Logged In or Out, Facebook Is Watching You

kaos07 links to this ZDNet story, according to which "Researchers at software vendor CA have discovered that social networking site Facebook is able to track the buying habits of its users on affiliated third-party sites even when they are logged out of their account or have opted out of its controversial 'Beacon' tracking service. Responding to privacy concerns, Facebook has since moved to reassure users that it only tracks and publishes data about their purchases if they are both logged in to Facebook and have opted-in to having this information listed on their profile. But in 'extremely disconcerting' findings that directly contradict these assurances, researchers at CA's Security Advisory service have found that data about these transactions are sent to Facebook regardless of a user's actions."

Comments

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you have a Facebook account.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

How do these other sites know if you have a facebook account, and which one if you do? Or does facebook use an email address as its log in?

Re:Well

[SMacD]

facebook does use your email address as the login

Re:Well

[wattrlz]

Facebook uses an email address as your login, but I'm guessing they probably have some sort of cookie thing set up as well.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not really offtopic, that was an accident on my part. But anyway, expectation of privacy in just about any online service these days is naive, alas. Particularly at a site like Facebook, they are bound to look at the huge amount of personalized information about users as a company resource to be exploited for maximal profit.

Re:Well

[Theoboley]

Originally facebook was only available to kids with college email addresses (for instance, mine is boleytj@students.witc.edu) but since they opened it up to just about anyone with a pc, i imagine you could use any email you like.

Re:Well

[CodeBuster]

There is nothing to prevent them from recording ALL transactions reported to them by their affiliates and either associating them with you when you do create an account OR even if you never create an Facebook account attempting to maintain a dossier of transactions which Facebook believes are likely to have been made by the same person. This is why one should never provide accurate information concerning one's identity online unless it is absolutely necessary. If you are not feeling creative then you can always use Fake Name Generator to create a throw away identity.

Re:Well

[Vectronic]

Facebook uses a e-mail address as the login.

Slight difference, and Facebook doesn't do any extensive verification either, so any e-mail address will do. Still amazes me that people don't have a dedicated "trash" e-mail for stuff like this.

That said, one of the most disconcerting things is when you first sign up, is that to a novice/n00b/idiot a lot of people would assume:

Email: _____
Password: _____
[+] Remember Me

"oh, it wants my e-mail address, oh and now it wants my password" as if they had to use their e-mail password as the login, like MS Passport, or Yahoo, or GMail, or even a legitimate one.

They have since (I signed up about a year ago) changed the sign-up though and added Create Password, as well as a "password strength" (Weak/Med/Strong) thing.

But yes, even when you are not signed in, I imagine they track the cookie (or possibly any number of Java "you need this to do this" crap on the site). PLUS, if you sign in without checking the [+] Remember Me, close the site, and go back to it, it signs you in automatically, and I'm not sure how long that takes to 'expire' if ever, it only removes it if you sign-out before leaving, otherwise you sign in automatically.

Re:Well

[bartok]

If you use Firefox you can also block it:
http://www.ideashower.com/blog/block-facebook-beacon/

Re:Well

[bryce4president]

I do have a dedicated trash email address for this. Its my old college email address that no longer exists. I don't know how much mail they are getting bounce back since I don't know how much they are sending to that non-existent account :)

Re:Well

[alex4u2nv]

Correct, they're using a Cookie for the tracking.

Because the email address I have registered on facebook is different from what what I have on overstock.
However, after a purchase on overstock, I saw it posted to my facebook account.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

And now they have one more of your email addresses. The web contracts a bit more... ;)

Re:Well

[SMacD]

true, that is a good point. I used facebook when it required a university level school email address in order to even get an account. In that case, it was YOUR email address, and was very identifying.

As for my post, it was in regards to the parent of it asking what was used for a login- and that would be "your"/"an" email address.

Re:Well

[vux984]

There is nothing to prevent them from recording ALL transactions reported to them by their affiliates and either associating them with you when you do create an account OR even if you never create an Facebook account attempting to maintain a dossier of transactions which Facebook believes are likely to have been made by the same person. This is why one should never provide accurate information concerning one's identity online unless it is absolutely necessary. If you are not feeling creative then you can always use Fake Name Generator to create a throw away identity.

1) Facebook is tracking your buying habits, obviously when dealing with vendors you have to provide a reasonably real identity... they need a real address, creditcard, etc in which to bill you and send you your goods. So you can't really lie there, even if you wanted to.

2) Lieing to facebook about your idenity is against the facebook eula and terms of service. Granted its something a lot of people do and get away with doing of course, but nonetheless it amounts to fraudulently using facebook's service.

In my opinion if you do not wish to agree to and submit to facebooks terms of service, you should not use facebooks services. It really is that simple.

If more people stood up for their rights and refused to click through agreements they don't agree with, service providers would change their agreements to something customers could actually stomach.

Same goes for DRM.

Re:Well

[Vectronic]

Yeah, but it made some sense then, because it was limited to within the University(s), so if someone within the University wanted to know that stuff, they could just get it otherwise regardless of Facebook.

I think they either A: jumped the gun and didn't really think about that when they went mainstream, hence the countless amounts of security issues since, or B: intentionally left it that way, and probably get royalties from various companies, or plan to divulge the information at a alter time if they find it prosperous enough to their business.

Re:Well

[Dan541]

I didnt know there where any restrictions.

I know people who have signed up with all sorts of wierd email address'

Re:Well

[BazilBBrush]

Correct, they're using a Cookie for the tracking.

Because the email address I have registered on facebook is different from what what I have on overstock.
However, after a purchase on overstock, I saw it posted to my facebook account.

What I would like to know is, how did they get at your overstock transaction???

Re:Well

[story645]

Still amazes me that people don't have a dedicated "trash" e-mail for stuff like this.

*shrugs* Got the account back when you needed a college account. Since moved the primary contact email to my trash email account. (I've got separate trash accounts for forums, stores, and academia.)

Re:Well

[colfer]

Because most people sign up through invites. Your friend invites you using your good email address... and unless you 1. reject, 2. set up new account, 3. invite the friend, then otherwise your cooked.

Re:Well

[CodeBuster]

they need a real address, creditcard, etc in which to bill you and send you your goods. So you can't really lie there, even if you wanted to.

The real address can be either a mail drop or an address controlled by a private trust. It is the same thing with the credit card, it is in the name of the trust which is managed by the private trustee who remains legally anonymous behind the trust. IANAL, but it is common knowledge that trusts are used by politically well connected and other high profile people so that they may conduct business publicly without revealing their true interests or identities (or at least without making them blatantly obvious to any casual observers, advertisers, or information brokers). It all depends upon how much you value your privacy and how much you are able and willing to spend to protect it, but there are ways.

Lieing to facebook about your idenity is against the facebook eula and terms of service

Well cry me a river, why should people give a crap about their terms of service? The worst they can do is ban your throwaway account. People care about terms of service when and if someone finally serves them with a lawsuit or they care about losing work that they have put into something.

In my opinion if you do not wish to agree to and submit to facebooks terms of service, you should not use facebooks services. It really is that simple.

In general, I do what I please until somebody pushes back because that is how the real world works. Some people and certain relationships are important to and others are not and I treat them accordingly.

Re:Well

[RackinFrackin]

"Only if you have a Facebook account."

That's not insightful. It's obvious.

Re:Well

[Theoboley]

Hence me saying Originally.

Re:Well

[vux984]

The real address can be either a mail drop or an address controlled by a private trust.

It all depends upon how much you value your privacy and how much you are able and willing to spend to protect it, but there are ways.

Sure, you could also just not buy anything online, and show up in person wearing sunglasses, a veil, gloves, and cash... that's not really the point here though.

Well cry me a river, why should people give a crap about their terms of service?

Only a complete idiot would use a service without understanding what the terms and consequences were.

The worst they can do is ban your throwaway account.

Why create one in the first place? If you don't agree with the way they operate why deal with them at all?

In general, I do what I please until somebody pushes back because that is how the real world works.

Why wait until they push back? Push first. Refuse to use the services of a company you don't agree with.

Some people and certain relationships are important to and others are not and I treat them accordingly.

"Respect for ourselves guides our morals; respect for others guides our manners."
~Laurence Sterne

I have far too much self respect to lie just to get a silly facebook account.

If facebook wants my patronage and membership, they can come to the table with terms I'll agree to. Otherwise they can go fuck themselves. They need us far more than we need them.

Re:Well

[the.Ceph]

You might want to be careful with that. Oftentimes colleges recycle old email addresses. A buddy of mine was working at the help desk when a new student came up and complained he was constantly getting new message notifications from Facebook for the kid who used to have that email address.

I think they told him to just ignore it... my advice would have been to tell Facebook you forgot your password and when they email it to you log in and delete the account... it's probably good I don't work in a support role anymore ;)

Re:Well

[RoFLKOPTr]

I'm not sure how long that takes to 'expire' if ever, it only removes it if you sign-out before leaving, otherwise you sign in automatically.

If I understand your actions correctly, then that would be an issue with Firefox (if that's the browser you use) settings. By default, Firefox will store all sessions until you close the entire program, or the sessions expire. So, even if you don't check the "Remember Me" box, the session will still exist until all of Firefox is closed, not just the site.

Re:Well

[Vectronic]

"...Firefox will store all sessions until you close the entire program, or the sessions expire."

Opera usually, but that doesn't matter as its a general thing with web-browsers on a whole, I know I'm not the only one who doesn't close their browser for weeks at a time, and what about public terminals (cafe/library/etc)

Someone goes to Facebook, signs in, trying to be secure and not checking the Remember Me box, does whatever they were doing, closes the site, figures "ok, good to go"... someone else comes along, types in/Googles Facebook.com... and when it loads, it loads into someones account.

And, if they are tracking you while you arent not at Facebook, or logged in (somehow) then anyone else who uses that computer who goes and buys dildos on eBay, or looks up some SnM, or buys a ticket for vacation, whatever they did, is now added to this tracking data and adding it to User X's info pile, who left the Cafe 4 hours ago...

Given their mass amount of Java usage and applets of all kinds, could it not be possible to keep track of something as simple as a cookie and expire the cookie (or anything else) as the site closes, or at least remembers the fact that the last time this user went to the site they didn't check the Remember Me box?... tens of millions of dollars, thousands/millions of Terabytes of databases, and they can't figure out how to do that when some pissant little forum on air hockey tables can?

Re:Well

[Vectronic]

"arent not" I arn't not fixing that mistake.

Re:Well

[RoFLKOPTr]

You know, I actually prefer to remain logged-in to all my sites all the time. And when I find myself to be logged out of a site like, say, Facebook, I curse under my breath because I have to hit the Secure Login button :( .

But you make a good point about public spaces, and if most people are like me and rather stay logged in forever, more sites need to implement a system like Slashdot has: the "Public Terminal" checkbox. You remain logged in forever UNLESS that box is checked. That way, you can be SURE your info isn't saved.

Re:Well

[Vectronic]

Yeah, but if you don't check the Remember Me box, shouldnt that be the same as checking a box saying forget me?

Granted thats not how it seems to work on most sites, but, thats how it should be... the site/server/etc forgets you as soon as possible. Thats was a problem that coulnt really be solved say a decade ago when the internet was much more simple, but with all these trackers, and various layers of scripting and runtimes, it should be easy by now.

Sure, you can leave it up to the individual users, but why? One guy makes some script to do that, and it saves millions of people the hassle, instead of millions of hassles, and some guy eating lunch...lol

Re:Well

[CodeBuster]

I don't have a Facebook account and I don't want one and only a fool *always* pushes first (why tip your hand to a potential adversary when observing before reacting might yield the same or even a better result with less effort?), but EULA, terms of service, and the like are generally silly documents which fly in the face of concepts, like first sale, that have been around since humans invented trade. The wiser person recognizes when a contract is important and when the other party has nothing that he needs or is being petty with attempts to impose a silly "terms of service" or "end user license agreement" contract on top of what should be a simple sale or trade of goods or services. Some contracts, and particularly EULAs on websites where a fake identity is being used, are just not worth paying attention to in any case and that was my point.

Re:Well

[WingedHorse]

Still amazes me that people don't have a dedicated "trash" e-mail for stuff like this.

I don't. I use Guerrilla Mail for that. Some sites block those addresses but in those cases I generally decide not to register on them, then...

On a side note, I registered to slashdot using GuerrillaMail. I later on changed the email to my gmail account to be able to recover password in case I need to.

Re:Well

[Digital Vomit]

One word:

.

Re:Well

[darjen]

very informative... just installed it, thanks for posting.

Re:Well

[mi]

they need a real address, creditcard, etc in which to bill you and send you your goods.

BTW, I discovered recently, that the billing address is not required — except for the zip-code. I've been giving the street address "0 Privacy Drive" for the last two years or so — only the town, state, and zip are needed for the credit-card verification.

This keeps the amount of junk mail I'm getting low. Yes, you still need to give full shipping address, but that can often be a P.O.-box.

Re:Well

[vux984]

I don't have a Facebook account and I don't want one and only a fool *always* pushes first (why tip your hand to a potential adversary when observing before reacting might yield the same or even a better result with less effort?),

I agree entirely... but really what could be less effort than ignoring them entirely? Its not like its a daily struggle not to visit facebook and use their services. ;)

but EULA, terms of service, and the like are generally silly documents which fly in the face of concepts, like first sale, that have been around since humans invented trade.

They've been steadily chipping away at first sale for a while now. Pretending they aren't and just ignoring it as it gradually happens is just going to end badly for society. Better to push back I think.

The wiser person recognizes when a contract is important and when the other party has nothing that he needs...

If the other party has nothing he needs, the wiser person recognizes there is no need to deal with that party at all if the other party is going to try and play games with absurd terms.

Some contracts, and particularly EULAs on websites where a fake identity is being used, are just not worth paying attention to in any case and that was my point.

Maybe, until the day the laws give them the power to enforce those eulas. And then suddenly maybe the 'worst they can do' will be a lot more than ban your fake account.

And that's when you also find out that your 'fake identity' is trivially unmasked... they have your ip address(es), and where you fit into their social network... if you've spent any time on their service you can pretty much rest assured your anonymity is pretty thin, unless you've been exceedingly paranoid, and refused to associate with your friends, and accessed it only through tor etc... but you probably weren't that clever. You thought it didn't matter.

I hope your right and it never comes to that. People like me fight to ensure it doesn't.

Shocked

[Romancer]

I'm shocked that you're shocked. Or even expect me to be mildly surprised that this is happening.

The only difference is that this is supposed to be a larger company and therefore better than the millions of smaller opt out pipe dreams out there?

Re:Shocked

[Yold]

I disabled my facebook account a few months ago because it occurred to me that someone is probably harvesting all the data that they can find off that site. Being someone who parties (too much ;-) ), I was constantly deleting tagged pictures of myself drinking off that website. I was damn glad that I did, because my BOSS at my uni went on looked at my facebook account before he hired me.

It would not suprise me if someone started offering money to purchase facebook accounts, just to harvest information, for say the price of $0.10 a friend w/ an account. I have a wild imagination, but with data mining being a really hot field, who knows what could be done with this information, it might even cost me a job in the future.

The future of privacy (or lack thereof), has me vigilant, even paranoid.

Re:Shocked

[ivan256]

I'm constantly amazed about how people will post private information in a public place (thus making it public information), and then complain about how they are being robbed of their privacy.

Of course it also amazes me how popular these social networking sites are with adults. It's understandable that kids and teenagers want to climb a social ladder of sorts, since it is human nature to attempt to achieve more than your peers, and there is little available in the environments we provide to kids other than social hierarchy to climb... But when you grow up, generally people move on to trying to get ahead in other types of accomplishments. It seems things like MySpace and Facebook have extended High School into adulthood. When you place that much value on your social network, perhaps it shouldn't be too surprising that people are willing to give up their privacy to maintain it.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much the same sentiment here. I know of several companies who have intertwined registration and tracking systems throughout their affiliates and partner sites, and can pretty much tell what you eat for breakfast or what your dog's name is based on aggregating data from each site (as well as tracking your clicks of course)

Re:Shocked

[D Ninja]

Ahhh...but, don't you know? High School Never Ends.

Re:Shocked

[Firehed]

I was damn glad that I did, because my BOSS at my uni went on looked at my facebook account before he hired me

This, good sir, is why you set privacy controls.

You're right about their data-mining though; Facebook's ads are really starting to concern me. "Single geek age 20? Visit eHarmony today!" Obviously my relationship status and age are right there in my profile, but them dynamically generating personality keywords based off of my interests and then proving them to advertisers... yeah, I should probably leave Facebook too.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also a very convenient way to stay in touch as an adult. It's not extended high school; I'm friends on Facebook with people that I shared a healthy mutual hatred with in high school. But we're both grown, living away from each other, and it's sometimes useful to know what's going on. It's just extending your antennae a bit.

Re:Shocked

[brunes69]

What amazes me is that peple think that your prospective employer actually gives a crap if you party on the weekends.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you don't want to work somewhere who cares about that anyway? If an employer cares what an employee is doing in their off time then they have already crossed the line IMO.

Re:Shocked

[Otto]

If my boss didn't want me to go out drinking, then I'd find a new boss.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell don't you install

a) Adblock
b) Greasemonkey with the "UnFuck Facebook" script.

You won't see any of that crap again.

Re:Shocked

[SatanicPuppy]

All you whippersnappers, I swear...Look me up by my real name, and you get nothing, nada, nihil, zip, because I made a very conscious decision to separate my online identity from my regular identity. Keeps me from having to be too careful.

Make the decision, and separate yourself from your online identity. You can always claim it later if you want to, but you can disclaim it as well

Re:Shocked

[geogob]

I'm shocked that someone could be surprised surprised by this, but not that someone is shocked by it. On the contrary, I'm more shocked that someone is not shocked by this questionable practice.

It's like if someone was following me in the stores I go to and taking pictures and records of all the pants I try on, all the fruits I buy, etc.

I do not think this is a legal thing to do outside of the internet. Spying, stalking, etc. Why would be legal (and moral) on the Internet?

Re:Shocked

[unformed]

A number of reasons:

1) I don't get spammed by email. I don't have to send everybody my new email when it gets changed.
2) It's far, far, far easier to get in touch with people you've long fallen out of touch with.
3) Adults are just as much social whores as kids are. We (as a race, excepting geeks) ARE a social creature, and we like talking and socializing with others, in whatever way possible.

Re:Shocked

[xaxa]

All you whippersnappers, I swear...Look me up by my real name, and you get nothing, nada, nihil, zip, because I made a very conscious decision to separate my online identity from my regular identity.

That won't help when someone else tags a photo (or whatever) with your real name.

Re:Shocked

[Yold]

In a perfect world, yes. But the ideal picture of a programmer/math-dude isn't being at the end of a beer bong.

I think that once you are employed, it doesn't matter what you do on the weekends. But at a job interview, I'd rather not have someone know how I spend my Friday nights.

Re:Shocked

[Bob The Cowboy]

I think you're missing the point of Facebook for some people (some adults at least). For me it isn't some social ladder, or a way to keep score. I won't argue that some people do that, however.

I use it purely as a way to keep in contact with friends and family - especially those that live far away. I don't always have time to call (though I try), but I do like to see what they're up to, maybe send them a quick message.

Sorry you see it that way. I'd say you're missing out, but it seems to me you've already made up your mind.

Bill

Re:Shocked

[SleepyHappyDoc]

There's a way around that. Kill your entire family, move to a different country, and insist all your new friends call you by your internet name.

Re:Shocked

[dontPanik]

I've come to the same realization concerning my facebook account. There was an article previously (that I can't find) on your online appearance. Basically, what will someone see if they google your name?

My facebook account is number three on the results, so I made a resolution to clear my page of anything that an employer would object to. Also I'm facebook friends with a couple of my coworkers so that's another concern.

Re:Shocked

[Rob the Bold]

All you whippersnappers, I swear...Look me up by my real name, and you get nothing, nada, nihil, zip, because I made a very conscious decision to separate my online identity from my regular identity.

That won't help when someone else tags a photo (or whatever) with your real name.

And that is why I'm changing my real name to John Smith, making me a needle in a haystack. That and the Groucho glasses.

Re:Shocked

[AndGodSed]

I'm constantly amazed about how people will post private information in a public place (thus making it public information), and then complain about how they are being robbed of their privacy.

I have friends who have their cell-phone numbers posted on there...

Re:Shocked

[hesaigo999ca]

I concur, the value of such sites finding their way into adults daily routines are a sad sign of things to come. It seems it is extending teen life into adult life, and more so apparent how how accepted it is to play video games at 30, while my Dad was 18 when he had me, and always had a games are a waste of time attitude. Keeping that in mind, Alexander the great by the age of 22 had amassed and army and conquered most of mesopotamia back in the day, I wonder how many people can say the same in today's society with their contributions? How many people you know that play video games, volunteer at the hospital etc..... it is a sign of the differences each generation has.

Re:Shocked

[shrykk]

Of course it also amazes me how popular these social networking sites are with adults. It's understandable that kids and teenagers want to climb a social ladder of sorts, since it is human nature to attempt to achieve more than your peers, and there is little available in the environments we provide to kids other than social hierarchy to climb... But when you grow up, generally people move on to trying to get ahead in other types of accomplishments. It seems things like MySpace and Facebook have extended High School into adulthood.

Where are you getting this crap?

Facebook is a convenient way to stay in touch with people. Almost everyone there goes by their real name, and most people put actual true and useful information on their profiles (with controls over who sees it). There's negligible spam, scams and drama, and it has a useful photo app. I guess you don't use it, and think everyone on it is just trying to get a large number of "friends".

Well, Facebook was every good, though its owners seem to be doing everything they can to destroy it. I think the problem is, despite their keen user base (some large proportion of which check Facebook every day) and young-and-affluent demographics, they haven't found a way to turn all the hits into money. Selling a few ads and $1 'gifts' isn't going to pay their hardware and hosting costs. So they're selling out, biit by bit.

The situation is now no better than if they had sold out for millions a year or two ago.

Re:Shocked

[Shade of Pyrrhus]

Yeah...one thing that's been bothering me recently about Facebook is that the advertisements seem to have access to your personal data - even if it's set to not be public. I don't know if I just happened to never see these ads on there before, but I'm seeing them too much now.

For instance, my birth year is not public, however when I log in I see ads conveniently advertising to my age, like "[my age] and Need Cash?". This is something that REALLY bothers me, because that is supposed to be hidden information. I guess if it were Microsoft and it became known, this practice would die in a heartbeat...I don't know...

Yet another thing that's making me move away from Facebook. It's nice to be able to easily contact old friends, but all of the spam and privacy issues are a PITA.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at it as a social ladder, then yes, I suppose you're right. If you look at it as just another tool to connect to people you might not otherwise connect to, well....

I used to share your opinion honestly, but then I kind of found a place for Facebook. Myspace is still too annoying for me. The people I talk to everyday in real life aren't the ones I'm messaging on facebook. Generally, I've come across people that I haven't seen in years and probably wouldn't have sought out otherwise.

So, each tool has its place.

Re:Shocked

[deraj123]

There's a difference between "party on the weekends" and a photo history of you making a lot of poor decisions. Think, pictures of inappropriate jokes, pictures of you not just drunk, but completely obliterated, pictures of you breaking the law, etc.

If I'm hiring somebody, I don't care if they go out drinking on the weekends (in fact, I might be concerned if they didn't occasionally), but I would probably think twice if presented with evidence of them making repeated, poor, destructive decisions.

Decision making is a trait that translates over to work.

Re:Shocked

[Slashdot Suxxors]

I have my cell phone on my Facebook. But it's not like anyone can pull up my profile and check. If they're not my "friend" then they can't see it. If I get random friend requests from people, they don't get accepted. It's simple.

Re:Shocked

[ivan256]

It seems to me that you're in the minority. Regardless there are plenty of technologies out there to allow you to keep in touch with friend and family over great distances without posting your personal life to the public on the internet, including sending quick messages.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

I once had an applicate who said "My life's goal is to be the laziest person on earth" in her myspace profile. We didn't hire her, things like that matter.

Re:Shocked

[ePlus]

Obviously you haven't been setting your Privacy options too strictly. I have it set that no one can search for me on FB, no one can add me and only friends can view my photos. That way the people who I add I know them personally are the ones who can view my info and photos.

Re:Shocked

[ivan256]

I don't really agree that the video games extending into adulthood thing is part of the same trend. After all, adults have always had their games. The technology has simply advanced from dice and cards and balls and sticks to also include electronics. The existence of gaming as a source of entertainment throughout the duration of adult life, though, is nothing new.

It seems to me that video gaming is replacing pinochle and golf, more than it is turning adults into over-aged kids.

It is valuable throughout your life to learn how to relax and have a good time (as long as it's balanced with your responsibilities). That's completely different from basing your self worth on popularity instead of achievements.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

By heaven, MOD UP! It's so true...

Re:Shocked

[Gewalt]

I have been in the hiring position several times, and I can honestly say, I would never hire someone who gets sloshed. Drunks are *not* reliable workers.

Re:Shocked

[Gewalt]

So you're upset because facebook *didn't* share your profile info with third party advertisers...

....ok....

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

how did he look at your account? all a non-friend gets of me is my name (nickname actually so you need that to find me) and education.

Re:Shocked

[Abcd1234]

Did it occur to you that getting "sloshed" doesn't necessarily indicate someone is a drunk?

Or are you one of those prudish types who thinks that having a beer on a hot day qualifies one as an alcoholic?

Re:Shocked

[philspear]

Right, because that couldn't have possibly been humor.

Hell, the fact that she was applying for a job should have clued you off that it was a lie.

Not for nothing, but applying to jobs is annoying, and while we all must do it, that doesn't make it any easier. It's tedious paperwork, waiting, not getting paid, and half the time those of you who are hiring don't have the courtesy to let us know we're not getting the job. If you decided not to hire her based on something as trivial as that and that alone, you're an asshole.

Re:Shocked

[ivan256]

Your first paragraph describes the dream, and the second describes the reality.

My comment simply offered a possible explanation as to why people see the dream instead of the reality.

What is so fulfilling to you about performing your correspondence out in public over one of the many, more private and less exploited methods? I have yet to hear anybody answer that question with something that doesn't boil down to "everybody else is doing it". Hence the high school comment.

Re:Shocked

[philspear]

What amazes me is that peple think that your prospective employer actually gives a crap if you party on the weekends.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you don't want to work somewhere who cares about that anyway? If an employer cares what an employee is doing in their off time then they have already crossed the line IMO.

There are definitely prospective employers who care about that type of thing. And it seems to be most of them. I wouldn't WANT to work for some company that is so concerned with it's image it thinks that my facebook profile might get them in trouble, but I do have to eat and pay rent.

Re:Shocked

[Gewalt]

Sorry to wake you up to the real world, but yes, only drunks with a real problem get sloshed. And no, I don't mean having a few. I mean getting sloshed. Yes, I am serious. Welcome to reality. Go visit an AA session sometime. Find out what happens to people who think getting sloshed is ok.

Re:Shocked

[Haoie]

There has been increasing evidence that employers are researching data about prospective employees by looking up their social networking sites.

But you're still a long way off from being asked for what social sites you use on a job form, haha.

Re:Shocked

[Abcd1234]

Meh, that's what reference checks are for. If the person has a history of good work, who cares what they do in their off time?

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound really fun. Want to come to my LAN party after work? Oh wait, you're a joyless fuckstick.

Re:Shocked

[prestomation]

I just recently noticed how targeted some of the ads can get. I get dating ads mentioning my university, and some about hobbies (photography in particular). The other day I was looking over my brothers shoulder when he was on facebook, and he had ads from christian dating services all over his.

I found that hilarious

Re:Shocked

[Grimbleton]

Better solution: Be boring as hell. Works for me!

Re:Shocked

[MagdJTK]

I too disabled my account several months ago, not because of the security issues (I was careful about what I put on there) but because the site has become a mismanaged mess over a period of about two years.

When I started uni in Oct 2005 (and remember it was only for uni people then), it was a really nice site. You had your own little page which you personalised with a picture and a few little details. People could post on your page and you could do the same to theirs. Even the pointless pokes had a charm to them.

Fast forward two years and:

• Anyone can get on with any email address so half the accounts are for spamming or are "joke accounts"
• Everyone's page is a nightmare to navigate, with about three hundred stupid apps getting in the way of finding what I'm looking for.
• Every time I log in I get bombarded with notices, most of which are about how I should become a vampire or some such stupidity
• There are evil talking smiley adverts everywhere, whose sound you can't disable.
• The only decent groups are now global because noone creates local ones anymore and they're full up of bastards spamming and generally being twats like most of the rest of the 'net.

And yet people seem amazed that I haven't reopened my account, even though you only ever hear about facebook in the real world when it has another security scare.

Re:Shocked

[MagdJTK]

It's no more convenient than email. In fact it's less convenient because you can't send messages to more than one person at a time and you can't be sure they'll get it as soon as they fire up their mail client. Oh and before you tell me that there are email reminders about messages, can someone please explain the logic in posting a message to a site which sends an email to the recipient telling them to log onto said site to read it. Why not send them an email in the first place?!

Re:Shocked

[STrinity]

I know a guy who tried to join a police department and was turned down because of his MySpace page, which looks like it belongs to Travis Bickle. The guy also posts things like this to public forums:

It was 2001, maybe 2002. Somewhere in Hawai'i. Anyway, we were doing military training in civilian clothes. Intel, so no one was shooting at anyone, don't think of it like that. So, our command had cleared this with the security firm for the strip mall, but not with each individual store manager. So we corner and apprehend the guy we thought we had made. "You're coming with us," we told him. He laughed and continued shopping. We continued following him around and talked about taking him down and dragging him out of the store. Mind you, this guy is not a part of the exercise. He was just a dumbass who behaved extremely weird, therefore put us in the position of looking like dumbasses, by apprehending the wrong guy. Anyway, he finally realizes we aren't joking, tells management, management asks us what are we doing, we debrief him as much as much as we can about the exercise, he throws us out of the store. We're leaving through the most immediate means available, which so happens to be the entrance, and he comments "you're not so intelligent for being military intelligence." I had to hold my friend and fellow troop back from beating him senseless in his own store. In retrospect, I should've just let him have at him.

So, yeah, Googling potential employees and checking out their social networking pages -- good thing in my book. Especially for positions of public trust.

Re:Shocked

[ivan256]

Actually, that's the exact definition of sloshed. Having a beer on a hot day doesn't count. Having 6 after work does.

Re:Shocked

[lazyDog86]

There's a difference between "party on the weekends" and a photo history of you making a lot of poor decisions.

Er, not in my case. Well, except, I don't like having my picture taken. Is that what you meant?

Re:Shocked

[The Yuckinator]

Getting sloshed "every day" is definitely an issue and most of the 12 steppers you'll find in an AA meeting used to live that life. Good for them trying to get away from their weakness.

If I have a few too many on my birthday, New Year's Eve or just on holiday, then end up crosseyed (& painless) and pass out at 8pm - I am not a drunk. I've simply had too much to drink on that particular occasion.

Now, if I do that every night in my own home for no other reason than "I'm old enough and can drink whatever I want" then we can talk about me having a problem. Suggesting I've got an alcohol problem from one night of overindulging is ridiculous.

"Only drunks with a real problem get sloshed" - that's a pretty broad stroke of the brush. Couldn't disagree more.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

You deliberately select against efficiency instead of in favor of it? Weirdo. Let me guess: you work for the government.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

But when you grow up...

Good point, except that most adults haven't grown up. Age is *not* an indicator of maturity.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Not for nothing, but applying to jobs is annoying, and while we all must do it

I have never applied for a job, and I currently make $100,000.

Startups rule.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Hans?

Re:Shocked

[PsychosisBoy]

Go visit an AA session sometime

Cool, I'll see you there.

Re:Shocked

[Abcd1234]

Sorry to wake you up to the real world, but yes, only drunks with a real problem get sloshed.

Buh? I know plenty of people who like to party on the weekends, and that often involves getting drunk. None of them is an alcoholic.

I maintain, you're either a prude, or incredibly boring...

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read the comment?

Re:Shocked

[Abcd1234]

I know you're joking, but that's an interesting point. It hadn't occurred to me, but he may just be a reformed drunk turned militant teetotaler...

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Until someone misconfigures an addon, or turns off the friend feature momentarily, and then you're not so lucky. see google calendar...

Re:Shocked

[Abcd1234]

Good thing, too. For her. Sounds like she has a sense of humour, while you don't.

Re:Shocked

[Gewalt]

I hate to tell you this, but they are drunks, and reality will catch up to them soon enough.

Re:Shocked

[Gewalt]

Thanks, YES, I read it, but apparently, MISread it. Most people complaining about the ad are doing so cause their profile says they are married and not looking. I misunderstood the point the post was trying to make in his ambiguity.

Re:Shocked

[Gewalt]

No, but during my stint in the military, I did get to serve as a counselor for a while. As you can see from my troll moderations, there's quite a bit of denial taking place here. They will learn soon enough.

Re:Shocked

[SleepyHappyDoc]

I told you to call me SleepyHappyDoc now! *BLAM*

Re:Shocked

[Mia'cova]

You can send messages to multiple people. Hell, you can send messages to up to 5000 (groups) last I checked. You can send mass emails to people attending an event (not those who opt out), etc. It's handy. Do I want all those group/event organizers to have my actual email address? No, not really. I'd much rather they send mail through a proxy and have facebook send me an email with the contents of the message (not just a notification). I think you're just trying to come up for reasons why it's a bad idea. It's not.

Re:Shocked

[Abcd1234]

No, they're not. I'm not sure what your definition is, but occasionally drinking too much on a weekend is not the definition of alcoholic. This is.

Now, assuming you have, say, the reading comprehension of a high-school student (doubtful given the military service, but...), you might note that one who occasionally has a few too many drinks on the weekend does not, in fact, fit the definition. Perhaps in your own, distorted, prudish mind it does. But to the world of clinical psychology, it doesn't.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

worked for me. thanks.

Re:Shocked

[Abcd1234]

So, what is that ideal picture? Personally, I've met programmers and math types that are all over the map, personality-wise. And, frankly, I would consider avoiding the overly bookish, socially inept types, given that one's job as a programmer is, above all things, to communicate with others and to, you know, socially interact with them.

Re:Shocked

[Gewalt]

So you understand there's such a thing as "too much" but for some reason, intentionally drinking "too much" doesn't throw up a red flag for you? Fine. Give it a few years. I'll be patient. And yes, to the world of clinical psychology, it does matter. Having said all that, you REALLY need to learn to read. Go back and read that definition a few more times. Pay particular attention to the last sentence.

Re:Shocked

[jeebusroxors]

I hope this is insightful because it lets the reader into the mind of 'average Joe on facebook'.

Following this logic, why not add your credit card info to your profile as well. Only your friends will see it, and they won't have the CSV anyway. How about your SSN?

The simple truth, my friend, is if the info is out there, it will get/has been compromised.

Re:Shocked

[epee1221]

only drunks with a real problem get sloshed

Why do I suspect that that's how you define "drunk with a real problem"?

Re:Shocked

[syousef]

Of course it also amazes me how popular these social networking sites are with adults.

It doesn't amaze me at all. When your work means you're out of the house 9-12 hrs/day 5-6 days a week (and that's considered good hours in IT), then you come home to chores etc. when do you find the time to catch up with old high school friends? My experience has been that I've become more and more isolated as I've gone from my mid teens to my mid 30s and my spare time has decreased. I have more acquaintances than close friends that i hang with. My social time's spent mostly with family. Still, if I do get spare time and it's not at the same time as my friends, I can write them an email. Sure I could keep track of everyone using simple email, but it's nice to see pictures of what people I haven't had time to catch up with in person for a long time are up to.

What I don't understand is all the crappy games on facebook. You've been bitten by a vampire? What swearword are you? Someone's given you a freaking virtual fish? Who cares? The novelty of that wore off in 5 minutes. THAT is the side I see as childish.

Re:Shocked

[Abcd1234]

Having said all that, you REALLY need to learn to read.

Funny, I'd suggest the same to you. Or did you conveniently ignore all the definitions? For example:

"Preoccupation in association with alcohol use indicates excessive, focused attention given to the drug alcohol, its effects, and/or its use. The relative value thus assigned to alcohol by the individual often leads to a diversion of energies away from important life concerns."

See how that *doesn't* apply to people who only drink to excess occasionally? Hey, why not continue, this is fun:

"Adverse consequences are alcohol-related problems or impairments in such areas as: physical health (e.g., alcohol withdrawal syndromes, liver disease, gastritis, anemia, neurological disorders); psychological functioning (e.g., impairments in cognition, changes in mood and behavior); interpersonal functioning (e.g., marital problems and child abuse, impaired social relationships); occupational functioning (e.g., scholastic or job problems); and legal, financial, or spiritual problems."

Another one that doesn't apply! Look at that! Want another?

"Impaired control means the inability to limit alcohol use or to consistently limit on any drinking occasion the duration of the episode, the quantity consumed, and/or the behavioral consequences of drinking."

Note the world inability? As in, incapable of *not* drinking to excess? As opposed to normal, recreational drinkers who make the choice on occasion, but otherwise can happily have a single beer with a meal?

Shall I go on? Or do I need to explain why the rest of the definition, you know, all those parts you didn't actually read, doesn't apply to recreational, as opposed to habitual, drinkers?

Then again, why bother... it's clear you're either trolling or so wrapped up in your own superiority that you can't see why you are, in fact, deeply misguided on the topic of alcohol use.

Re:Shocked

[Von Helmet]

Who said Facebook was about accomplishment? I just find it useful to message my friends and play Scrabble with my brother...

Re:Shocked

[Gewalt]

Habitual drinkers do NOT get sloshed. Those people are called drunks. But yes, by all means, do continue onwards here. I am *NOT* trolling. I am giving you my real world experience. the OP asked if employers care that prospective employees drink too much, and I replied positively, "yes we do". Go ask your own HR department if they would hire someone who drinks to impairment on purpose.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. My employer buys the beer (and wine) for parties (which occur on company time and property complete with paperwork for the alcohol approval), and last time we all drank it out of 5-gallon "cups" and we posted a joke "policy" that each employee was limited to "one drink." The photo of 50+ people in the lab all holding up 5-gallon giant cups is now printed in D size and hanging on the cube walls, right next to a very complicated ASIC architecture diagram, also printed in D size. Turns out that, yes, engineers do like to drink beer, even the managers! :-)

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

All you whippersnappers, I swear...Look me up by my real name, and you get nothing, nada, nihil, zip, because I made a very conscious decision to separate my online identity from my regular identity.

That won't help when someone else tags a photo (or whatever) with your real name.

Facebook has a mechanism to untag yourself from photos, I've done it a couple times.

Doesn't help the fact that nothing truly gets deleted from the Internet, though.

Re:Shocked

[conlaw]

can someone please explain the logic in posting a message to a site which sends an email to the recipient telling them to log onto said site to read it.

It's a holdover from the early days of email when your family members used to call you to tell you they just sent you an email.

Hi, Mom.

Re:Shocked

[Abcd1234]

Habitual drinkers do NOT get sloshed.

I can only assume you meant "recreational"... and yes... believe it or not, sometimes, they do. Your continually stating this as fact doesn't make it true.

Those people are called drunks.

No, drinking to excess is *not* sufficient to define an alcoholic. Necessary, yes. Sufficient, no. And the AMA, and so the rest of clinical psychology, agrees with me.

Go ask your own HR department if they would hire someone who drinks to impairment on purpose.

Umm... my company has a yearly party where many drink to excess. On the company dime. So no, they don't care about someone who drinks to impairment, on purpose, occasionally. And thank god for that, because I could never work for an organization as prudish and close-minded as the one you evidently work for.

That said, they do care if you have a drinking habit that interferes with your work or life. But guess what... *that* is part of the definition of an alcoholic, as is reflected in the AMA definition which you so conveniently just ignored.

Re:Shocked

[epee1221]

I have yet to hear anybody answer that question with something that doesn't boil down to "everybody else is doing it".

I don't see the problem with that argument. I'd be happy to keep up with my friends on, say, ham radio nets, but none of them are on there -- they're all on Facebook.

Re:Shocked

[Gewalt]

No, drinking to excess is *not* sufficient to define an alcoholic. Necessary, yes. Sufficient, no. And the AMA, and so the rest of clinical psychology, agrees with me.

No, I'm referring to people who intentionally drink to excess. Those people are drunks. And no, I don't care if you disagree with me. I already know I have more experience than you in this matter, so your opinion really is quite irrelevant. The fact that you keep replying to me is more evidence of you denial than anything.

Re:Shocked

[MacDork]

Until someone misconfigures an addon

I though FB app devs had full access to all your data, regardless of your privacy settings. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems the only thing "protecting" you is Facebook's developer TOS.

Re:Shocked

[Zen_Sorcere]

While there is no doubt there are plenty of adults that do like to have "the highest friend count" or whatnot, many of the people I know use it primarily for communication. Posting something general that all your friends are likely to see, as opposed to taking 5 minutes to start an email, can be easier. I've also had old college friends and family members I hadn't seen in awhile find me through those sites. I never would have seen them or talked with them again otherwise. Admittedly, for some, that is preferable, but it's nice to regain contact with people from "back in the day".

Re:Shocked

[Abcd1234]

No, I'm referring to people who intentionally drink to excess.

That's still not sufficient to fit the AMA definition. Did you even read the excerpts I provided??

Assuming you did, I guess you're saying you're just smarter than the AMA, now? Alright, if that's what you think... but I think I've made my point. Your definition of "alcoholic" is clearly completely ridiculous, and at odds with the rest of the educated world.

And no, I don't care if you disagree with me.

Umm... the American Medical Associate does, too. But I'm betting you don't care about that, either.

I already know I have more experience than you in this matter

And the rest of the medical establishment? Wow, arrogant *and* ignorant!

The fact that you keep replying to me is more evidence of you denial than anything.

Actually, that's just evidence that I like arguing...

Re:Shocked

[FLEB]

Perhaps it's a bit creepy*, but I don't see any real harm in aggregating the information you entered as "About Me" to serve you an ad. I could see the problem if they started storing, aggregating, and data-mining private conversations and chats, but this is information you willingly give to broadcast your identity.

* OTOH, I can see the "creep factor" being what will kill these types of targeted advertising. Finely targeted ads feel less like the person-to-person understanding they're trying for, and more like a robot trying to lure you into camaraderie by regurgitating facts about you from the phone book and the visitor's guide. It's such a creep-out because it's so obviously dishonest-- no anonymous advertiser would care enough to understand and interact with you on that individual a level, so anyone who pretends to by packing their ad with keywords makes you feel like they cared just enough to run your public profile through a machine.

Re:Shocked

[ginotech]

Okay, so I'm fairly certain that your main problem is that you can't read. For the record, "on purpose" and "intentionally" mean the same thing. He said that. Also:

The fact that you keep replying to me is more evidence of you denial than anything.

The same could be said for you. And in conclusion, you spelled "insightful" wrong in your signature.

Re:Shocked

[Dan541]

I'm constantly amazed about how people will post private information in a public place (thus making it public information), and then complain about how they are being robbed of their privacy.

The problem is that other people are the one's adding that information.

Re:Shocked

[verbamour]

It's times like this I regret being that guy who doesn't finish what he starts... Sorry Ma...

Re:Shocked

[Dan541]

I hate having to log into a site to read a message. Why not include the message in the notification email?

I wish there was a way for me to turn off the private message feature of facebook and myspace, Make people use email it's not like I hide my address from people its about as public as it can get and never changes.

Re:Shocked

[mrphildog]

It's no more convenient than email

It is more convenient than email if you don't have someone's email address. I'm no fanatical Facebook user but I have found people on there that I had lost contact with years ago.

please explain the logic in posting a message to a site which sends an email to the recipient telling them to log onto said site to read it

When someone sends you a message on Facebook the email from Facebook contains that message so you don't have to log in. There are some things where it emails you and tells you to log in for more info but messages from friends is not one of them.

Re:Shocked

[Jason Earl]

If you are so drunk that your friends are inspired to take pictures of you, then it is likely that you have a drinking problem. Even if you don't have a drinking problem, you can't hardly blame potential employers for being concerned that you *may* have a drinking problem.

The reality is that employers often are dealing with very little hard information about a candidate, and hiring the wrong person can be a very expensive mistake. A Picture of you holding a beer while hanging out with friends is not a big deal. Heck, even several such pictures are not likely to be held against you. Pictures where you are clearly drunk, on the other hand, are likely to get you passed over for the job.

Re:Shocked

[rpillala]

If one of my friends insisted I start calling him Keyser Soze I think I'd just look at him.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone posts pictures of themselves at parties. As the OP said, he was constantly untagging himself from photos. After a certain amount of time you'd think that he'd ask his friends not to tag him in any more photos. But it can still happen.

I've even seen people tagged that don't have facebook accounts. You can tag anything in the pictures you want.

Re:Shocked

[shrykk]

What is so fulfilling to you about performing your correspondence out in public over one of the many, more private and less exploited methods?

A service that (almost) everyone uses is highly useful. My old friends have got on with their lives - changed phone numbers, moved abroad, stopped using old e-mail addresses. Facebook is a convenient way to stay in touch with the friend who's teaching English in Japan; for locating an old friend, it's an alternative to calling their parents; if you attend some kind of (family, social, or sporting) event and take photos, it's a way to make photos available to everyone who was there without actively sending them out.

One thing often overlooked by the slashdot crowd is, it's especially good for the relatively non-technical. People who aren't in the same (or any) IRC channels, people who don't have a blog for you to drop comments on, people who've changed their pay-as-you-go phone number three times, neglected to update their alumni forwarding address from university. You can find them online, by their real names, and communicate. (I don't know quite what you mean by "out in public" - I suppose the sysadmins have access to everything (like they do everywhere!) but there are facilities for messages between users to be private or public).

As I noted previously, I have some serious privacy concerns with Facebook, and I wish they'd just stop adding terrible features. I hope the site owners don't step over the brink and abuse their membership. But I think the original service was a great idea.

Re:Shocked

[Tim C]

But at a job interview, I'd rather not have someone know how I spend my Friday nights.

Personally if it even came up at a job interview I'd most likely be telling them where to stick their job (politely, of course). What I do on my own time is my business, not theirs, as long as I'm not actively working against them.

Re:Shocked

[Alamais]

Thing is, Facebook isn't just about "climbing a social ladder". I use it to keep in touch with people, keep track of some groups of people with mutual interests, and I regularly use it to plan and coordinate events (movie nights, dinner parties, even random lunches). It's a very useful tool. As for "posting in a public place", I'm always confused by people with privacy concerns...the privacy controls on Facebook can be set such that you can see basically nothing but a name and a tiny thumbnail of a person's profile pic, unless/until you become their friend. Now maybe this is a problem for people who automatically click "add" on any friend request, but if you only befriend people you actually know, it's all good.

Re:Shocked

[Gewalt]

sigh

Re:Shocked

[zuperduperman]

Unless you've specifically configured it only to be visible to direct friends you may be surprised at who can see it. By default anybody in any networks you are in will be able to see it.

That means if you were foolish to say "Why yes, I do live in the state of New York!" (or where ever) at signup or any later time you may well have exposed your number to anybody in that state. Similar traps exist throughout Facebook - it's basically a minefield of privacy violation traps.

Re:Shocked

[Alamais]

> The fact that you keep replying to me is more evidence of you denial than anything.

The fact that he actively disagrees with you is proof that he's wrong?

Wow, you should be in politics.

Re:Shocked

[RobinH]

I have a friend who regularly hires people for her department. She said when she's about to hire someone, she will check facebook for them, and because by default everyone in your "network" can see your profile, and your network is your city, she can generally see everything in someone's profile.

She uses the information she finds there, along with other information from the interview and resume, to judge a person's ability to do the job, and their character. She definitely thinks that if you're stupid enough to post really embarrassing conversations with your friends on your wall, then you just may not be that bright, and certainly you're not aware of how your actions have effects on how people perceive you. Hence, it could count against you.

Re:Shocked

[Dephex Twin]

Everyone I know on Facebook (and we're all in our 20's and 30's) use Facebook in this way. Using Facebook has allowed me to reconnect and maintain friendships with people who I genuinely really like, but don't live nearby. It's a stable place where I don't have to worry about losing someone's email address or not finding out that they have changed their email. It makes it really easy for local friends to share pictures of the barbecue the weekend before. (I can decide how private I want these pictures to be.)

It's sad that you are so cynical that you see Facebook as some kind of contest.

Re:Shocked

[coolsnowmen]

No, I'm referring to people who intentionally drink to excess. Those people are drunks. And no, I don't care if you disagree with me. I already know I have more experience than you in this matter, so your opinion really is quite irrelevant.

I'ld like to know your experience, because everything I have ever read says the definition of an alcoholic is someone who does something regardless of the consequences. Meaning, it can be alcohol, pot, video games, or racing. If they do this thing despite it's negative effects on their relationships and personal goals, then they are addicted.
If I grab a 24 pack on friday night with my best friend, and we finish it getting 'drunk'. And I still make it to see my mom on saturday, mow the lawn on sunday, and work on monday...I am not an alcoholic. Why? because my what I am doing in private is not negatively impacting my friends, family, coworkers, or society at large.
The definition of alcoholism is all about ramifications and impact, not the act itself.

Re:Shocked

[mtdenial]

A good friend of mine is in Facebook with the name of a popular sitcom character. The fun thing with the photos is that because he is on Facebook, everyone links his Facebook name to those pictures. Even if someone did tag his real name on some random photo, you would have 300 or so photos with this guy tagged as $SitcomName and 2 with him tagged with $RealName. Note that this hasn't happened yet in photos numbering in the low hundreds, so even then, it's still theoretical. The point is, that since the $SitcomName is reasonable and not too offensive (Not Homer J Simpson, etc), if you saw his faced tagged with a different name in a tiny percentage of the images, you'd figure they were just mistakes.

Re:Shocked

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I am an adult, > 50 yrs, actually. I have a facebook account. Why, you ask? Well, my daughter has just moved to the UK, and it is convenient for her to have a central place to keep in contact with everyone back home. She can post her photos on her page, and all of her friends / family can access them, rather than indidually emailing all of her 522 friends. That is the only reason, but I think it is a good one!

Re:Shocked

[imstanny]

Of course it also amazes me how popular these social networking sites are with adults.

Well, it seems to me that you are either easily amazed, or you don't fully understand what social networking can be used for. My parents are immigrants and social networking has allowed them to get back in touch with classmates they haven't seen in 40 years. It has also allowed them to keep in touch with family members, share pictures, etc. Perhaps you can't find value in social networking, but that doesn't give you the right to blithely dismiss other reasons for its, use or to disparage those who do use social networking websites.

What amazes me, however, is how you received a +5 Insightful mod. -1 Ignorant would be more apt, IMHO.

Re:Shocked

[eloki]

I see a lot of hate of social networking sites here on Slashdot, and I'm not quite sure. Certainly myspace pages were often the extremes of ugly, but that is separate to the concept of social networking.

Social networking allows interactions in casual ways so you can obliquely tell them things that would be much more confrontational in another medium. For example, if you use a silly app to vote someone "most likely to be bill gates" then you may be telling them they are overly uncool or ambitious or maybe just that they are good with money.

There is lots and lots of subtext in all these interactions. A lot of it is trivial, but trivial isn't the same as meaningless.

Re:Shocked

[eloki]

If by public you mean "my other Facebook friends can see it", the benefit is that is pull rather than push - people can see your photos if they want to, but they aren't pushed out the way mass photo emails are.

Also, I've had some very good conversations started when (say) friend B saw a conversation I was having with friend A on my wall and started talking about the same thing. That topic might never normally come up between you and friend B, but now you have found a new thing in common or otherwise found out something new about them.

Is that so terrible?

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

How would one prevent this?

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

And the fact that YOU keep replying to him is evidence of...?

You're a fucking puritanical hypocrite, that's what.

Re:Shocked

[srjh]

The troll moderations are because you completely ignore all relevant medical research on the issue and because your argument is based on little more than a "No true Scotsman" fallacy (with a strong hint of selection bias since your opinions seem to be forged by those who needed counseling).

Re:Shocked

[Z34107]

Ideally, one wouldn't stereoptype all "bookish" programmers as "socially inept." Books can be a pretty valuable programming resource, after all. Besides, everyone is either under a beer bong, or they must be socially inept, right?

Depending on where you work, being "socially inept" is probably not that big of a handicap. Do you just grind out code? You need to be able to communicate with your boss and your team. Are you a project lead? You need to fight for a budget, justify a schedule, stick to that schedule, talk with the marketing types, solicit funds, etc. Oh, and manage the "socially inept."

Of course, it all depends on where you work, and it's not like I've worked at a representative, random sample of places, or even talked with people who have. But, point is: If you feel you lack social skills, don't go for a "people" position that relies on them.

Re:Shocked

[Bob The Cowboy]

Believe me, I've met (and served) email, IM, webforums, usenet, etc, etc. However Facebook provides a clean(ish) interface to essentially the same groups of services. On facebook I can:

* Host pictures organized into albums, optionally tagged with the names of other friends
* Form and join groups of like interest (eg. UC Irvine Computer Club, Tuesday night Live-Action-Role_Players, etc)
* Form and join events (Olympics Street Protest July 27th, Franklin family reunion)
* Easily become acquainted with friends of friends
etc, etc.

Obviously there are other ways to do those things. But Facebook puts it all in one package and makes it dead simple to do. In some ways it reminds me of some of the old BBS's. Also, I think it's worth mentioning that you only need to post as much personal information as you want.

Re:Shocked

[Caseyscrib]

I'm constantly amazed about how people will post private information in a public place (thus making it public information), and then complain about how they are being robbed of their privacy.

Carnegie Mellon behavioral economist George Loewenstein is releasing an interesting study on privacy behavior...

From The Linked Article:

The scientists conducted several surveys of college students, asking them to provide an e-mail address and then indicate whether they had ever engaged in a list of wayward, or in some cases illegal, activities.

In one experiment, one group of students was given a strong assurance that none of the information they divulged on the survey would be revealed. That should make them more forthcoming, right? Actually, the opposite was true. When the issue of confidentiality was raised, participants clammed up. For example, 25 percent of the students who were given a strong assurance of confidentiality admitted to having copied someone else's homework. Among those given no assurance of confidentiality, more than half admitted to it.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Old News Timothy! Why is this on the front page? Interesting as it may be ...

Re:Shocked

[blahplusplus]

"I'm constantly amazed about how people will post private information in a public place (thus making it public information), and then complain about how they are being robbed of their privacy."

IT's actually the same reason why OPT OUT is used instead of OPT IN, simple inertia.

"Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do."--by Bertrand Russell

Re:Shocked

[Renraku]

Well, imagine if you do something stupid on the job and get fired for it. After about two months of being in a 'training period' type of setup where you aren't getting a hell of a lot done. The Company has just lost their gamble, and it has cost them money in time and wages they had to pay you.

Now it comes back that you were one of those people that had the pictures on your MySpace page featuring your popped collar and red Dixie cup full of warm beer. The person that hired you is going to catch some shit from the higher ups about the quality of the person they are hiring. Therefore, by proxy, your drinking and socializing habits have endangered the career of another person.

You can bet your ass that they won't be overlooking that in the future. And believe me..it happens a lot. I have had friends that are in HR or hiring departments. Checking out of the Facebook page is standard practice. If you even hint at drugs in your Facebook page, or have a drug-related charge on your record, you'd be fortunate to make it to the point of actually taking the drug test.

Don't blame the Company. Blame the economy. Right now you have your pick of five employees. One of them smokes pot, two of them drink, and three of them are hardcore . You single out the Muslim because he smells funny, the frat guy gets the boot too, the guy that wore the band shirt and Martin's is shown the door, and finally you hire the clean cut guy with no visible tattoos or annoyances.

Fill your office with these people and you're going to move up in the HR world!

Re:Shocked

[consonant]

I think the *real* reason he/she didn't pick her was BECAUSE she had a myspace profile..

Re:Shocked

[WDot]

An applicant you mean? I don't know if I'd like to work for an employer who can't spell.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Applicate

See how silly that is? It's an honest mistake, and here I am condemning you for it. I'm even suggesting that you can't spell AT ALL, even though you only made one mistake in the whole post. I'm making sweeping generalizations about your literacy based on a post on the Internet.

If you cut out applicants based on whether they have a squeaky clean Internet Posting Record, you are making a rather arbitrary (and poor) choice. You are also wasting your time on Myspace when you SHOULD be reading those resumes we spend hours on.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

I have my cell phone on my Facebook. But it's not like anyone can pull up my profile and check. If they're not my "friend" then they can't see it. If I get random friend requests from people, they don't get accepted. It's simple.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/148527/

Oop.

But hey, that's not likely to happen *again*, right?

I mean, of course you can trust them. After all, you pay them good mon-
Oh. Well... I mean. I'm *sure* they can be trusted with your personal details.

Get your cell phone off the internet, you twit.
If your other vapid and clueless friends want to call you and discuss shoe shopping, give them the number on a case by case basis, if and when they ask for it.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Employers don't care if you're partying on weekends.

They do, however, care if you are dumb enough to advertise it to the entire world.

Re:Shocked

[Serious Callers Only]

But it's not like anyone can pull up my profile and check

Actually, at various points in the past, they've been able to do that or similar things (see stuff you thought was private).

Trusting any company on the web with your private info should be a difficult decision, trusting Facebook is insane given the lack of interest in privacy they have shown so far, and the poor attention to security on their site. They're such a juicy target now that you can bet a lot of identity thieves are focussed on breaking their security, and a lot of big companies are interested in buying your surfing habits too.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to post in support of just about everything you've said.

If an employer doesn't care what you do outside hours, then you're probably either easily replaceable in the company or the company is irrelevant. There are so many obvious counterexamples that the usual "it shouldn't matter what I do out of hours" argument can only be classified as evasion: consider an INS employee who regularly attends Neonazi rallies, or a teacher in NAMBLA.

Of course, I'm expecting the arguments "but they could be Nazis that are able to put aside their beliefs and give equal treatment to all races and religions of immigrant in their job / boy-lovers who switch off the desires that they believe legitimate during their 8 hour daily stints with young boys". That's tantamount to saying "I trust my employee in a sensitive role because I believe most people are hypocrites who will suspend their belief system for the meagre wage I pay them".

I hence need, but am yet to see, a convincing argument that getting drunk every weekend is not an act that reflects on a person's approach to life, and thus to work. Yet getting drunk every weekend is weekly overdosing on a mood-altering drug. Such a regular need to escape reality is properly everyone's right to fulfil but it is not rational.

I don't want a cog in a machine when I employ someone; I want someone who puts in their utmost, someone who embraces reality and the opportunities it offers. My employees love their areas of expertise: they spend much of their free time improving their skills and they endeavour to keep healthy; this approach helps their prospects and produces better workers for me. No man with that attitude would want to spend 1/14th of his life phased out on a drug. In return, I will show loyalty to them and reward them excellently; people who have left to pursue other careers have returned, and my best employees have gone on to become business partners.

Re:Shocked

[themusicgod1]

Who gets to define what a "poor decision" is?

Because if the definition of that doesn't take into account the 100s of GB of photo evidence to the contrary, then it shouldn't carry any weight at all.

Re:Shocked

[themusicgod1]

Who gets to define what is and is not embarrassing? Is it embarrassing to not wear a headscarf? How about talk about masturbation? Sexual thoughts concerning one's mother? The kinds of music you listen to(what if you secretly listen to metallica?)? Your political beliefs? The fact that your life is boring enough that drinking once in a while to excess is a reasonable alternative? Let's go a little deeper; The dopamine level in your brain?

Re:Shocked

[Mortice]

So if we didn't play games, we'd all be out conquering (and enslaving and crucifying the people of) neighbouring countries?

And what the fuck does volunteering at a hospital have to do with anything?

Re:Shocked

[dcam]

So, what is that ideal picture? Personally, I've met programmers and math types that are all over the map, personality-wise. And, frankly, I would consider avoiding the overly bookish, socially inept types, given that one's job as a programmer is, above all things, to communicate with others and to, you know, socially interact with them.

Two things. I'm not sure I'd say that a programmers jos is "above all things, to communicate with others". Secondlt, I'm not sure that a picture of a programmer "at the end of a beer bong" shows their social interaction skills.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

You weren't very popular as a kid, were you?

Go ahead, lie and say you were if it makes you feel better. I won't tell anyone.

Re:Shocked

[Joe Jay Bee]

I have yet to hear anybody answer that question with something that doesn't boil down to "everybody else is doing it". Hence the high school comment.

Network effect. Network effect. Network effect.

To wit, a service is more valuable if more people use it, and a corresponding service is less valuable if less people use it.

There's also the whole thing about having photos, messaging, IM, public sharing, info sharing etc all under one roof. It's convenient, if nothing else.

Re:Shocked

[mdwh2]

There is more to Facebook then the message-sending functionality. Obviously a site set up just so people could send messages to people would be pointless.

You might as well claim that Slashdot is no more convenient than email - consider, why didn't you use email to send your message, instead of sending it via Slashdot?

Re:Shocked

[mdwh2]

Go visit an AA session sometime. Find out what happens to people who think getting sloshed is ok.

Just because people who are alcoholics get "sloshed" doesn't mean that anyone who ever gets sloshed is or will become an alcoholic.

Re:Shocked

[ilitirit]

I once created a group called "I'm always late for work!!!"
I deleted it after my boss added me as a friend. I don't think he minded though. He was always late for work as well :-)

Re:Shocked

[Stoutlimb]

This link says what I want to say far better than I can say it myself. I'm sure the author has a Slashdot user ID.

http://xkcd.com/137/

The image is actually my current desktop background.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

+4, Interesting?

Kill your entire family

What's wrong with the modgods today?

Re:Shocked

[dookiesan]

"If you are so drunk that your friends are inspired to take pictures of you, then it is likely that you have a drinking problem. "

That is outrageous. Social drinkers have too much from time to time. A picture like that means nothing, and I would blame them. An real alcoholic may not get caught hugging the toilet because their tolerance is too high.

Re:Shocked

[langelgjm]

I once had an applicate who said "My life's goal is to be the laziest person on earth" in her myspace profile. We didn't hire her, things like that matter.

I once had an HR director who couldn't spell applicant. Things like that matter more than MySpace pages.

Re:Shocked

[vitaflo]

That won't help when someone else tags a photo (or whatever) with your real name.

Which you can turn off in the Facebook prefs.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

That won't help when someone else tags a photo (or whatever) with your real name.

Not only that, but it's easy enough to then make the jump and link a person's real name with their Facebook account and hence their "online identity". And from there, a Google search is all it takes to have a complete picture.

If you take the position that the parent poster is taking, which is that all you need to do is separate your online persona from your real life persona, then all it requires is *one* shady feature on a web site (like photo tagging) that you have no control over to blow your entire cover. And once your cover is blown, it's blown for good. You can't unblow it.

The bottom line is you need to be careful what you do and say online. Period. You shouldn't be doing and saying things online that can come back to bite you in the ass. You are not anonymous, even if you've obfuscated your personal details. Somebody will find out someday, and once one person knows, everybody knows. And none of the stuff you did online before that is going away.

The safest thing to do is assume everybody reads everything. Then you won't be afraid of anything. There is no such thing as "privacy" on the internet. I don't post anything I wouldn't want my boss or my mom or some random person out in the ether to see, even if I'm doing it "anonymously".

That actually ends up kind of liberating, because now I don't really care who sees my picture, or knows my real name, or whatever. I just assume that somebody will find it if they want to. Not that I go around advertising it, but if somebody figures it out, it's no big deal to me. There's nothing much they're gonna be able to do with that information, no scandal they could create.

Re:Shocked

[hesaigo999ca]

I guess we haven't volunteered in a long time I see!

Re:Shocked

[Jason Earl]

I agree that it is somewhat outrageous. Lots of people get drunk on occasion without any ill effects. However, as someone that has faced the pressures of actually hiring someone I can definitely say that it matters.

The real problem is that the costs of hiring the wrong person can be several times a person's annual salary. This isn't a problem if you are hiring someone to make fries at McDonald's, but it is a serious problem if you are hiring someone that is going to interact with customers (and what responsible position doesn't interact with customers these days). In cases where you don't personally know the people that are applying for the job even small negative details can make a big difference.

I'll grant that it's not particularly fair, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. Your potential employers are going to scan the Internet for information about you, and it is in your best interest that the information that they find be the sort of thing that they are looking for in employees. You wouldn't show up to an interview intoxicated (I hope), and similarly you don't want your online presence to make it appear that you spend a lot of time drunk. That's just basic common sense.

Re:Shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop other people from uploading pictures of you.

Re:Shocked

[Slashdot Suxxors]

That is flawed logic, no one needs my CC or SSN. There have been cases where people want to call me but *gasp* they don't have my number. So they pull up my Facebook and it's right there.

Clear your cookies

[GameboyRMH]

Or at least your Facebook cookies. Problem solved.

Re:Clear your cookies

[von_rick]

You can clear the cookies when you have navigated away from Facebook, but you need to accept FB issued cookies if you want to browse their pages. So as long as you are a visiting Facebook you have consented to being tracked.

Re:Clear your cookies

[Debased Manc]

Not quite, your email address also gets used as a foreign key between Facebook and it's affiliates.

Fry all your cookies, but if you share an email address between your Facebook account and someone else, say Amazon, they can connect the dots that way.

Thankfully I didn't register my Facebook account with my Hotmail only-for-the-porn account. That could've made for some interesting advertising though...

Re:Clear your cookies

[GameboyRMH]

To work around that, I'd visit Facebook pages in a separate browser installation (such as a FirefoxPortable installation) or alternatively stop all other browsing while on Facebook, and clear all cookies before and after browsing Facebook.

But that's just in theory. In practice, Facebook is a POS website, and if you use it you're probably not too bright and if you're posting all your personal info online, then this isn't high up on the list of your privacy concerns.

Re:Clear your cookies

[nimbius]

I've found its easier to reject all cookies and establish a list of trusted sites (banks, etc...) for whom you accept cookies. as an added level of protection in firefox, you can force these cookies to be "session only."

Re:Clear your cookies

[hostyle]

But that's just in theory. In practice, Facebook is a POS website, and if you use it you're probably not too bright and if you're posting all your personal info online, then this isn't high up on the list of your privacy concerns.

I'm saddened to hear you say that. My facebook profile is under the pseudonym GameboyRMH. I though you totally supported my efforts at spreading your legendary sexual and binge drinking conquests online for the world at large. If that is indeed the case, I shall be happy to stop doing so once the appropriate discontinuation fee is paid in full. Oh, should I stop buying sex toys on amazon i your name aswell?

Not too worried.

[billy901]

I'm not too worried about this because I have never bought anything from their third party sites, and millions of people use Facebook. I don't think that it's likely that if you are going through this that you will find someone you were looking for and be able to spy on their habits.

Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Privacy policies and regulations are never taken seriously. State Farm, for example, releases clients' information to whoever asks for it.

http://statefarmwoes.blogspot.com/

Built-in

[von_rick]

The title has a built-in "In Soviet Russia joke.

Re:Built-in

[Ollabelle]

So in Soviet Russia, the government would simply contact Facebook to watch you for them, or they would contact the telephone company.... oh, wait....

Re:Built-in

[von_rick]

In_Soviet_Russia jokes are never so long.

Re:Built-in

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, longs are never so joke

Re:Built-in

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, shorts are a joke.

Re:Built-in

[hostyle]

In Soviet Russia better watch your Face!

Re:Built-in

[QRDeNameland]

In Soviet Web 2.0, the product is YOU!!

Re:Built-in

[RealGrouchy]

Indeed. In Soviet Russia, joke longs for you!

- RG>

Lawsuit?

[bigstrat2003]

Can someone sue Facebook for this, considering they're doing exactly what they said they wouldn't do (or at least that's what it looks like)?

Re:Lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook ins't doing anything they said that the wouldn't do, it's just that they don't have the magic powers to stop their code that has been placed on third party sites from loading. The javascript loads, sends data back to facebook, but that data isn't used if you opted out. This is how it has always been since day one. The question is do you trust Facebook to not secretly store and use your data. If you are that paranoid you have much bigger issues to worry about.

Re:Lawsuit?

[zippthorne]

That's... not particularly paranoid.

Re:Lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not being paranoid to be constantly worrying that every company is lying to you? Maybe it's not around these parts, but that can't be a healthy attitude. Very stressful it must be.

Re:Lawsuit?

[thedullroar]

Can someone sue Facebook for this, considering they're doing exactly what they said they wouldn't do (or at least that's what it looks like)?

You can sue whether you have a case or not. But I would guess that you (and the rest of FB users) don't. I think you would need to show that that particular clause was material in your decision to accept the terms of service and that their violation caused actual damages. I seriously doubt that even one of those conditions is met for most users, if any.

People complain that lawyers are evil, but what is the first question they ask when something bad happens? Can I sue someone over this?

I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why people continue to use services like this. They are riddled with bugs, security flaws, loopholes etc.

Besides, who cares what you ate for breakfast?

Re:I don't understand...

[wattrlz]

Hey, the moment /. starts getting flooded with eye-candy coeds ( and helping track down long-lost non-geeky friends, but it's 99% the coeds) I'm sure facebook will go out of business, but until then, they're pretty much the big dog of social networking.

Re:I don't understand...

[nospam007]

>Besides, who cares what you ate for breakfast?

Somebody might wonder why you needed all those 600 Watt Chrome Dome growing lamps.

Re:I don't understand...

[mini me]

Maintaining an address book is hard work. Facebook does all that work for you. It's no surprise that something like Facebook became popular because it's extremely useful.

Re:I don't understand...

[QRDeNameland]

I grow orchids, you insensitive clod!!

Re:I don't understand...

[inflamed]

Thanks to client-side applications with interdevice synchronization, keeping a decent address book without sharing it with a marketing company is easy too. It takes no strech of the imagination to see that a company in the business of collecting data has the implicit goal of selling that data.

I should have guessed.

[Chris Burke]

"Facebook is able to track the buying habits of its users on affiliated third-party sites even when they are logged out of their account or have opted out of its controversial 'Beacon' tracking service."

I should have known there was a problem when I was signing up and saw this:

[ ] Opt out of Beacon(tm) on-line tracking when logged into Facebook; opt in to Lighthouse(tm) on-line tracking when logged out of Facebook.

The sins of marketing

[davidwr]

Venial - violating privacy
Mortal - lying about it
Crime against humanity - covering up the lie

Let's hope they stop before they get to the latter.

ah hem

[eneville]

browse with telnet people - or use something close to it, like lynx or w3m. personally using opera here, but now that i'm aware of this i think i'll clean my cookies before buying anything.

Re:ah hem

[hostyle]

telnet facebook.com 80
Trying 69.63.176.140...
Connected to facebook.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET stuffed!

400 Bad Request

Bad Request
Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.

Invalid URI in request GET stuffed!

Connection closed by foreign host.

How Dare They

[jareth780]

This is an outrage! How DARE they try and sell me things! This is almost as infuriating as Vons/Safeway and their "club card", tracking my purchases to try and "Better serve me". Horsefeathers! The fact that the products I want are in stock at any given point is PROOF that they've been using my spending habits to PREDICT MY NEEDS, which goes against everything I believe in.

When I say I want a free social networking site, it's not good enough that I not be billed directly for using it. The company hosting it must be desperately trying to sustain the bandwidth and CPU time for my constant page refreshes. At no point should they be even breaking even, let alone PROFITING from their service. Information wants to be free! Down with Big Brother! Doublethink! Free as in beer! ...What else... Oh! And my cell phone bill is too high!

Re:How Dare They

[plasmacutter]

Way to one-sidedly misrepresent wholesale privacy violation as innocent altruism.

Apparently the telecom domestic spying scandal has not reached your part of the world?

In these times, companies have as much or more assets and power available to them than many of the world's nations, and allowing the wholesale gathering of information on individuals by private firms under the red herring of "private property" will lead to the exact same kind of oppression as allowing the government to do it under the red herring of "national security".

There are other ways to better serve me without having to identify me personally. Inventory tracking has been done successfully at the branch level for a century in its current form, and if they don't carry something, speaking to a manager will often get results.

There is a difference between profiting from advertising, and profiteering from spying on me and selling that data to telemarketers, government agencies, and other shady organizations.

Re:How Dare They

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh! And my cell phone bill is too high!

Um, +1?

Re:How Dare They

[Chris Burke]

This is almost as infuriating as Vons/Safeway and their "club card", tracking my purchases to try and "Better serve me". Horsefeathers! The fact that the products I want are in stock at any given point is PROOF that they've been using my spending habits to PREDICT MY NEEDS, which goes against everything I believe in.

That's clearly not true, because I've been to Safeway plenty of times and not ONCE have they offered me a blowjob.

Re:How Dare They

[novakyu]

This is almost as infuriating as Vons/Safeway and their "club card", tracking my purchases to try and "Better serve me".

Well, turning the sarcasm detector off, change that to "Vons/Safeway and their 'club card' tracking my purchases and all other purchases with the credit card that has ever been used with the club card through special deals with the credit card company ...." and you will be closer.

Facebook is welcome to track you on their own website (practically every website owner does this with log analysis) and even track your outgoing clicks with redirects, hidden or bare (even Google does this, and they are really tricky about it too, if you've noticed it on their search results). What they are not welcome to do is track you when you are not on their website through "special deals" with other websites. Such aggregation of data on you is a disaster waiting to happen.

Re:How Dare They

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been to Safeway plenty of times and not ONCE have they offered me a blowjob.

Maybe try washing your dick.

Re:How Dare They

[Chris Burke]

Maybe try washing your dick.

They haven't offered to do that either! "Predict my needs" my ass...

Re:How Dare They

[LandDolphin]

Seems you've been shopping at the wrong Safeway

Re:How Dare They

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, lighten the crap up.

Google and Facebook are not the NSA. Being photographed by the Street View car on a public sidewalk or having your friends know that you rented GTA IV from GameFly is not the same as having the partyvan show up at your house in the middle of the night because you were critical of the administration.

Re:How Dare They

[Sockatume]

To continue this analogy, this is like you've got a Club Card, and decide you don't want it any more, so Safeway take it from you but secretly implant an RFID Club Card in your sinus cavity, all the while assuring you that you're no longer a Club Card holder.

Re:How Dare They

[Mia'cova]

You must not have signed up with the same email you use for facebook and adult websites. I get coupons for the local strip club printed on the back of my receipt every time I go in for some fruit.

Re:How Dare They

[Anonymous Coward]

While CC companies could let Amazon track your purchases at Wal-Mart through advertising arrangements, it would be reasonable to complain about it if such sharing was not outlined in the CC contract. It's more about someone doing what they said they don't do than it is about letting a company do anything because of a cynicism that says companies will do anything anyway. If they Facebook had wanted to keep Beacon, they should have stood their ground.

Facebook did argue that it gave users a way to turn off Beacon, the off feature is broken, and users complain. This seems normal. About another issue, the privacy features on Facebook are too buggy to be trusted; they toggle with site upgrades or occasionally don't work.

Re:How Dare They

[brkello]

He was exaggerating for comedic effect. But he has a point, people on this site over-react to these sorts of things. There has to be a balance between privacy and the ability for a company to make a profit. Yes, they crossed the line here, but most of you guys shouldn't be on the internet if you are so afraid of being monitored. Just find a nice cabin somewhere remote and get your shot gun out when the tax man comes...because he might sell your information to telemarketers! Of course, not having a phone solves that problem. That and a nice tin foil hat.

Re:How Dare They

[bwy]

The problem with all this is that people now expect everything on the Internet to be free. They have no concept of paying for anything- using google, flickr, myspace, facebook, dictionary.com, you name it. In reality, think of the incredible expenses in software development, server time, bandwidth, etc. tied to each of these services!

When you are getting everything for free, it doesn't put you in a good bargaining position. I don't have to worry about my online banking site selling all my data to someone. Why? Because I fund the site by being a customer of the bank.

Once you become a paying customer, you've actually got some say in things. And paying a small usage fee basically weeds out things like kiddies, and spam. The thing is, these fees need to be REASONABLE. It amazes me that classmates.com charges like $10 a month I think? If people started charging $10 a year, they'd make money. I can't imagine most consumers click enough ads on one site in a year to even make $5 for the site owner.

IMHO the "premium" packages that some of the free sites try to sell you aren't really the ticket. Even if the terms of service and privacy do change when you upgrade, I'm not sure the line is clear enough. To me, there is always a feeling that you're still partly under the "free" umbrella, even when you're paying. This is why I think a $5-$10 annual charge for all users is a good model.

Re:How Dare They

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I'm sure they track you when you have a Google cookie and go to someone that has AdSense or such and I bet they track you there too...

Re:How Dare They

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's tracking isn't tricky - its a fairly clear bit of JS (albeit not visible without view source) and its a part of the Google ranking algorthm(s) which is why everyone goes to Google at all.

"affiliated third-party sites"

[InsaneMosquito]

So the article (yes, I read it) only mentions 3 affliated sites. Does anyone have a list of all Facebook Affliated sites? While I don't use (and never will use) facebook, other family members do have facebook accounts. I don't consent to have my information sent - could this be a liability for Facebook should someone decide to make it a large issue?

Here's the list:

[GameboyRMH]

Facebook is currently affiliated with the following sites:

        * 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

http://www.facebook.com/help.php?page=57

The first bloody Google result |: |

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=facebook-affiliated+sites&spell=1

Re:Here's the list:

[corychristison]

Odd...

I've never dealt with any of these websites before.

Scab companies I tells ya!

Addendum

[wattrlz]

TFA's source indicates FB gives their affiliates javascript to include in the page that connects to a FB server for cookie exchange. Pretty sneaky. I wonder if google does something like that with google analytics.

orly?

[Tekninja_Hawk]

Your friend has invited you to use the application "Big Brother", would you like to add this application?


Would you like to be a Vampire/Pirate/Zombie instead?

Re:orly?

[thrillseeker]

Would you like to upload your contacts list, for your convenience?

I wonder if a list of those vendors exists

[hyades1]

It would be nice to have a well-publicized, up-to-date list of those affiliated third-party sites, so buyers could ensure that they shop elsewhere.

As for Facebook's lies...I wonder if their dishonesty amounts to fraud? I bet the right judge would allow substantial penalties for that kind of deception. It tends to make the sheep restless while they wait for their shearing.

Re:I wonder if a list of those vendors exists

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be more interested in a list of hostnames that I can stick into my /etc/hosts file or DNS so any tracking attempt fails.

What if it's an un-used email?

[FatSean]

My Facebook account is linked to my school email. I only use the school email for Facebook. I use different emails on the commercial sites.

Wonder if they can track me.

Re:What if it's an un-used email?

[wattrlz]

They actually use your facebook cookie, which would contain your school email, to track you. So just delete your cookies and you should be OK.

Re:What if it's an un-used email?

[AndGodSed]

With Facebook's protection of minors... I wonder if them tracking the habits of minors could get them in trouble...

Re:What if it's an un-used email?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're really sneaky. Dick Cheney could definitely learn something from you. COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE TEH WINNARS!

Re:What if it's an un-used email?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't store the data in the cookie. The next time you log in, you may get a new cookie, but it'll start adding to the existing data. You'd have to delete FB cookies constantly for this approach to work right.

Does ABP still block this?

[Thelasko]

Also, here's the actual CA article.

Amazon.com does something similar...

[HouseOfMisterE]

Amazon.com does something similar with their website ads. I search and buy a lot at Amazon.com, and their ads on other web sites (I've noticed it at crooksandliars.com, at least) apparently read my cookies and display item suggestions that are the same or similar to items that I've searched for or purchased at Amazon.com. It doesn't matter if I've logged out of my Amazon.com account, closed and restarted my browser to clear out any active cookies, etc, the targeted advertisement results still come.

Re:Amazon.com does something similar...

[Anonymous Coward]

That kinda sounds like Amazon set a flash cookie. Go into the ~/.macromedia/\#SharedObjects/(random name) directory and you'll probably see some cached flash objects from different websites. You probably have some under Amazon that C&L picks up via javascript. To clear them out, just remove the #SharedObjects directory. It's harmless to do since flash will recreate it the next time its run.

Re:Amazon.com does something similar...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, I had no idea anything was stored there. It is too bad firefox doesn't delete those files whenever you tell it to clear private data.

Re:Amazon.com does something similar...

[HouseOfMisterE]

Thanks! I cleared out #SharedObjects and the targeted ads are no longer targeted.

Unsubscribe

[kellyb9]

I just wish I could delete my facebook account. It's actually close to impossible, first you have to delete all your information (wall posts, friends, etc.), and then they'll delete your account. Very, very time consuming. But I doubt any of that info is REALLY gone.

Re:Unsubscribe

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wish I could delete my facebook account. It's actually close to impossible, first you have to delete all your information (wall posts, friends, etc.), and then they'll delete your account. Very, very time consuming. But I doubt any of that info is REALLY gone.

Its easier if you change all your informations into junk, then when someone looks you up on Facebook they retrieve a completely wrong information.
I just suggest you don't upload information that would harm your future prospects for jobs and such.

Re:Unsubscribe

[gclef]

Change your profile picture to goatse...they should take card of the rest.

Re:Unsubscribe

[lazycam]

I'm guessing the easiest way for you to have your account cancelled is to simply violate their terms. Just upload some porn or something. Anyway, they probably still keep your personal details. I guess that's the price we pay for being so careless about our personal information.

Re:Unsubscribe

[Anonymous Coward]

How to permanently delete your facebook account.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16929680703

Go to this page:
http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account

Select the checkbox and click "Submit".

Re:Unsubscribe

[kellyb9]

Junk sounds like a great idea... maybe I'll change my name to... let's see "'; Drop where username = 'kellyb9'" Thanks for the advice :-) !!!!

Re:Unsubscribe

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonderful idea. So instead of Facebook possibly associating you with embarrassing social behavior and purchasing habits, they will now be guaranteed to associate you with a man spreading his butt hole for all to see.

Re:Unsubscribe

[TheSpoom]

Nah. They'll just ban you, but keep your data.

That's an important difference from deletion.

Re:Unsubscribe

[pha7boy]

it's gotten better, but there are still problems. See the following two links: NY Times article Wikipedia discussion

Re:Unsubscribe

[Tim C]

That's not valid SQL; you can't drop a table based on a selection criterion like that. Either "drop table users" (or similar) or "delete from users where username='kellyb9'".

Re:Unsubscribe

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 interesting! Would that work?

Eratum

[wattrlz]

TFA's source [corrected] indicates FB gives their affiliates javascript to include in the page that connects to a FB server for cookie exchange. Pretty sneaky. I wonder if google does something like that with google analytics.

Corrected Link! This is why one should not slashdot before one's midday coffee. Please mod parent down, or something. That's a very small server and it will die.

Re:Eratum

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoah dude, way to get modded up four times for one post.

Re:Eratum

[kaos07]

When I submitted the story, I included that link. The editors decided to remove it.

Dupe!

[Thelasko]

The CA article is the same one from 2007. Read the date at the bottom.

Published Nov 29 2007, 11:39 PM by Stefan Berteau

It was already posted on Slashdot. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/03/0656205 That's two dupes in a row guys! Care to go for three?

Re:Dupe!

[Thelasko]

correction: The Mac story isn't a dupe. The one before it is. Regardless, that's two dupes today. Start paying attention.

Re:Dupe!

[sunburntkamel]

seriously. even if it weren't a dupe, it's 6 month old news, and an issue that's since been resolved and abandoned by the protesters.

Re:Dupe!

[pha7boy]

Never to late to pay attention to what's going on around you. ;)

Re:Dupe!

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

What shall we call this

[sjames]

Let's see, what do we call it when someone follows someone around to see where they go, their tastes, who they know, etc, etc.

Yeah, that's right, it's STALKING!

When you restrict those activities to the internet, it's cyber-stalking.

Why is stalking suddenly OK if you're trying to sell stuff? It certainly doesn't feel any less creepy to the person being stalked.

The fact that these things are done in secret and too often in spite of public denials tells me that they know at some level what they're doing is unwelcome and wrong.

If they want to cyber-stalk in exchange for a free service, then it's not REALLY free, it just happens to have a non-monetary price. Let them be honest about the price and then the users can decide for themselves how acceptable the deal is.

Re:What shall we call this

[New_Age_Reform_Act]

Depends. Sometimes it is called cyber-stalking, sometimes it is called direct marketing, and sometimes it is called "reconnaissance". 1337s and people who play too much counter-strike love to use the third term when they are tracking a girl.

In Soviet Russia...

[GameboyRMH]

You track information on Facebook!

Hehehe I love the ones that make more sense in Soviet Russia mode :)

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[electricbern]

Or maybe In Soviet Russia, track facebooks YOU!!

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, government controls the commerce.

Think of the masses

[thatskinnyguy]

If an online community is large enough, there will always be some huckster out there wanting to exploit the masses somehow. In this case, it sounds like consumer surveys administered for free, without consent and without knowledge. This is unethical on many levels.

Old news

[Anonymous Coward]

This issue was discussed to death back when Beacon first lunched. It's impossible for the Facebook javascript on third party sites to know if you have opted out without communicating with Facebook's servers. Facebook is always going to have to receive data. The question is do you trust them to not store it? If you are that paranoid just block the facebook beacon URL from loading. Problem solved.

Re:Old news

[Thelasko]

Look at the article you posted and the one above. They have something in common. I'll give you a hint, look at the date!

Our rights online

[pacroon]

I find, that Facebook has gained a lot more attention, at least globally, than most other social sites has ever gotten, especially regarding privacy. Since major corporations have roasted on the lack of knowledge of their users regarding their own privacy for years, since I myself is a walking case of turbo-paranoia. I for one welcome this wide spread paranoia about the intentions and possibilities of Facebook and the people behind.

Prophesied

[pavon]

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a book stamping on a human face - forever

Fight Back!

[owlnation]

Facebook Users have been very quiet of late. Where are the good old days of protest and people power? A year ago, a lot of teenagers with a strong sense of priorities and a social conscience would have fought Facebook to the death on this (rather than, you know, something trivial like Human Rights in China, or the UK). Where have you all gone, you Young Pioneers!

Was it like this when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? No!

Fight, the noble fight! Save Facebook for the rest of us! It's far too vital to our very existence to be allowed to be destroyed by cynical, shallow individuals!

Re:Fight Back!

[Thelasko]

A year ago, a lot of teenagers with a strong sense of priorities and a social conscience would have fought Facebook to the death on this

You know why they aren't fighting Facebook right now? Because they already did and they won. TFA is from 2007.

Re:Fight Back!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? o_O

Whew

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Glad I don't have a facebook account

Mark Zuckerberg

[NoPantsJim]

I've often thought about the various people who have made a fortune or are about to make a fortune from online properties.

Jason Calacanis, Kevin Rose, the Flickr people, etc.

Usually I think to myself, that's awesome that these people were able to work hard and see their vision to the end and make a living from it.

When I think of Zuckerberg, I think the exact opposite. Fuck that guy. I've always felt like he sleezed his way to where he is, and stories like this only reinforce that opinion.

(prepared to be modded troll...)

User Account Control

[GameboyRMH]

A program needs your permission to continue.

If you started this program, continue.

Big Brother 1.0
BigBrotherSoft Inc
C:\Downloads\BigBrotherSetup.msi

Continue / Cancel?

User Account Control helps stop unauthorized changes to your computer.

Web Beacons are the devil!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking beacons I hate em!

CookieSafe Firefox Addon

[Anonymous Coward]

Use CookieSafe. It's like NoScript for cookie management. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2497

Gamefly

[dj245]

I got pretty nervous when stuff I rented from Gamefly was automatically posted to Facebook. I don't need "Don has rented BMX XXX" on my ticker. Not because of the nudity, but because its a horrible game in general.

Re:Gamefly

[TheSpoom]

*defriends you for having such bad taste*

Related

[TopSpin]

This morning I logged into a Gmail account that I use exclusively for certain Google alerts. The address has never been used otherwise. I found a bunch (20-30) of "new friend" notifications from Facebook.

Turns out someone tried to create a Facebook account for my Gmail address (the account name isn't terribly obscure.) Of course, they couldn't 'verify' the Facebook account for lack of access to the Gmail account. Nevertheless Facebook dutifully listed this new account such that random bozos could befriend it. So, you may go to Facebook and associate any public name with any email address you wish and Facebook will stick it out there for the world to see before any level verification has been performed.

I canceled the Facebook account (for some Facebook defined value of 'canceled') but nothing prevents someone from reestablishing it. I've had nothing to do with these dinks; they have no respect for your information or wishes. 'Eyeballs' is the only metric they measure and if exposing you and yours makes more eyeballs then you're getting put up.

This is insightful too

[philspear]

They also can only track you if you use a computer!

Re:This is insightful too

[Anonymous Coward]

only if u use the internets

Old Article

[Silent Node]

The date on this article is 04 December 2007 05:22 PM, are we sure the concerns raised here weren't dealt with already? ...not that I'm a huge Facebook fan, but if I were to leave Facebook I would have to give up administration of the United Cabin Dwellers Federation. Although I hear leaving can be difficult...

Re:Old Article

[dglp]

Yeah. So why has it that nobody prior, including the OP, seems to have noticed? Do you think that means we should alert the world that Microsoft is about to release something called Windows 95?

Re:Old Article

[Silent Node]

Windows is jumping all the way to version 95? You're right, someone should announce that!

Submit your story here.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

After seeing how many gmail contacts had facebook profiles (using friendfinder), I created an account. Regardless of the fact that when I entered my gmail account information there is a notice that states: "We won't store your login info or contact anyone without your permission." EVERYONE in my address book got notified that I had created an account. I only figured this out when I didn't add any personal identifiable info into my profile and still got invites. It was still a blank profile, and after IM'ing one of my friends that invited me to connect to them, I found out he got a "your friend joined" message. So much for NOT contacting anyone without my permission facebook!

I promptly closed the account. I'm sticking with linkedin.

So I wasn't crazy...

[British]

....when I thought about all the privacy risk potential for that oh-so-wonderful website known as facebook. I balked at the idea of using my real name on there. The site seems to be nearly useless if you have no friends who are already on the site. There's options for putting in your home address & phone number, and about 20 other things a website honestly doesn't to know about you.

Now it's expansing. Makes me wonder why all the people who loved facebook yet hated myspace think so highly of this site. Yes, I use linkedin.com and my real name on there, but that's for job hunting prospects & checking out recruiters. That's different, for in the corporate world I do use my real name.

shopping habits

[Anonymous Coward]

Well now they know the shopping habits of 16 year old girls. I'm sure that will yield great marketing gains

Does what happens in the Facebook stay in the Face

[Anonymous Coward]

Does what happens in the Facebook stay in the Facebook?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wogtTQs8Kzw

How do they actually do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the merchant site able to read the user's facebook cookie? I thought this was a security violation.

Google Is Worse

[tknd]

Google is the web marketing power house. If you visit a site, like say slashdot.org, you'll notice that your browser automatically downloads stuff from google-analytics.com. What this is is user tracking software to track every page you visit on that website. The website (in this case slashdot) then can access a detailed report of visitor tendencies on the website. They've even got fancy charts to show you (the website owner) on average how long a visitor stays and which pages that visitor viewed before leaving.

If you don't want them to track you this closely, you can get firefox along with noscript and blacklist google-analytics.com. The website owner will still have logs of your ip address but it is much harder to come up with an accurate picture of what you're doing from web server logs.

Re:Google Is Worse

[TheSpoom]

Oh no! Not tracking software! Anything but that!

Google Analytics is just an extension of something that's been around for aaaaages on the WWW. It's not like they can put it on every page on the internet; sites like Slashdot want to have access to that sort of data to see where people are going on their website. If you want to be pissed at someone (though I don't see why), be pissed at Slashdot.

Has anyone considered...

[MattPat]

... that information transmitted does not equal information retained? I know that most people are cynical, but let's try to be trusting for once.

It seems to make perfect sense to me that Facebook would give affiliates a simple JavaScript that reports the information back to Facebook, and then the decision whether or not to retain the information happens on the Facebook server, rather than at the browser level. Don't jump to conclusions before you know exactly how the system works-- if the data isn't retained, it's essentially equivalent to it not being transmitted at all.

Re:Has anyone considered...

[swordgeek]

First of all, allow me to quote Ambrose Bierce:

CYNIC, n.
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.

"It seems to make perfect sense to me that Facebook would give affiliates a simple JavaScript that reports the information back to Facebook, and then the decision whether or not to retain the information happens on the Facebook server..."

This makes sense to you? If I go to (say) Amazon.com and buy a book, it makes perfect sense that they give your purchase information to someone else to publish without your explicit agreement?

Wow! Colour me old-fashioned, but I'm not sure I want some third-party publishing the details of my life and interactions with a growing series of second-parties.

Regardless, this is seven-month-old news. I'm sure it's changed by now, although it may actually be worse than it was.

We sure are!

[FatSean]

Especially when our employers pay for our continuing education. What's that? Sounds like job security :P

Maybe I'm old, but...

[IANAAC]

I don't really look at Facebook (can't speak for MySpace - I don use it) as a social network, although I understand that's how it's being billed.

I look at it as a way to stay connected with people I care about (and that means having a good real life relationship with them).

I have about 15 friends on my list and some of those friendships go back 30 years, some live on the other side of the country. It's only those people who actually see anything other than my name, since I've set my profile to private.

Yes, I suppose I could just email them with updates about my life, but much like the Christmas newsletter my mom used to send out once a year to everybody, it's just easier this way and everybody gets the same information.

I don't place anything embarrassing WRT me or any of my friends, just simple information about what's going on.

Well, OK, I admit to playing Scrabulous a bit too much :-)

In Soviet Russia ...

[AftanGustur]

In Soviet Russia .

You watch Facebook ..

Oh, wait ... WTF !!?!?

Beacon

[macdude22]

I thought all this Beacon nonsense had been worked out. I have a facebook account that I don't post much on but it's literally the only way some people contact and plan events anymore of my generation. I bought a ticket to the wargames screening off Fandango and all of a sudden it's posting my purchase to Facebook. I was under the assumption you needed to opt-in to beacon now, I was sure wrong. I dug around and finally was able to turn off this "feature", they don't go out of their way to make it easy.

oops, undoing bad mod

[navyjeff]

no txt

Re:Well What ROYALLY pissed me off earlier

[davidsyes]

What might have royally pissed off others was that when facebook asked for the new member's valid email address, it implied or outright expected them to provide to the f/b interface the VALID PASSWORD OF THE VALID EMAIL ACCOUNT.

This royally inFURIATED me. All they needed to say was Give us your valid email of choice, and reply within 5 minutes of receiving it and supply the code we give you, or you'll have to redo this and still try within 5 minutes to validate yourself.

They had NO f*cking business structuring it in such a way that MILLIONS of users would blindly or hopelessly supply their gmail, yahoo, msn, and/or other passwords through a facebook conduit.

Can you IMAGINE how much snooping could be done if facebook were compelled by law or court order to submit subscribtion/memberhship application logs to various agencies that don't want to actually leave traces of intel-snooping? All they have to do is notice whether or not the user is online or not, then log in as them, quickly look at non-viewable things, then log out. Only if friends and bots are somehow tracking friends login/logout activity can anyone be tipped off that something might be amiss.

Even without the conspiracy theory stuff, facebook should NEVER have culled or duped people into giving facebook their other account's passwords, nevermind the fact that there are other means by which other parties could steal or surreptitiously obtain a targeted user's password.

I cannot remember what I did to foil that frackin' attempt, but I think I did foil it.

Growing Trend of bad business ethics

[carp3_noct3m]

And this is only one example. It seems to me that there are too many business that are taking advantage of the average "I know what Im doing because I use myspace all the time" kinds of users. Facebook, google, myspace, these are all things that from the early days I warned people were dangerous. I even fell into the trap and created a myspace once, with no correct info, but even with just a real picture of me, it made me nervous. What I've concluded (quite obviously)is if there is a internet service out there that is free from a large corporation, odds are that they are doing something fishy. This is where learning how to have alternate identities online comes in handy. I personally have been having a harder and harder time with this as I grow in the tech business. Its hard when people expect your email to be firstname.lastname.social@mybusiness.com. So what should the solution be then? Well, I dont know, but I do think that better regulations on pre-service registration disclosure (and not in tiny text EULAs) would help a lot. Also, as always, punishments for mis-leading deliberatly consumers. Just my -2 cents.

Full circle

[azzuth]

In short, soviet russia is a joke.

Re:Well Reminds me of (Platoon?)

[davidsyes]

"WhereEVER you GO, whatEVER you DO, whatEVER you're THINKING about, I'll BE WATCHING YOU!"

you thought you could trust Facebook?

[jgarra23]

So did the original owners before Mark Zuckerberg stole it from them. Now I'm not saying that he's out to steal the stuff you buy but...

The Truth about Facebook and Data mining

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLQiTzs8PQ4

2007?

[groschke]

Welcome to 2007.

That's why you keep them *separate*

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "separate" don't you understand? I do things with people who know me IRL with my real name.

The people who know my by my internet name know ONLY that, so they don't have the information to add that kind of tag.

And the two sets are disjoint.

I'm not the GP poster, but it's not as hard as you think. You just have to avoid giving out too much information. Most people online don't care who you are.

NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

With the NoScript extension for Mozilla Firefox you can block sites from loading JavaScripts.
So example, if you goto eBay, it cant load JavaScript from Facebook.
* http://noscript.net/

Also in Firefox, you disable cookies for sites which you have not explicitly allowed.

Re:Well What ROYALLY pissed me off earlier

[Vectronic]

Im not sure im following, but I think you mean the "Add Friends" thing? Where you add your e-mail, and that e-mails password so it can log into MSN/Yahoo/Gmail and pick up your contact lists?

If so, I completely agree, I found that terrifying actually, talk about mining, they must have millions of users real e-mail and passwords for multiple chat and networking clients. Which means they could possibly know everyone you talk to online, and then six-degrees of separation.

It asks you to do that just after you "establish" your account, at least it did a year or so ago, as if it was mandatory almost, I think I just killed my browser to get out of it...Fuck That!...

Frankly, I despise Facebook with a passion, however, that doesn't stop me from having it on my SpeedDial, and visiting it multiple times a day, but its limited to random information, and I don't add any "Apps".

Plus the fact that its Google Indexed, you can search for -Your Name- in Google (among other search engines) and find your own Facebook Profile even if yours isn't participating (ie you didn't Opt-Out) in the indexing nonsense because surely at least one of your contacts has that enabled. Try it, "Bob Smith" if you have a Facebook account it'l probably show up in the 20 results of Google, especially if you have a unique name, or you added your middle name etc.

I clear my account (strip all information) then Disable it for a few weeks ever 2 months or so, till its been removed from various Indexes, then added shit again... sorta like a sick game of hide-and-seek.

Re:Mod parent down. that comment is pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

You pulled a fine troll there, kid. Some people got suckered in and you can consider yourself a success. Now move along and let the adults talk, ok?

Maybe you can go play at digg with the other 12 year olds.

How to delete you account

[aufecht]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16929680703

Re:Well What ROYALLY pissed me off earlier

[davidsyes]

I am pretty sure that it was when I initially subscribed.

But, I almost NEVER input my friends' REALL e-mail. FUCK THAT. It's just another lazy-assed, surreptitious harvesting opportunity. I search for my friends by name, or find them in other friend's profiles. If I cannot find a friend without their e-mail address, I give up. Or, I call them, tell them MY e-mail, and let them decide whether or not to tell me/add me, or put themselves on a social site.

Way too many thoughtless/un-thinking people unmindfully add their contacts lists of people who might have been TRYING TO STAY OUT of the marketing mechanism.

I wonder, though, if there is or will be a Do Not Harvest & Retain Me list, compelling facebook, myspace, et al to purge all public/blog/post references. That could really piss off some advert types who "just want that fucking contact info, no matter what"...

Re:Well What ROYALLY pissed me off earlier

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Eh? That's optional. You can 'add friends' from your address book. You don't have to do it -- but it's kind of logical that if they want your address book from your email provider, they need to be able to access your account, yes?

Anyway, it was pretty clearly marked as something optional you could do to find/invite friends.

Re:Well What ROYALLY pissed me off earlier

[severoon]

I used to think the same way. It doesn't matter, though...no matter what you or your friend's intentions, some idiot is going to tag a photo with your real name, address, email, etc on a public forum like Facebook. You don't even have to have an account there to be identified in the most public possible way. Just hope it's a photo of you at your best. It's a public life, and we did it to ourselves--didn't take a government or nothing to get us to install a two-way TV like in 1984.

yeah......

[Anonymous Coward]

so when u get internet.....
u think u can't be cracked?
c'mon.....
if u r afraid of it....don't try
just say bye
when u r into it......just play it and get hands-on

Facebook in a sandbox?

[$random_var]

Would it be possible to build a browser extension which automatically sandboxes facebook, so the cookies are trapped and can't be used for this tracking?

Oh noes!

[spankymm]

Now everyone will know I buy banana-flavored lube!

Block by facebook?

[desibattousai]

I wonder if I would get blocked by facebook if I started posting anti-facebook, articles such as this and many other I read online.

Ummm, this is not the case anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

This is very very very old news -- article is from 04 December 2007 05:22 PM and since that time Facebook already came out and made changes so this is not the case.

But what if it's not you who posted the info?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm constantly amazed about how people will post private information in a public place (thus making it public information), and then complain about how they are being robbed of their privacy.

My problem with Facebook wasn't the information I gave them. All I gave them was an e-mail address, my university, and confirmation when a few close friends told them about our friendship.

My friends, however, subsequently gave them numerous additional bits of data about me without my knowledge or consent. Of course, this wasn't done with any ill intent; for the most part, it was probably done without a second thought. However, within a few days of my joining, Facebook not only had the identities of many of my friends (obviously), but also pretty much everything from enough information to work out my home address and car registration to a fairly complete record of my movements for the past few weeks. I cancelled my account very soon after this pattern became apparent, and asked that my friends no longer post anything relating to me on there.

This is the problem with Facebook: its entire modus operandi is to make other people provide information about you. And as anyone who's been a victim of identity theft (or just shafted on-line by a jealous ex) can testify, there's pretty much SFA you can do about that until it's far too late to make a difference.

Oh, and the other problem that they don't know what the word "delete" actually means, as in, "delete my account" not "flag my account as hidden but keep all the personal information about me in your database anyway".

Facebook == In-Q-Tel == CIA == Datamining

[ClarisseMcClellan]

Remember what you read when you signed up?

"We may use information about you that we collect from other sources, including but not limited to newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services and other users of Facebook, to supplement your profile."

Why is it that only people that don't use Facebook know that it is a datamining operation setup by the outsourced CIA, namely In-Q-Tel? Tell that to a Facebook person and they think you are one of those tin-hat wearing types. Ho hum...

I'm glad

[narcberry]

someone actually cares about my personal information. Thanks FB + affiliates, you make me feel warm and fuzzy.

Re:Well What ROYALLY pissed me off earlier

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck, you're right

No means no

[sciurus0]

When a Facebook user takes a Beacon-enabled action on a participating site, information is sent to Facebook in order for Facebook to operate Beacon technologically. If a Facebook user clicks "No, thanks" on the partner site notification, Facebook does not use the data and deletes it from its servers. Separately, before Facebook can determine whether the user is logged in, some data may be transferred from the participating site to Facebook. In those cases, Facebook does not associate the information with any individual user account, and deletes the data as well.
- Chamath Palihapitiya, Facebook's Vice President of product marketing and operations

Facebook WAS for colleges...

[Nirvelli]

...and so facebook has my university email address. I don't use it for anything else besides facebook and school-related things, so I don't think they will be tracking me by my email address.

got ad muncher?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad Muncher will block facebook beacon in all browsers right out of the box.

Problem solved.

www.admuncher.com

The list:

[Anonymous Coward]

I've looked at this list, and have made a startling discovery....

I've NEVER visited ANY of these sites.

Oh, and I'm not on Facebook, either.

I wonder if the privacy issue extends to affiliates of the affiliates?

heh...

[amsr]

This kind of stuff will sink them. They can't even use the info you *do* volunteer correctly to target ads, and they are trying to sneak around and get data that you *don't* volunteer... hmmm

how does it work

[drew]

So, assuming that you are not actually logged in to Facebook, how does it know who you are? I have a Facebook account that I created for my job (we wrote a Facebook app a little while back. I have exactly one friend (a co-worker) and have not logged in to the site since. So how do they still know who I am?

An alternative...

[BrokenHalo]

Optionally, you could always simply live your own life and not bother with a Facebook account. My wife uses one to keep in touch with cronies past and present, but I find it disturbing to see the shenanigans that she has to go through to avoid becoming a buzz-bar between her various acquaintances, who (being predominantly female and possibly more or less human ;-)) do not necessarily get along with each other.

Simpler by far to stick to email/skype/SMS/whatever, thus shortening the chains of personal interactions and not have your own time swallowed up by Facebook.

cookies, damn cookies...

[BrokenHalo]

OK, I admit I am a confirmed wearer of tinfoil hats...

But I have never felt it really necessary to leave persistent cookies lying around, as I have never been totally convinced that they are entirely immune to being read by unwelcome parties.

I know modern browsers (at least FF, Safari and Opera, and I guess probably IE) usually have an option to allow session cookies only, but I am still in the habit of forcing this on Linux and Mac boxes by symlinking my cookies.txt (and now cookies.sqlite) to /dev/null, thus ensuring that nothing persists after closing the session.

In the brief spell when I used Windows boxes, I simulated this effect (this is when Netscape was the norm) by creating a directory called cookies.txt in the appropriate place, which had an approximately similar effect.