Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Retroactively Makes More User Data Public
mjn writes "In yet another backtrack from their privacy policy, Facebook has decided to retroactively move more information into the public, indexable part of profiles. The new profile parts made public are: a list of things users have become 'fans' of (now renamed to 'likes'), their education and work histories, and what they list under 'interests.' Apparently there is neither any opt-out nor even notice to users, despite the fact that some of this information was entered by users at a time when Facebook's privacy policy explicitly promised that it wouldn't be part of the public profile."
..that I left that sinking ship (Facebook) a long time ago. It wasn't easy (litterally), but worth it.
Anyone who ever had even a passing interest in personal data security and privacy has left Facebook months ago (or, like me, never considered it a great idea to put your life online for public review). Everyone left will probably think it's a great feature.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
at any time without notice. It is your responsibility to check the license page periodically for changes.
I saw an opt-in/opt-out notice last night on Facebook for this change. I'm not sure why others have not. Perhaps they are rolling it out in waves or perhaps it depends on country (I'm in Canada).
So if it's not even close to true, instead of standing on the mountain going "THIS ISN'T TRUE! YOU ALL ARE IDIOTS!" whu don't you provide some concrete information about WHY it's not true? I too am skeptical of the hysteria about the article, and I always look for collaborating information (more than everyone re-posting status updates "Facebook is at it again!") To quote an old friend of mine. "Don't flame, inform!" So? Where is your info?
Event Management Solutions : http://www.stonekeep.com/
Uncheck any Page you don't want to link to. Linking to education and work Pages may also create additional Pages, such as for your major or job title. If you don't link to any Pages, these sections on your profile will be empty. By linking your profile to Pages, you will be making these connections public. [emphasis mine]
You are about to remove this information
If you don't link to any Pages, the following sections on your profile will be empty:
So your options are all or nothing.
Why be on Facebook at all? They don't run it for warm fuzzy feelings. The bulk of the $$$$ is contained in its user data so they'll tap that well more and more as time goes on, not less.
This terms of use agreement is subject to change at any time without notice. It is your responsibility to check the license page periodically for changes.
Lots of 'agreements' have terms like that. In a lot of jurisdictions they carry no weight at all.
How long until identity thieves, 419 scammers & spammers create software that can
trawl sites like facebook for useful info?
Seriously, what are they going to find that will be so useful? "Hello, sir -- I note that you went to the University of Nebraska and worked for a while at Cargill. Because of this, I am interested in repatriating my family's fortune to your bank account, for which you will get a fee." Get real...
The realistic threat of facebook vis a vis privacy is that of your youthful indiscretions being on wide display for coworkers and bosses to see.
From the article, it seems as if this new move is only useful to data miners, not Facebook users. So they're basically screwing with us (I use, albeit sparingly, Facebook).
Facebook's done similar things to user's data before, and we've have had some success in protesting those changes. But I'm getting fed up. I don't want to have to worry about every single time Facebook has some sort of an update, that my personal data is going to be distributed publicly. I've had to change my privacy settings before, where stuff that I previously had private was suddenly public. Now it seems I have no option but to delete part of my profile in order to keep my stuff private.
What I wonder is how long Facebook thinks they'll get away with this until everyone is fed up and leaves?
I am not a vegetarian werewolf.
You used to be able to click on a link to anything you had listed in music and be able to see anyone else in your network who had also listed the same band/musican in their profile.
Changing things like "Become a fan" to a "like" is relying on people not noticing and cliking Like because their used to doing that on friend's status updates.
Is there something like Facebook but which doesn't suck so much? It shouldn't be impossible to have something which users like, and which the owners can make a profit from. Actually, I don't even care about the profit part. Seems like something Google would be interested in. I guess they have Orkut, but that never really went anywhere. Perhaps Wave?
You still use Facebook? Call me a troll, but think. Are you being intelligent if you still use Facebook after all this?
After my last Slashdot comment, I deleted my profile. One of the sub-comments explains how to delete it instead of just disabling it.
Banu
I have to be amused that the first two lines of the page for me currently read:
Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
Your Rights Online: Facebook Retroactively Makes More User Data Public
I suppose that since Slashdot is on the internet, and nothing on the internet is private, I shouldn't mind anyone knowing, right?
Girls, where are you going? Oh, come back, it's not that bad, really! I just do it for the karma!
IIRC, "About Me" is not covered by this. You can put info there to keep it private (for now, at least).
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
What I wonder is how long Facebook thinks they'll get away with this until everyone is fed up and leaves?
Easy, when will you get fed up and leave? Apparently not yet.
Don't ask how long the public is going to put up with something, if you are putting up with it.
Or to paraphrase Pastor Martin Niemöller:
First they came for me, but I said nothing for I was to busy consuming.
Then they might come for some other people after that but I was long gone by then.
God paraphrasing in a different tense is difficult.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I was always taught not to accept candy from strangers that wanted to give me a free car ride. It looks like the ruse still works. I don't use facebook either.
but I'll keep on lovin' you just the same..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
People need to understand once something hits the internet its out there, no privacy promise by a huge corporation (that probably owns the data once it hits its servers and gave it self the right to change policy whenever they want in the wall of text) is going to protect it.
The Cloud sound nice and all but the hype often forgets (intentionally ?) to make the dumb user aware of the consequences and dangers of putting something in a hard drive they cannot control
just choose to be 10 and your personal information will be 'more' protected; according to ... another news
Just one more reason I will never create a Facebook page. It's a no-benefit time suck with no apparent purpose except to facilitate attention whores and their ilk.
Yes, it makes it easy to keep in touch with your friends. You know what else does that? A phone. A letter. Walking to their house and knocking on the door.
Further eliminating direct interpersonal communications in favor of digital communication is absolutely not beneficial for this society, country, or planet. If their wanton lack of regard for privacy and their users' data isn't enough to drive you away, I hope the chair ass and jelly rolls it induces will be.
Go throw a damn baseball with a real friend instead.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Never say on the Internet what you wouldn't want shouted from mountaintops.
And never before has this been true. There is almost nothing on my Facebook profile I wouldn't mind being shouted from mountaintops. And for those few things I might care about are things I wouldn't want my Ex knowing about. But she hardly lacks the sophistication to discover these things. :-)
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
The "real danger" isn't youthful indiscretion. It's profiling in a giant model by Government AND commercial interests in ways that will forever affect your ability to get a job, find insurance or even your ability to freely travel.
How do you build a panopticon, a prison for a society in which real power lies outside of government, in the hands of private commercial and financial interests? Honeypots. Google and Facebook and whatnot. Everyone is so anti-Government, like the stupid Reaganites. That's like being against a small-town cop. He's got the gun, alright - but he works for the man in the big house, at the edge of town. Hired. The enemy isn't Barney Fife - It's Old Man Potter.
How does this relate to Facebook?
You present a real, but minor threat, versus the real evil Facebook represent - along with the darkest nightmare of Google.
Remember, Watson, at IBM supplied tabulation equipment for improving the German Census in the 1930's. Technology was welcomed, and was going to modernize, to improve every German life. Except for a minority or two, of 11 million...
Cypher: "All I see now is blonde, brunette, redhead."
Facebook has been gradually boosting its profile in Washington D.C. over the past year and is on the hunt for a second senior lobbyist to add to its office of four. Disclosures released a few days ago show that, on top of lobbying the usual suspects Internet companies reach out to like the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. senators and representatives, the fast-growing social network has also been busy deepening ties to government intelligence and homeland security agencies. ...
What's interesting about Facebook's lobbying in D.C. is what it spends money on despite its small size. It was the only consumer Internet company out of Google, Amazon, eBay, Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple to reach out to intelligence agencies last year, according to lobbying disclosure forms. It has lobbied the Office of the Director of National Intelligence -- an umbrella office founded in the wake of Sept. 11 that synthesizes intelligence from 17 agencies including the CIA and advises the President -- for the last three quarters on privacy and federal cyber-security policy. It has reached out to the Defense Intelligence Agency too.
Well, Facebook has always been an "op" http://cryptogon.com/?p=13749
Now, combine those observations with the next two pieces of information:
Virginia Tech Is Building an Artificial America in a Supercomputer
As many as 163 variables, mostly drawn from the U.S. Census, come into play for each synthetic American. Called EpiSimdemics, the model almost perfectly matches the demographic attributes of groups with at least 1500 people, according to Keith Bisset, a senior research associate who works on the simulation's software. The software generates fake people to populate real communities and assigns each person characteristics such as age, education level, and occupation to mirror local statistics derived from the most recent national census. In accordance with the data, some individuals are clustered into families, while others live alone.
Every synthetic household is assigned a real street address, based on land-use information from Navteq, a digital-mapping company. Using data from a business directory, each employed individual is matched to a specific job within a reasonable commute from the person's home. Similarly, actual schools, supermarkets, and shopping centers identified through Navteq's database are also linked to households based on their proximity to the home. When an artificial American goes grocery shopping, the simulation algorithm assigns probabilities that
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
I'm amused by the constant uproars people make every time facebook changes something. what the hell do they think the whole point of facebook is? that they are just providing this service for free? this is a classic case of people wanting their cake and eating it too.
meanwhile, government already has complete access to everyone's communication. you don't hear nearly so much about that anymore. I'm a lot more worried about law enforcement abuse than marketing products I might actually want at some point.
In this case, particular bits of data were disclosed to Facebook with the written understanding that they would remain private. That was according to Facebook's own privacy policy. Later, Facebook reneged on this understanding and unilaterally decided to made them retroactively public. They did this without giving anyone a chance to opt-out and there was no period of notice (between announcing this and actually doing it) to give users a chance to remove or edit that data. This is your classic bait-and-switch. They said one thing, got people to accept what they said on good faith, and then they did another thing.
I understand that Facebook wants to make money. Every for-profit corporation wants to make money. However, that doesn't give them the right to use deception and that's what happened here. Reputable companies manage to make profit without making promises they refuse to keep to their users or customers. What Facebook did is like moving the goalposts or changing the rules while the game is being played. Can you understand now why saying "did you think they were providing you a free service" is a strawman and fails to address the actual issue here?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Phew, good thing this doesn't apply to me. I managed to retroactively reject their privacy policy update.
Lots of 'agreements' have terms like that. In a lot of jurisdictions they carry no weight at all.
First you need to find out what jurisdiction. Facebook dosn't exactly go out of its way to tell you where they actually are. Their map implies they are in Western US, Eastern Canada, North West Europe (except Iceland), Russia, Japan, India, Egypt, Brazil, Colombia, Chilie, Nigeria, South Africa and South East Australia. Does selecting Canadian French mean that the jurisdiction is Canada; French French mean that it is France; Welsh that it is Wales; Czech that it is The Czech Republic; Catalan that it is Spain; etc.
The data is valuable to them when it's valid so change it to nonsense.
Or you could go after them for copyright infringement.
Its possible the retroactive parts of these changes are in breach of UK/EU data protection laws. The issue is that a holder of personal data may only use information for the purposes for which it was provided. If the person supplying the data wished to keep it relatively private and Facebook then later make it public without the informed prior consent of the user then there is a probable breach of the regulations.
Of course Facebook will say that they are not based in the EU but they probably do have servers and interests there and gain revenue from EU based advertisers.
That sounds an awful lot like sim city 2000....
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Imagine Facebook being composed mostly of misinformation.
So everyone go out and start changing your info... maybe several times a year.
Just as I saw GFP and was so aghast that someone who more than likely is a /. regular could even be so naive, I started figuring out how to refute him/her. Thanks for doing such a good job for me. I, being former military, and having plenty of contacts in DIA, State Department, Interpol and other intel agencies have been the guy crying wolf to my family and friends about facebook. Who really doesn't think that something so popular (usage of facebook surpassed usage of google recently) is going to get jumped on by at least a couple of agencies? It is quite sad that even people on /. fall for this. I recently had a similar argument with a friend. She asked, "I don't do anything bad over the phone, and though I might have personal conversations there really isn't anything you could find out about me that would be worth it.", I replied, assuming I have the ability to tap all your phone calls for a month, I probably have the following information, where and who you call, and how often, would probably also tell me the places you do business and where you are at certain times of the day. What kind of travel and what airlines you use. Called your bank? I know you last 4 and your credit card number, and its security code and expiration date. Starting to get the picture? I call it the google effect, where one little piece of information seems innocuous, so people keep throwing it out there, but it all adds up into one giant pile of knowledge about you, and anybody who values privacy should run, not walk, away from at least two services, google and facebook.
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
Ok after reviewing your links, your claims seem to be a bit over the top, but the idea behind your post still stands.
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
If i put "Baby raping" as an acticity (which of course it isn't),
they will make a page for that as well? I have to get rid of my
FB page now, since all of this is getting out of hand
I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
Why is this so difficult? Repeat after me "I will not post anything to the Internet that I do not want the whole world to know". And also "I will not trust a third party company to keep my data private ever even if they pinky swear to it". Then if you don't post things you do not want revealed then when the company (facebook in this case) makes the data public or gets hacked then nothing of value will be lost.
I also don't understand people who have facebook pages set all to private. What is the point of that. If you want to send information to a small group of people then set up a mailing list. Why you would use facebook for that purpose is completely beyond me. Instead tap into the fantastic intrinsic value that facebook has in building a brand identity and value for YOUR name. Post things that will make future employers, future lovers and your parents proud. Then you'll have nothing to hide because what you want hidden you never posted in the first place.
This story confirms one thing, only stupid people will use stupid site like Facebook, and share all details abouth themselves.
So long as you include the 'and share all details about themselves', I'd certainly agree: if there's something you don't want your boss or your relatives to find out then... duh... don't post it on the Internet. In my case that's easy because my boss and my relatives are on my Facebook friends lists so I know not to post anything they wouldn't want to see.
You literally have to be an Internet Olympic hero to delete or remove your Facebook account after these changes. But I found this story/guide, by Mathew Ingram very useful when I removed my facebook presence.
http://gigaom.com/2010/04/22/your-moms-guide-to-those-facebook-changes-and-how-to-block-them/
Even if you are not logged into facebook, due to instant personalization, many websites that partner with fb can track you.
FACEBOOK is at it again...violating your personal information: As of today, there is a new privacy setting called "Instant Personalization" that shares data with non-facebook websites and it is automatically set to "Allow." Go to Account > Privacy Settings > Applications and Websites and uncheck "Allow".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Eben Moglen:
We have a kind of social dilemma which comes from architectural creep. We had an Internet that was designed around the notion of peerage - machines with no hierarchical relationship to one another, and no guarantee about their internal architectures or behaviours, communicating through a series of rules which allowed disparate, heterogeneous networks to be networked together around the assumption that everybody's equal.
In the Web the social harm done by the client-server model arises from the fact that logs of Web servers become the trails left by all of the activities of human beings, and the logs can be centralised in servers under hierarchical control. Web logs become power. With the exception of search, which is a service that nobody knows how to decentralise efficiently, most of these services do not actually rely upon a hierarchical model. They really rely upon the Web - that is, the non-hierarchical peerage model created by Tim Berners-Lee, and which is now the dominant data structure in our world.
The services are centralised for commercial purposes. The power that the Web log holds is monetisable, because it provides a form of surveillance which is attractive to both commercial and governmental social control. So the Web, with services equipped in a basically client-server architecture, becomes a device for surveillance as well as providing additional services. And surveillance becomes the hidden service wrapped inside everything we get for free.
The cloud is a vernacular name which we give to a significant improvement in the server-side of the web - the server, decentralised. It becomes, instead of a lump of iron, a digital appliance, which can be running anywhere. This means that for all practical purposes servers cease to be subject to significant legal control. They no longer operate in a policy-directed manner, because they are no longer iron, subject to territorial orientation of law. In a world of virtualised service provision, the server which provides the service, and therefore the log which is the result of the hidden service of surveillance, can be projected into any domain at any moment and can be stripped of any legal obligation pretty much equally freely.
This is a pessimal result.
read the rest here.
if you're too lazy to read watch it here.
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
But with your data - and trillons of data rows.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Implication, triangulation and extrapolation.
Where will this be in 5-7 years?
Additional tidbit: Google is off and running to be the network and intelligence for your US "Smart Power Grid". A google tap on the meter outside your house. Did you see Brazil?
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Beyond that, you can use Facebook to present an image of yourself that has nothing to do with your real-life self. I "like" my local baseball team, but have little to no interest in baseball.
This is just like actual society, and in fact is actual society. If you have "social skills," you can use "social networking" safely. If you don't, watch out. Be a shut-in. It doesn't matter. It's going to reflect your own common sense and "social IQ."
--
Toro
Maybe you should retake that class?
Queue the litany of moronic douchebag Slashdot users whose only contribution to the thread will be a variant of "I don't use Facebook, and people who do are dumb." That may be true, but you're still a douchebag that didn't add anything to the conversation except to boost your own flagging self-esteem with a not-so-subtle "I told you so, and look how smart I am... I'm SO much better than people who use Facebook" statement. Do you feel better about yourself now? Thanks for adding nothing to the dialogue.
---As my daddy used to tell me: "You gotta be smart before you can be a smartass."
In light of the above, I'd recommend the following article (and series) at Global Research: The Transnational Homeland Security State and the Decline of Democracy
( http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18676 )
There are two bits here, relevant to the "Super Simulation" being built by NSA - and the role of ordinary Internet activity and Social Networks in functioning as data-sources:
In November of 2007, Keith Olbermann interviewed Mark Klein on MSNBC, where Klein elaborated on the secret program, saying that virtually all internet traffic in the entire country was handed over to the NSA. He appeared on MSNBC at a time when Congress was debating whether or not to grant the telecom companies legal immunity for participating in the NSA program, which would thus shut down all pending legal action being taken against the companies for their involvement in the illegal program. Klein reflected on his job, saying that, "Here I am, being forced to connect the Big Brother machine."
and:
In September of 2003, Congress ended funding for the program. The media then hailed the TIA program as "dead and gone." Yet, the funding was cut for the specific program as envisaged under the umbrella of TIA. The various programs within TIA could continue as separate projects, with the full funding and support of Congress. ...
In 2006, it was revealed that TIA stopped "in name only" and in fact does live on, and it "was moved from the Pentagon's research-and-development agency to another group, which builds technologies primarily for the National Security Agency." Interestingly, "Two of the most important components of the TIA program were moved to the Advanced Research and Development Activity, housed at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Md." The program has heavy involvement from private defense and intelligence contractors, highly secretive corporations that get major contracts from US intelligence agencies to be able to undertake intelligence activities that aren't subjected to Congressional oversight.
An infallible method of conciliating a tiger is to allow oneself to be devoured.
-- Konrad Adenauer
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Makes no difference where they are. A case between you and Facebook would almost certainly be filed in your district, not in Facebook's. They must comply with all applicable privacy laws everywhere they do business, not just in their own district. Sure, they could try to get a change of venue to a court in California or whatever, but it is unlikely that this would be granted, as holding the case in CA would be a significant hardship for you, but holding the case elsewhere would not be a significant hardship for a large corporation like Facebook.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
One of the defining features of arm-chair socialists is that they think that.
A lot of people really do not keep up with the latest decisions Facebook is making with regard to personal privacy, or are even aware that Facebook can, at any time, reveal their data.
You make the assumption that these people are uninformed, but I think in actuality most simply DON'T CARE. Most people do not live at the same high level of paranoia that Slashdotters do. Many people really could not care less who knows where and with whom they par-teyed with last weekend or that they are killer at Mafia Wars or that they live in Portland Oregon and read bodice rippers and think Kim Kardashian is HOT. Most people don't care if the CIA or NSA or whatever government spooks know this tripe. And most are aware that after they graduate from college, they can delete or lock down their Facebook so that "potential employers" can't see.
Those that are "alarmed" by Facebook don't use it. Those that do don't care. It's a mistake to assume that Facebook users don't know the "risks".
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Completely off-topic, but did your friend perhaps say "Don't inflame, inform."
We are the product. We're what Facebook sells to advertisers in order to bring in their business. Facebook needs to offer just enough privacy and control to keep most of us, but not so much as to ruin the value of the product.
I'm glad some attention is finally being brought to this. I edited my profile a couple of days ago, and hit the new interests-to-fan page conversion. It did not do a great job at all; I ended up a fan of some really off-the-wall, incorrect things (because the same word or title can have multiple meanings or belong to multiple organizations). My immediate concern was that there is still no way to make membership to a fan page private. So I immediately checked the privacy settings, and while I had been opted in (without consent) to display my likes and interests, there is a privacy option to make them private. The *HUGE* catch in the fine print is that people can still check to see if you are the member of any fan page simply by looking through the group's members, where you'll be visible. Unless I am mistaken, only reliable option for people with legitimate concerns about human rights violations, nosy employers, angry exes, or nosy family members is now to enter absolutely no interests, things to do, music, movie, or books on Facebook, as all of this data is now at least partially public, regardless of how security settings are configured. I just read an article that discussed identifying intimate details, such as a person's sexuality, using only this publicly available data and statistical data. While things like that are generally protected in the US, consider Facebook members abroad - people who practice a religion or philosophy in countries where there is religious persecution could be at tremendous risk now, and not even know it. All their government would have to do is start scanning certain fan pages. Obviously, Facebook's income does not come from members, it comes from advertisers, who are its real customers. However, for the last couple years, they have made Buzz-worthy privacy moves that its millions of members really need to stand up to, before somebody gets hurt.
I do use the strictest 'privacy' settings, but that is just to put a little more control over companies using my information for their monetary gain
You do realize that the information you listed *IS* being used for monetary gain regardless of what your "Privacy" settings are? You do realize that is the entire point of this article and Facebook, in general. Your data is already being sold.
Ah, another gold zealot.
Question for you: What intrinsic value does gold have that renders it more suitable for a store of value than a piece of paper? Answer: Nothing. You can't eat it, you can't plant it, you can't drive it, you can't breathe it, and it won't protect you from 'raptors. Gold is used for electronics and jewelry, and the fluctuating demand for those goods is the second largest factor controlling the price of gold. You may ask what the largest factor is, and I'll tell you: It's the bankers, who set the price of gold in closed meetings according to what they individually desire.
Gold is no better money than cowrie shells, and modern society has rightly left that sort of archaism behind centuries ago.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
Ironically, I was facebooked by my former boss about this assault on my privacy.
The value of gold is that it is relatively rare, cannot be manufactured, and is finite. A gold standard isn't about gold being inherently valuable - it's about governments being able to issue more wealth than they have available to back it.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
If we did eliminate that income tax as you suggest, I predict the first impact would be lower wages. People would be willing to work less since they get to keep more of it. After an adjustment period, most people would be right back where they were in terms of net income.
You're trolling right? People will stop putting forth effort because they get to keep more of what they put forth effort to get? It's a disincentive to keep what you earn?
So, tell me, truthfully, if I keep you working for 8 hours a day, but only let you keep the rewards from 4 hours of your work, this will be more of a motivation to put forth more effort than if I allow you keep the rewards of 7 out of the 8 hours you work? If I ask you to work an extra 4 hours which reward system would make you more willing to work the extra hours? The reward system that allows you to keep only 2 hours of rewards, or the system that allows you to keep 3.5 hours of rewards?
Under which scheme, the first or the second, would you put more money into the economy? Under which scheme would you have more disposable income, a greater chance of owning your own home, of buying a new car, of being debt-free, of being able to afford putting your kids through college?
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
So if it's not even close to true, instead of standing on the mountain going "THIS ISN'T TRUE! YOU ALL ARE IDIOTS!" whu don't you provide some concrete information about WHY it's not true?
According to the article (and the Facebook blog post that it refers to) the links aren't public unless/until you opt-in. The issue that the EFF has is that the only opt-out is to remove them as interests:
Update: A few people have contacted us by email and through Facebook to ask for clarification about this post. They're confused by the language in Facebook's announcement, which describes the new changes as "opt-in".
The issue with Facebook's latest change is not that they force you to link your interests without permission, but rather that they remove an option to express yourself on the profile without links.
I can't confirm or deny this myself because my Facebook profile is devoid of information, but the summary here implies that your interests are moved over to the new system automatically and without notification. Neither the EFF article nor the Facebook blog announcing this feature says that though, in fact they say just the opposite
It's like the dude who promises to pull out before ejaculating. Oops, sorry, couldn't help myself.
Besides, you people are using real info on a website? Damn.
No it isn't. You could teach an entire class about economic systems that didn't have a currency.
Sure, Slashdot editors might not bother to fix typos or any of the other errors we see every day on Slashdot. But one would expect them to be a little bit careful about defamation and check before posting blatant lies like this.
Stalkface (as I now call it) has become such an integral social platform that it really does have us by the 'nads. I'm middle-aged, and Stalkface has enabled a certain level of ambient social chatter for me which ranges from elementary school deaf kid cohorts to contemporary friends, acquaintances and correspondents. Then again, I've been on-line in one forum or another since 1989, circa the cold fusion debacle, so I figure that getting screwed by the panopticon became the default long ago.
Where would I find these girls who stalk Geeks? Curious minds want to know.
What happens if/when the chosen standard experiences a drastic change in abundance? E.g. say we choose gold, and everything's going along just wonderfully. Then the first wave of asteroid belt mining probes report a rock, 99.9% pure gold, fifty klicks wide. "Oops." Or we solve the Grand Unified Theory, and it reveals an easy way to transmute elements. "Oops". Or we simply discover a ridiculously massive vein under some beach somewhere.
Seems to me we need a simpler standard: "don't spend what you don't have". Though I suspect the problem isn't our standards, it's that we aren't enforcing them; "Too big to fail."
Disclaimer: economics newb.
Civilized life requires even more labor.
If everyone is rich, who will harvest the crops, ship them, prepare them, serve them?
Who will clean the toilets, maintain the sewers, fix your broken pipes?
Who will maintain the roads, buildings, storefronts, and so on?
Whenever a society starts reaching a point where too many people are wealthy enough that they don't have to work, a financial adjustment of some sort happens to correct the situation. Inflation usually but also stock market and wage fluctuation etc.
I see my original post got modded troll as of this writing. I am not entirely sure how I feel about that.
After an adjustment period, most people would be right back where they were in terms of net income.
You're trolling right? People will stop putting forth effort because they get to keep more of what they put forth effort to get? It's a disincentive to keep what you earn?
No, that isn't what I was getting at.
People who hold a job that is typically worth...say...80k/year...but who don't like it would be willing to find a different, but similar, job for 70k. Why? Because even after the pay cut, they would still be taking home more.
So the ambient bidding-war between employees (for jobs) would suddenly see a price drop, since people will easily be able to under bid their competition while still gaining a higher income.
Over time (and not much time) things will settle down to about what they were before the cut in terms of take-home. 80k jobs will now be worth closer to 40k on the open market, and so the net-effect will be the same.
if I keep you working for 8 hours a day, but only let you keep the rewards from 4 hours of your work, this will be more of a motivation to put forth more effort than if I allow you keep the rewards of 7 out of the 8 hours you work?
Well I wasn't talking about long hours. I was talking about the economics of wages. Apparently I failed to make that clear.
If I ask you to work an extra 4 hours
If you do this a lot, I would start looking for a job that didn't do this. And I would be willing to accept a pay-cut for such a job, since I could still make more than I had been making before the tax-cut. Of course, not EVERYONE would do this...but you would easily be able to say things to me like "you must justify your salary since I am getting resumes submitted to me from people who want to do the same work you are for half the money." I am sure some people would work twice as hard for that kind of money...but most people want some semblance of work-life balance so eventually you would replace me with someone cheaper or I would move on to a lower-paid position. As would the majority of people, thus pulling wages down generally.
Under which scheme would you have more disposable income,
What I was getting at is that if everyone has more disposable income, the value of the dollar changes. Inflation goes up to compensate. It must.
A large working class is a necessity (someone has to scrub those toilets, grow the food, fix your air conditioner, etc). If you let everyone save to the point that they can retire early, suddenly your working class gets too small and you need a way to force many of those people back into it. Generally no evil-government conspiracy is needed...the value of the dollar changes as a simple function of economics, and that keeps the workers poor enough that they have to keep working in order to eat.
After deliberating for the last few months, I have just deleted my facebook account.
It feels very liberating. I'm looking forward to all the free time I will have. Looking at all the crap that your "friends" post is such a waste of time.
Yay :)
I see your reasoning as holding no value whatsoever.
Your examples of conditions are found in highly taxed societies on a regular basis. There's always someone willing to take a little less money to get out of a situation they find intolerable. There's also always a boss ready to tell their employees that they can find someone who will work for less money too. The tighter the job market, the more bosses threaten their employees. The more opportunity for the employees the less it happens. Job availability is the determining factor for the frequency of instances in both examples. Wages are unrelated to either, unless the wage is so low the employee goes elsewhere.
That you claim to see these common examples of working life as a justification for high taxes stretches my credulity to the breaking point. I believe you're either not serious, or if you are. that you have given no real thought to your position. Your logic is terrible.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
I cannot think of a single friend of mine that does not have a profile.
That's sad. You should really have at least one friend with a different opinion...at least about whether FaceBook is a good thing.
And get off my lawn, I suspect.
[UID-HeinzIntel]
I use Facebook and almost all of my "personal" info is a lie or a smart ass answer, like just listing "Apathy" for "Interests". If someone is stupid enough to believe what I said in the info section, I don't want to talk to them anyway. Only tell the truth on the web when you absolutely have to.
No it isn't. You could teach an entire class about economic systems that didn't have a currency.
Economics without currency? That would be COMMUNISM!
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Gold is no better money than cowrie shells, and modern society has rightly left that sort of archaism behind centuries ago.
That's what the Federal Reserve and the gold lobby WANT you to think! TRUE money requires cowie shells and always has!!!1!
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
The value of gold is that it is relatively rare, cannot be manufactured, and is finite. A gold standard isn't about gold being inherently valuable - it's about governments being able to issue more wealth than they have available to back it.
s/governments/banks. Governments haven't directly created money for a long time now. They issue bonds instead, which is just what private organisations can do. It's just that large and stable governments tend to have better credit ratings.
Also last time I checked, gold was very much manufactured through an exotic and little-understood process called 'mining'.
Of course it makes perfect sense to measure the economic growth of a civilisation through a metal dug out of the earth by poorly paid labourers on the other side of the earth. Because if we can't get any more of that magic mineral, all humans and all computers and machines will naturally fall over and die, owing to that we eat gold and put gold on our crops and in our petrol tanks.
Or wait, is that oil? I keep confusing those two.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
They should be held accountable for sure, but at the same time, i never would have put so much info about myself there in the first place...takes 2 to tango and i think both parties are to blame, facebook for misleading the public, and the public for putting their info there in the first place. Facebook has its uses...but i think if i wanted to set up a way to track my population in case i needed a government operation to have quick access to all that info, it would be pretty obvious.
Also now that you know, change your info ...all of it, replace it with funny things to say or fake stuff, most of your real friends know you already, if they don't recognize something, it wont hurt.
If you're afraid of their intelligence gathering and profiling, the worst action you could take would be removing yourself from the honeypots. That's like waving a giant red flag saying "I've caught on to the scam!" If they're using the data for nefarious reasons, you're going to be identified as someone who, early on, proved troublesome. If you're already on the networks, you'd be far more likely to fly under the radar by gently subverting your profile into something that will be perceived innocuous instead of an abrupt removal. Corrupting their data is far more protective than merely limiting what they have available.
That's funny; there are many university students as well as community college and high school students that use Facebook. As for Community Colleges they're not conservative brain washing colleges as there are instructors who are modern liberals just as there are those who are conservative.