making them LOSE users, not gain them.

Re:Let them know

[arth1]

Um, why bitch at kongregate.com or other sites for using Beacon, instead of just ditching Facebook? Without a Facebook account, this won't a problem on any site.

Re:Let them know

[Wuhao]

Do both. Going after the advertisers is an effective way to persuade an ad-driven media company. No advertiser sticks around when they realize that their ad campaign is actively harming their company. We need more people telling sites like Kongregate that they won't be visiting since they support this shit, and then sites like Kongregate probably won't support it anymore and Facebook won't get paid for it and the entire Beacon campaign will get dropped like a ton of bricks.

Re:Let them know

[Schlemphfer]

>Um, why bitch at kongregate.com or other sites for using Beacon, instead of just ditching Facebook? Without a Facebook account, this won't a problem on any site.

Um, why not bitch at every site that buys into an abusive scheme to violate privacy -- not just Facebook, but all its minions?

Re:Let them know

[$random_var]

You make an excellent point. Unfortunately, I still want to have a facebook account, I just want facebook to be less intrusive. Facebook does have the monopoly on college social networking, like it or not, and I like being able to use it (that's a problem for another day - how to let social networks interoperate). So, given the restriction that I don't want to drop facebook, how else can I influence their behavior? By helping to cut off their revenue source. Facebook generates revenue from Beacon because Kongregate.com (and others) pays them for that service. If I and everybody else sends angry emails to facebook's sponsors, then maybe that sponsor will think twice about renewing their contract. If the money starts drying up, maybe facebook will consider the lost goodwill too great an expense.

Re:Let them know

[Volfied]

Actually, you can't delete a Facebook account, only deactivate it. After reading the PC World article a couple days ago, I tried to delete mine, and was told that I could log back in any time and it would be ready and waiting for me. Something tells me they don't stop mining data from other sites just because you've deactivated the account, when they're not even willing to delete your favorite brand of toilet paper from your profile. I wiped every bit of information about me by hand, aside from my wall posts, which were simply too numerous.

Re:Let them know

[XSpud]

There are also a number of Beacon-related groups and petitions on Facebook including:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7578845355/
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7534656429/
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6290193865/
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6188991025/

Re:Let them know

[QuickFox]

Apparently those pages become visible only if you sign up for a Facebook account and log in. How about giving us a summary or quoting the interesting texts?

Re:Let them know

[Pi Is A Rational]

Dear Facebook, Stop Invading My Privacy!! Well, facebook has done it again. First the third party applications, now their new ad program called Beacon. Why is it called Beacon? I actually don't know but if I had to guess, its because facebook is basically attaching a beacon to your web browser that would allow them to monitor your online activities on other sites, even if you're not logged into facebook. This is a big no no in my book. The data transfered between my computer and sites other than facebook is my own business, not theirs. They are not even allowing us to turn the tracking off. It seems that facebook thinks that we should be required to give up our personal liberties in order to have a profile. They have have gone too far! We need to stand up for our privacy rights and say to facebook, "enough is enough!" This is an official petition to facebook, demanding that we, the facebook using public, have the right to choose what data is collected about our web usage outside of the facebook web site. This data collection is an unwelcome invasion of our computing privacy and we should have the right to prevent this. Join the fight against the facebook invasion! -- Stop Beacon from Getting your Info with Blocksite or AdBlockPlus A description of Beacon, technical details, and how to stop it: http://www.radiantcore.com/blog/archives/23/11/2007/deconstructingfacebookbeaconjavascript If you are serious about privacy and the lack of a comprehensive "opt-out" feature on Facebook, it is important to oppose the institution of Beacon in two ways: 1)Petition Mark about it, obviously. However, Facebook seems to be playing dumb in this regard. 2)So, be sure to protect yourself on an individual level as well. Blocksite is a Firefox extension that you can use so that Beacon cannot gather data on your browsing outside of Facebook GO TO: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3145 AND DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL THE EXTENSION. THEN go to "Tools" in Firefox, select the Blocksite extension, and click "Preferences" or "Options" Be sure the radio button "Blacklist" is selected, and not "Whitelist" Click "Add" next to the Blacklist box, and add the following: *facebook.com/beacon* Then click "OK" With the * on each end, this acts as a wildcard, so that all sites related to beacon on facebook are blocked. It takes like, well, I don't know, maybe 3 minutes tops, and it blocks Beacon at the user end. AdBlock Plus also has the same feature, and can also be used to block those giant banner ads that take up a large portion of the left side of the page: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865 Short article about Beacon and overall privacy: http://www.ideashower.com/blog/facebook-beacon-two-weeks-later/ There are other extensions that are good in terms of privacy, such as Cookie Safe, and anonymization software such as Privoxy/Vidalia. They can be easily found by searching in the extensions on the mozilla website. Also, be sure to complain to participating websites and tell them to not use the Beacon application until the options for opting-out change. A list of 41 sites participating so far. http://www.dcoates.com/content/2007/11/17/41-sites-using-facebook-beacon-facebook-know-your-porn-viewing%3F -- Petition to tell Facebook, give us OUR PRIVACY This group has two purposes. First to inform everyone using facebook that facebook uses a program that allows it to track what it's members do on the web whether or not they are logged on to facebook at the time. This program is called Beacon and they can track what you do (including what you buy or sell) on other web

Re:Let them know

[QuickFox]

Thanks!

But when you enter a comment, if you select "Plain old text" below the text field, your text will come out much more readable, with paragraphs.

You can also make "Plain old text" permanent by choosing it in your settings.

If you feel like posting this anew, with "Plain old text" selected, please do.

In any case, thanks.

Re:Let them know

[OverlordsShadow]

I also came across this disturbing information when I tried to 'delete' my Facebook account. I believe it even says that people can still interact with you as you are still there by sending you requests to become friends, invite you to events and invite you to join other apps. I wonder how long they keep an account deactivated. Hell, even if they did have an expiry date that did delete your account, who is to say they don't just keep the data kicking around after the fact anyway as historical data? Once you give them something they don't want you to take it away. It's not just Facebook. So many sites now collect data at signup that shouldn't even have signups, don't need them, or at least don't need to collect as much info as they do.

Re:Let them know

[BungaDunga]

Gahhhh my eyes!

An honest and serious question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people desire such an Internet presence anyway? What's the attraction?

Re:An honest and serious question.

[Skrynesaver]

I've an account, while I don't use it much it has enabled me to get back in touch with friends I haven't seen for nigh on 20 years. People move to other countries and back in the day they didn't have email addresses or the like, so for some of us older folks it has a use, as to the constant update carry on, well for those that want to I guess it's ok, personally it's just a way of finding old mates who I'd lost touch with.

Re:An honest and serious question.

[xaxa]

To communicate quickly and easily with people they know.

However, after clicking the "Photos of Me" button on my profile page and looking at the pictures of me from the past couple of years, I've just changed the settings so no one else can click that button... when I graduate in the summer I'll probably delete all the photos I've uploaded, and "de-tag" myself from any pictures of me other people have uploaded. It's a bit creepy that I can look back through years of photographs of people I know (or in some cases, don't really know).

How do they know?

[tmk]

How do third party websites know about an Facebookm account when a user is logged out of Facebook?

Re:How do they know?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

I assume that logging out on facebook doesn't mean all facebook cookies will get trashed. It probably means that only the password token cookie is deleted.

Re:How do they know?

[arth1]

At a guess, by creating a P3P cookie policy that promises that they won't share the cookies with any 3rd party, and then disregard that and do just that? That will probably trick the two major browsers -- even on "high" privacy level for my browser (which isn't IE), it will allow permanent third party cookies if the site promises that it "does not collect personally identifiable information without your explicit consent". And we all know that web sites would never lie, right?

Re:How do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

The third party sites don't. They call a javascript file hosted on facebook.com every time the page is loaded. If the user has ever used the "remember me" option when logging into Facebook, then a facebook.com cookie with their login email is stored on the computer, and returned along with the request to facebook.com, which means that Facebook gets the information directly from the user along with the variables being passed by the third party web page.

Re:How do they know?

[sherriw]

I would guess that if you create an account on both sites with the same email address, you can be logged out of FB, but logged in to the ecomm store and they can still link the two accounts.

Re:How do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

To everyone making comments like these, why are you on Slashdot? You never had a geek license to revoke.

Uh-oh.

[martensitic]

"Slashdot has added a story to your Facebook profile."

According to Answers.com

[Anonymous Coward]

beacon:
n.
      1. A signaling or guiding device, such as a lighthouse, located on a coast.
      2. A radio transmitter that emits a characteristic guidance signal for aircraft.
      3. A source of guidance or inspiration.
      4. A signal fire, especially one used to warn of an enemy's approach.

*Scratching head to fit the Facebook Beacon in this definition*

What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't they in bed with the CIA?

You think this is bad

[pat mcguire]

http://albumoftheday.com/facebook/ The good tin-foil hat stuff doesn't happen until the end. Whether it's true or not, the point is the same: anything you do on the internet will be known. The money and political pressure acting against your privacy will win every time.

Re:You think this is bad

[Silver Sloth]

anything you do on the internet will be known. but still no one knows I'm a dog (woof).

Re:You think this is bad

[kalirion]

http://albumoftheday.com/facebook/ The good tin-foil hat stuff doesn't happen until the end. Whether it's true or not, the point is the same: anything you do on the internet will be known. The money and political pressure acting against your privacy will win every time.

"Does what happens in the Facebook stay in the Facebook?

You do not have JavaScript enabled. You are lame."

Good to know.

Right, and you stayed with facebook

[SmallFurryCreature]

My opinion of people who use social networking sites is already pretty low, you just lowered it even further.

If you are upset about this, you should quit facebook. They are the ones that started this program.

To explain just how stupid you are, in the real world this would the equivelant of "politician A you elected puts in effect a law that requires libraries to record your book withdrawals. You find out about this. You stop going to libraries. You vote again for politician A".

STOP USING FACEBOOK you twit.

Get 'em young and innocent

[gihan_ripper]

This is just the next in a long line of privacy violations by social networking sites such as Facebook. They target a primarily young and non tech-savvy audience so they can get away with the most atrocious breaches in privacy until they overstep the boundary and do something that's blatantly egregious, even to the most innocent Internet users. With Beacon, Facebook allowed other users to see our online shopping habits. I feel that the latest revelation about Beacon "calling home" won't be as resonant with the general public. We've gotten used to a data-mining culture and don't worry about some faceless "they" having access to all this information. Perhaps if we imagined these personal details being broadcast on national TV, it would be a different story.

Re:Get 'em young and innocent

[dyfet]

Yes, but in a culture built around American Idol and reality TV, people WANT to have the personal details of their lives broadcast on national TV! ;)

Re:Get 'em young and innocent

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's the case, then there should be no problem with giving them a choice about what is published, and about who gets to see it.

I hope this will finally make people see

[Martian_Kyo]

that privacy on the internet is a myth! I am not saying that there is a database with your name and statistics of your favorite porn downloads. However it COULD be made.

Re:I hope this will finally make people see

[NoPantsJim]

COULD be made? Hell I made one myself just so I could find stuff faster.

Re:I hope this will finally make people see

[empaler]

I started backing up my hard drive to DVDs and decided that for economic reasons, I should skip the porn. And DVDs are cheap.

Re:I hope this will finally make people see

[Martian_Kyo]

Select pornstar, download_count from porn_stats where slashdot_nickname='NoPantsJim' order by download_count desc limit 5
Jenna Jameson 45831
Ron Jeremy 32535
Sasha Grey 29004
Peter North 28504
Martian_Kyo 21000

Oh you sure like some freaky stuff ;)

Re:I hope this will finally make people see

[NoPantsJim]

All I will say is that the name 'NoPantsJim' was not given, it was earned.

Block the "Feature"

[ZlatanZ]

This might be useful for some people. It shows you how to block Facebook's Beacon.

Re:Block the "Feature"

[empaler]

Basically, it tells you to go to addons.mozilla.org, find blocksite, install, add "http*://*facebook.com/beacon/* to blocksite, and gold. Should work in AdBlock/ABP too, PeerGuardian, or whatnot.

Re:Block the "Feature"

[Dogtanian]

This might be useful for some people. It shows you how to block Facebook's Beacon. Not to demean the solution you gave, which I'm sure does its intended job well. However, it's really just a technical fix that is papering over one of the symptoms.

It doesn't- and can't- address the far more serious underlying cause. Namely that Facebook and the other companies involved are clearly totally contemptuous of their users' privacy and quite happy to screw them over in the name of a few quick bucks. And then hide this behind a weaselish and unclear "opt-in-by-default" agreement. (Yes, it's acceptable for them to make money from a free website; no, it's absolutely *not* acceptable for them to do it in this way).

Frankly, I'm glad I don't use Facebook. At one stage I may have believed that it was possibe to balance the invasion one's privacy by controlling what appeared on their page- and then some low-down **** like this comes along. It's one thing to have your Facebook information publicly available, quite another to have your activities on apparently unrelated sites made public.

I wouldn't touch Facebook with a ******* barge pole now. Your fix may work on the current problem, but what happens when the next moneygrabbing exploit comes along? What happens when these assholes figure out a totally different way to use the information they already have on you?

Seriously, fuck that, and fuck Facebook. Their behaviour was already unacceptable- regardless of how they snuck it into the legal agreement. With this latest news on top, I seriously hope that this marks a turning point in Facebook's fortunes. Joe Public isn't as concerned about his privacy as he should be, but when it comes to blabbing about his Christmas present purchases without his knowledge, it puts it in more concrete terms.

Re:Block the "Feature"

[Culture20]

Until facebook changes the site that beacon lives on to a mirror list that the participating company checks periodically.

Re:Block the "Feature"

[TooMuchToDo]

Adblock Plus should add that URL to it's US feed, so it's automatic for all Adblock Plus users.

Re:Block the "Feature"

[empaler]

Until facebook changes the site that beacon lives on to a mirror list that the participating company checks periodically. Facebook would never do something as insidious as that.
Their updated, improved Beacon 2.0, codenamed "Bacon" will, completely incidentally, have a new URL that changes daily - cos of new features, see? Due to the... complex nature of these features, and, er, to protect user privacy from malicious activity, it won't be trivially facebook.com/bacon/$date, but a pseudo-random alphanumeric URL based on your user name, spending habits, number of sexual partners, and curry; e.g. facebook.com/dfh7usd3kiwiqnhu. Share and enjoy.

Re:Block the "Feature"

[Anonymous Coward]

Psssst... "opt-in-by-default" == "opt-out".

Re:Block the "Feature"

[Culture20]

Awesome. Now that we know curry is in the algorithm, we can write an auto-blocker. I never would have thought of curry.

Re:Block the "Feature"

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't- and can't- address the far more serious underlying cause. Namely that Facebook and the other companies involved are clearly totally contemptuous of their users' privacy and quite happy to screw them over in the name of a few quick bucks.

What, you thought they set up the site out of the goodness of their hearts? They see users as moneycows to be milked until they bleat in agony.

Re:Block the "Feature"

[Dogtanian]

What, you thought they set up the site out of the goodness of their hearts? They see users as moneycows to be milked until they bleat in agony. No, I think you're setting up a false dichotomy between running something as a totally undiscriminating charity and as a business that'll screw everyone over at the first whiff of money. Hint; it might be true that their aim is to make money... but it's also true that screwing your customers over in the short term could be very counterproductive to making money in the long term.

You must be an officer of the law...

[LaTechTech]

"Don't Tase me, bro!"

Re:You must be an officer of the law...

[graviplana]

DENIED! http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/introducing-tas.html

Re: angry emails to facebook's sponsors

[giafly]

Don't do this because your angry rants can be linked with your facebook account and available for data mining. You do want a job after college I assume?

If you are non-technical:

1. send the sponsors a complaint letter in the post.
2. if sponsor runs a blog, post factual reports of this issue

If you are technical: consider the fun to be had from Beacon.

Now we know where the "value" is coming from!!

[phelix_da_kat]

No wonder "companies" are lining up to place investment in Facebook - they probably get access to the user activities in return for their investment! Its like a Trojan Horse - I think the original intent of the makers of Facebook was good and I do not behold any one from making a buck - but this is definitely insidious.

Facebook == new Google

[ThirdPrize]

Google stopped becoming a search engine and is now an advertising company that does a bit of searching on the side. Same will happen to Facebook. You might use it as a social networking site but it WILL become more concerned with getting ads on screen.

Earning user trust requires honesty.

[zestyping]

The problem here isn't just that Facebook is collecting private information. Any company could say "look, if you use our service, here's what we're going to collect and what we're going to do with it," make a good-faith effort to inform everybody what's about to happen and how it works, and then proceed.

The problem is that Facebook is lying about it, and doing so repeatedly.

1. Zuckerberg led the press and advertisers to believe that Beacon would be opt-in (it would publish only with the user's consent) but launched Beacon as an opt-out feature (it published without the user's consent).
2. Both the original design and the current design of Beacon announce to the user that a story is being sent to their profile. They do not present themselves as a choice; they do not ask for consent; they present themselves as a notification that something is already occurring.
3. Even though the new design is "opt-in", the notification has only one clearly emphasized button: "Okay". A design that offered a true choice would offer two equally clear buttons (e.g. "Publish" and "Cancel"). Again, the design is crafted to give users the impression that they have no choice.
4. Facebook collects information about its users' activities on other sites through Beacon despite public statements to the opposite. According to Stefan Berteau, Facebook does this even when you are logged out and even when no notification is displayed.
5. Facebook did not give its users reasonable advance notification that it would start publishing information about their activities on other sites. It just went ahead and did it. And Facebook is still not being upfront about the fact that it is collecting this information.
6. Facebook continues to refuse to let users just turn off Beacon. Instead users have to individually refuse Beacon for each partner site, and they cannot do this in advance; they can only do it at the moment a partner site is about to publish a story on Facebook. Again, they are clearly trying to maintain as many obstacles as possible for users who simply don't want this information shared.
7. Facebook's official response is disingenuous and insulting. The problem is not that Beacon "can be kind of confusing"; it is obviously designed to mislead. Facebook's Paul Janzer wrote:

   While we know "global opt-out" seems like the easiest solution, we believe that if we provide you with full control over your information, you and your friends can get the full benefit of sharing information and connecting on Facebook.

   Of course, if they really wanted to provide users "full control over [their] information" they would let users turn Beacon off.

Re:Earning user trust requires honesty.

[hesaigo999ca]

My solution, don't use Facebook....

Re:Earning user trust requires honesty.

[contrapunctus]

From what I understand, even if you don't use facebook, info about you is sent to them from the beacon partners.

Re:Earning user trust requires honesty.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they have to do this since they are pressured to make/show some profit to their investors.

Re:Earning user trust requires honesty.

[hesaigo999ca]

I did not know this...too bad :(

A Facebook Satement in Response

[Stefanwulf]

CA received a statement from Facebook following their blog entries, which speaks to the use of this data.

or...

[owlnation]

... Facebook users even more whiny than previously thought?
... Facebook users with even greater sense of entitlement than previously thought?
... Facebook users with even less understanding of social networking concepts than previously thought?
... Facebook users with even less sense of life's real priorities than previously thought?
... Facebook users misspending their period of youthful rebellion more than previously thought?
... Facebook users with even grander delusions of grandeur than previously thought?

... Facebook users with even greater abilities to self-promote trivial issues on Slashdot than previously thought?

Re:or...

[ColdWetDog]

Did you confuse "Apple" with "Facebook" or was that intentional?

Facebook is dead

[CaptainZapp]

So they have a zillion of members and is that hot Web 2.0. ticket now?

So what? How long do you think "members" need to move to the next "big thing"?

This beacon thing was not only badly thought out and implemented, but Facebook as a company also seems to lie a lot.

Besides that, what about Facebook members in the EU? The sleaze they are trying to pull off is illegal in virtual any EU country (and then some).

They should have done a Google and found themselves a CEO, with respect and a network in the industry. But they seem to have a founder-CEO who doesn't seem to have managed his adolescence quite yet.

Way to go Mark!

social p2p

[wikinerd]

The problem is simple: Users post their personal info on profiles stored in a central server. Thus, it is the entity that controls the server that has control over the user's personal info, and not the user themselves.

The solution is very simple as well: Users should also be the ones storing their own personal info and profiles. People who own their own personal webpage do this. Since, however, not everyone is able to keep a computer connected 24/7, we could devise a p2p protocol for social networking. Profiles would be stored primarily on the user's computer, and disseminated in a p2p fashion among other computers on the same social network, and any modification or deletion of the source profile would then be automatically copied to the p2p swarm. While I can imagine users abusing this system (eg trying to cache deleted profiles without permission etc), I hope that a p2p protocol utilising clever techniques could guarantee more privacy and protection than modern social networking sites.

Re:social p2p

[Rockin'Robert]

Doesn't Skype alreay do that, and 'encrypted'?
RR

Hey!!

[Zorbane]

you should be shocked. repeatedly.

Don't tase him, Bro!!!

Not the best friends

[aws910]

I had re-joined some social networking sites recently, and this was my pretense. However, it made me realize that if these "old friends" were such great people, I would have kept in touch with them. With each "old friend", I realized that there was some fatal flaw that made me not want to keep in touch with them anyway.
Honestly, how long do you want to dwell in the past? The future is so wide open...

Another BS Story by Communist Zonk

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice it was posted by an "Anonymous Reader?" That "anonymous reader" is nothing more than Communist Zonk in his crusade to eliminate all traces of Capitalism by giving it the worst possible reputation.

MoBlock?

[seandiggity]

Anyone have an idea how I can do this with MoBlock? I created a /etc/moblock/custom-blocklist.p2p file and threw facebook.com/beacon in there, but I don't think that's gonna work...all the other blocklists are using IP ranges and I don't want to block facebook entirely. Is there any reason to bother with this anyway if I only use Firefox as a web browser and set up AdBlock+?

Re:MoBlock?

[Anonymous Coward]

The easy way to find out whether it works would be to type in the URL in your browser...
If you get a Facebook page, it doesn't work (no matter the content). If you get a browser error page, you should be good.

Can't opt-out. Can't delete.

[ukemike]

Facebook continues to refuse to let users just turn off Beacon. Instead users have to individually refuse Beacon for each partner site, and they cannot do this in advance; they can only do it at the moment a partner site is about to publish a story on Facebook. Again, they are clearly trying to maintain as many obstacles as possible for users who simply don't want this information shared.

I've just been on FB trying to cripple my account. Some time ago, I thought I'd see what the buzz was about. Didn't do too much for me, so I figure no loss to delete the account (I can't). Anyway if another site isn't already reporting back to FB about you you can't opt out. So if you want to actually control your information you'll have to remain constantly engaged with facebook to prevent new Beacon users from reporting on you. Here is the lesson for the day: If you care about this sort of thing, and you haven't already signed up on Facebook. DON'T. I've sent a customer support to FB asking to have my account deleted. I've heard of people who were banned. I wonder if they continue to track your activity if you've been banned? If so I'll dedicate my FB page to criticizing Beacon.

Use a separate browser for facebook?

[ChoppedBroccoli]

Seems like this wouldn't work if you used your favortie browser for all normal activity including online shopping (say Firefox/Opera), and just retain a second browser specifically for Facebook (IE/Safari/etc). Since each browser monitors cookies independently, wouldn't this solve the problem? Not saying this is solving the problem (Facebook is tracking your purchasing habits without telling you!), but perhaps another workaround for now. Of course if you use Opera or Firefox, you can just as easily adblock I suppose.

What shugs the mit out of be...

[davidsyes]

What bugs the shit out of me is how when one adds a new app, Facebook says (paraphrasing):

"Allow application to see my profile and know about me..."

I sigh and get within a few microns of blowing a gasket. Why the HELL does Facebook not tell us WHAT it IS those programs will see?

Is facebook allowing those simple, sometimes lame, apps to know EVERYthing about us? What guarantees (none, right?) do we have that information seen by these apps won't be rerouted to entities we normally would say "no" to?

I wish Facebook would more granularly EXPLAIN what these apps developers DO see, and allow us to hide even our names and most basic info. Big deal a horoscope or biorhythm app claims to need letters of our name to get the right decan and other details right...

I want to know that I am ACTIVELY in control of WHAT they see, not see just some blanket explanation with 5 or 6 options that if incorrectly selected either break the app or enable it.

FACEBOOK, it's time for you to:

-- freeze all the 3rd party apps,
-- force their developers to abide by a new privacy/anonymity contract
-- provide to the users more granular denial filters
-- provide the users with a new tool to selectively inform and deny previously used apps' developers they no longer have permission or rights to reuse or redistribute profile information at the wish or demand of users

Hmmm, but somehow, I suspect that would kill Facebook's market cap by 55% and (for those who so hope) gut msoft's investment in Facebook and make msoft and analysts look like fools.

Wishful thinking on my part?

I was going to log in to delete my account

[duncanator]

but it's 'down for maintanance' and yes, I know.... they'll still have all of my info if I delete my account.

Re:I was going to log in to delete my account

[MtlDty]

I just deleted (or rather 'deactivated') my account too. Is this enough, or do I have to start deleting all the cookies too?

Re:I was going to log in to delete my account

[morethanapapercert]

Go ahead and delete your cookies. A deactivated account is still there, just cannot be seen by normal users in searches, contact lists etc. All of your installed applications are still there, along with all of your personal data you were compelled to give the application access to in order to use the application. The only certain way to ensure the integrity of your data is to delete all personal information and settings you can, uninstall all applications and then deactivate your account. You then send an email to privacy@facebook.com and ask them to delete your profile in it's entirety. (do me a favour? tell them barbarian818 at hotmail dot com sent you!)
Three gotchas come to mind:
1) You must use the same email address that you log in with to make the deletion request
2) You apparently cannot have emails still traveling in the system at the time they process the request or they'll just kick your request back to you and repeat the instructions to delete all personal info. (I happen to have sent a mass email to everyone in my contact list. There were enough people that I had to craft two identical messages and send each out to half of my list. Despite being warned that I was quitting and hence unable to read any replies, and despite other peoples complaints about "spam" one of those copies is still alive and being replied to. Sadly, but not surprisingly, almost all of the current replies are along the lines of "everyone shut up so this thread can die, I'm tired of this spam in my inbox, no-one cares ok?"
Everything else has been deleted by me. The site requires a profile image of some kind, it wouldn't let me simply delete my photo. So I gave it one of those Despair posters in my photo's place.
3)This is a company that has proven that the members are the product, not the customer. They have also proven that they will lie or use deceptive practices to ensure that the real money makers can continue unimpeded. I have nothing to assure you that your profile will be deleted as requested. (At the moment, Facebook admins are playing the "you gotta delete all your personal stuff first" game with me thanks to that mass email I mentioned.)

I have been exchanging emails with a Pam from User support on my concerns. If anyone wants to read what she has to say to me, reply to this post and I'll copy and paste the contents over to my reply.

Re:Facebook != new Google

[mbook]

I cancelled my Facebook account last night since I don't trust them with my data. (Actually, you can't cancel your Facebook account, you can only 'deactivate' it. Figures.)

But I still trust Google with my email and with my clickstream. Google isn't selling my data, Google isn't spamming me, Google isn't pretending that advertisers are my friends. Google has always had a big wall between algorithmic content (unbiased), and clearly labeled advertising (bought and paid for).

Like a well run newspaper, Google separates the advertising from the content and clearly labels it as such. Facebook has mashed the two together, and I'll no longer use their service.

Zuckerman's mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Zuckerman had a good thing going, but his greed got the best of him. For about a year he has been talking about Facebook valuation in the billions. Nobody is going for it. Beacon is a desperate attempt to change that, and it will cost him. Not in users; Facebook users seem happy to have their privacy violated. It will cost him business partners. He needed a deal with Amazon and now he isn't going to get it.