Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Caves To Privacy Protests Over Beacon

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the privacy-is-dead dept.

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.'"

15 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Thank god by Samalie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, they really should just kill the application alltogether, but at least its a step

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Thank god by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like the kind of people that flock to these types of social networks give two shits about privacy. They'd probably give it up for a tootsie roll in-between clicking on the dancing monkey banners.

    2. Re:Thank god by Samalie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never said that the "kind of people that flock....give two shits about privacy"

      But that doesn't mean that these same people don't deserve privacy if they want it.

      I'm sure that 99.9% of the Facebook population won't turn Beacon off. But at least they have the ability now.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:Thank god by Kris_J · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are two good reasons (one shit each?) that facebook users cared about this. Some activities they might engage in are embarrassing (Porn, donating to Greenpeace, etc) and some activities are supposed to be a surprise to their friends (say, xmas and birthday gifts).

      Facebook might look like everyone is an open book, but the information shared and public activities seen are carefully chosen for a variety of complex social reasons. Beacon was completely ignorant of this.

    4. Re:Thank god by ThePengwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or you have a bunch of people who install apps they say "hey do this cool stuff!!!" that send you invites to everything.

      If i want a dam app ill install it myself... :P

    5. Re:Thank god by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suggest that the very idea that 99.9% of users aren't expected to take advantage of the off feature is reason enough to offer it. Appease the (sometimes very) vocal minority who wants control over such things, and avoid the massive PR whiplash that comes from not giving that choice. And still, make tons of money from the large percentage of people who don't care. Not making revenue from the small percentage of people who rush to turn Beacon off is probably a much better option than missing all the people who will do it now that the controversy hit the media.

    6. Re:Thank god by encoderer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FWIW, facebook has the best default privacy settings of all the social networking sites.

      By default, only those in your network can see ANYTHING about you. This would be people in your own school or whatever. And within that, you have a number of privacy setting controlling whether only your direct friends can see things.

      In a number of ways... I've always thought that Facebook is to Apple what MySpace is to Microsoft...

  2. Well... by roadkill_cr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I respect that they admit they are wrong, but I find it scary that it took them so long to realize what a privacy issue this is. For an organization with so much information, I had hoped they would put privacy #1 on their priority list.

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Facebook is a company not a public service. Their priority is generating revenue by any means necessary. It appears that losing users would hit them harder financially than they would gain from using Beacon.

    2. Re:Well... by value_added · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The temptation to cash out is just too great for most companies. The only reason why Slashdot isn't worse is because of Taco.

      I was originally planning on waxing poetic about the golden age of business when trust and respect were part of the fabric of things, a time before anyone had even heard of the expression "mission statement", and enlightened leaders guided by tradition and higher principles ruled their dominions, but then the image of Rupert Murdock's grubbing face at a meeting of investors appeared.

      We're all fucked.

      Or maybe not.

      I think Slashdot needs a mission statement. Something between "To Boldly Go" and "Mostly Harmless", maybe?

  3. Opt In Not Opt Out by meehawl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a salve. Things like this should be opt in, not opt out. Aside from ethical considerations, it would make the data a lot more reliable in terms of a self-selecting group of people that welcomed Facebook spying on their consumption habits. Presumably, these opt-inners would welcome marketing spam.

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Opt In Not Opt Out by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "On the opt-out page, it says that you will stop information from being posted to your profile," he noted. "It does not explicitly state that Facebook will stop collecting the information transmitted from third party sites."

      Facebook user Tom Hessman added that Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook will still be receiving data from partner sites whether users opt out or not. Nuff said.
      Facebook is still going to be receiving info from any site that signs up for the Beacon program.

      My guess is Facebook's Beacon is going to be the DoubleClick of the social networking world. Maybe MySpace should get in on the action before Facebook corners the market on demographic information.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  4. I hope Facebook users aren't buying into the lie by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There will be changes to terms of service or some other nonsense that people will blindly click "yes" to and all of it will be for naught.

    There's simply too much money to be made from advertising and selling information to ignore! That's why CableTV started playing commercials even though it was originally sold to be "commercial free."

    They can't resist the evil... the greed... "the corporate obligation." Adobe's "ads in PDF" is another fine example of crap they can't seem to resist. And the fact is, while people are sometimes vocal enough about some things, there's enough people out there who don't care enough to complain that nothing gets done.

  5. Re:what happens on the Internet stays on the Inter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I admire the broad personal freedoms of Americans ... ... and lament the broad personal freedoms of American corporations.

  6. Didn't take long did it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Any one else find it amusing that the first big move by Facebook after Microsoft bought in alienated its entire user base?

    Or am I the only one who sees some correlation and causation there?