Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Sharing Too Much Personal Data With Application Developers
An anonymous reader writes "Remember the Facebook News Feed privacy uproar? What about the Beacon scandal from late last year? Privacy activists are rallying around yet another major issue at Facebook, in which the company is secretly sharing user data with third parties. Researchers from the University of Virginia recently announced that in a study of the top 150 Facebook applications, more than 90% were given access to information that was not needed to function correctly. That Scrabble or Superpoke application you really like? Its developers get access to your religion, sexuality and home town. Facebook's position was summed up by Georgetown Law Professor Dan Solove, 'They seem to be going on the assumption that if someone uses Facebook, they really have no privacy concerns.' Do Facebook users deserve privacy? "
If you post it on the 'net, it's public information, no matter how secure or private the application is. One must treat his or her information on social networks this way, no exceptions.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
At this point, I'd say no.
Personally, given their abysmal track record so far, I'd say that anyone using them at this point should assume they have no privacy at all. To some extent facebook is guilty of false advertising, by seeming to allow you to restrict other users from seeing some of your information. But why anyone who put anything on Facebook would expect any privacy at all, is a mystery to me.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
When you add an application, it asks you quite clearly:
[ ] Know who I am and access my information.
It's the first checkbox.
Or, even better: you don't need to use applications! Hell, you don't even need to use Facebook! There are services like Hushmail for people who want privacy in their communications.
Wait, last time I checked Facebook doesn't automaticly install apps you have to do it and confirm you are allowing this app to acccess some of your information. They don't give third parties your info, you do.
Deserve? Yes, everyone deserves the right to keep their personal lives private. Should they expect privacy? Not likely. There's no free lunch in life, online or offline: why would Facebook spend many millions of dollars maintaining a social network without milking every last bit of profit out of their user base? They're going to do whatever they can get away with, period. I don't know why people find this so hard to grasp: it's like when I try to explain to people that those "free emoticons" they so fondly install are filling up somebody's offshore server with their personal information and filling their monitor with pop-up advertisements.
body massage!
Maybe I'm just that suspicious, but the first time I went to look at one of those "applications" on facebook, the first checkbox in a list of a half dozen you can select before you hit "go" was a riff on "Allow this application to access my personal info" ---I automatically assumed that meant ALL my info, and promptly cancelled whatever it was.
Did anyone ever really have the assumption that that information was needed to make the app function, and not just a way of tricking users into giving up demographic info to third parties?
Personally I'm not sure Facebook is in the wrong on this one. It's up in big letters that you're giving whatever application it is access to your personal info--and all those things are OPTIONAL to place in your profile. I don't know that it should their fault that users don't think it through and then become surprised/outraged when they find out what it really means.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Facebook's position was summed up by Georgetown Law Professor Dan Solove, 'They seem to be going on the assumption that if someone
uses Facebook, they really have no privacy concerns.'
"They seem to assume that people who post their name, address, sexual orientation and gender on giant roadside billboards don't care if strangers know their name, address, sexual orientation and gender! It's like they think that people who go out into the crowded streets don't care who knows what shirt they're wearing!"
Dude, what is so hard here? It is an API. Do people typically customize an API for every user (as in application using the API) to limit the available calls only to what is needed? It is an interface. The data available in said interface is CLEARLY DOCUMENTED. Yes, technically Scrabble has access to the religion of its users. Yes, it could be storing this.
Seriously, what is confusing here? You have to agree when you add an application that it will be able to access your profile data. When you say 'yes, allow this', why would you be surprised that the application is then allowed to do what you just allowed?
http://developers.facebook.com/documentation.php?doc=fql
I have never bought into the argument that communicating online should always be legally regarded as the equivalent of having a conversation in public. People frequently put access controls and encryption on information sent over the Internet, and it's not like every person on the Internet has the ability to listen in on what you're saying in an IM conversation, emails, etc. There should be a reasonable basis to assume privacy in certain contexts, such as email and IM. IMO, the law should sanction people who eavesdrop on such communications without a good reason.
With Facebook, it all depends on the context. They should be required to show what information they are passing onto their application developers, but there should be no legal protection beyond that. People should be able to sell off their personal information in exchange for something they want. The only reasonable issue here is when the user is not able to reasonably find out and consent to the sharing of the information.
Personally, I am a lot more concerned with things like the FBI's latest attempts to get carte blanche access to email. If there is any institution that will destroy privacy in America, it's the federal government. Every major information/privacy issue that comes back to haunt the average person stems from the law or law enforcement agencies. The reason we worry about identity theft on the financial side of things is that the **law** does not put the onus on the lender to verify the identity of their customer. Why should it be my responsibility to ensure that someone isn't signing up in my name for credit cards? You worry about devastating legal decisions for privacy? The precedents are being set by the DoJ, not corporate America.
Everything is going online. It is now, not in the future, that we demand privacy and protection.
I do everything online. This includes transmitting legal documents, banking and having meetings. When I have a meeting at a local restaurant, I don't expect them to bug my booth and listen in. Sure, having a conversation there isn't giving them "personally identifiable" information but aggregated, the information can identify me, my clients and my work.
When I use my bank, I don't want them to transmit my transactions save my name to a 3rd party. Why? Pretty soon someone can piece together my actions (always buying a beer at this location on friday night between 8:35-9:05pm) and me.
What I think we need is a blanket privacy statement and recompense if broken.
Every action I'm engaging in is now somehow online. My banking, entertainment purchases, my religious organizations. I only expect more and more of what I do to be online. It's the way of the future, databases and all that. You can say "just don't use it" but the reality is every action has become easier because someone created a database and now those databases are online.
> They seem to be going on the assumption that if someone uses Facebook, they really have
> no privacy concerns.
Sounds like a reasonable assumption to me.
> Do Facebook users deserve privacy?
Sure. And they can have it. All they need to do is keep the stuff that they want to remain private off Facebook.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I don't see how this is a big secret. When you add an application there is a checkbox that says (and I quote), "Allow this application to... Know who I am and access my information." If you uncheck this box Facebook tells you "Granting access to information is REQUIRED to add applications. If you are not willing to grant access to your information, DO NOT ADD THIS APPLICATION."
I saw this the first time I went to add a Facebook app, and thought "hey, I don't want that, so I'm not going to add it."
Facebook is an advertising platform just like everyone else, so either I'm missing something (which, I'll admit is entirely possible--I recognize that I make mistakes all the time), or is there really a story here?
BTW, just read the terms of service for each application--if it doesn't say what they will do with your data, don't add the app. Then it isn't a whole lot different than putting the same data into any other web application. Also, being aware that this can happen, don't put data on your facebook profile you don't want the rest of the world seeing. It's not rocket science-just common sense.
I'm a newbie Facebook app developer.
Here's the info I can see for any user that adds my app and clicks the box:
uid*, first_name, last_name, name*, pic_small, pic_big, pic_square, pic, affiliations, profile_update_time, timezone, religion, birthday, sex, hometown_location, meeting_sex, meeting_for, relationship_status, significant_other_id, political, current_location, activities, interests, is_app_user, music, tv, movies, books, quotes, about_me, hs_info, education_history, work_history, notes_count, wall_count, status, has_added_app
(More info on the already-linked http://developers.facebook.com/documentation.php?doc=fql )
To me this seems like way, way too much. I haven't told our marketing people we can get all this.
Why is the application not treated as-if it were another user? From what I understand, there is a reasonable granularity of privacy settings for users. Let each app be a unique user, and you automatically get these benefits.
Or are the apps client-based, so that my Facebook on machine X can use apps and on machine Y it cannot, because of how it was set up? In this case, I suppose that I understand (since an app running as "me" only restricts "my" privacy as a favor, and cannot be compelled or punished, except by deletion).