Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Throws Privacy Advocates a Bone
sarysa writes "In response to a week-long assault by privacy advocates, and following a well publicized all-hands meeting, Facebook has introduced two new security features in response to privacy concerns. One feature allows users to whitelist devices associated with a Facebook account, and the other allows users who verify their identity to view previous logins. While both are useful features, they do nothing to address the recent privacy complaints."
Throws them "a bone" or "the bone?"
This isn't a bone.. its not even scraps, its more like the leftover grease from a Macdonalds happy meal.
is an idiomatic expression the purpose of which is to divert the audience from the truth or an item of significance. For example, in mystery fiction, an innocent party may be purposefully cast as highly suspicious through emphasis or descriptive techniques; attention is drawn away from the true guilty party.
---
How is this any different than my bank forcing me to get an 'authorization code' via Text every time I login with a computer that doesn't have their cookie set?
The ninth highest search on Google is "delete facebook account"
Looks like the house of cards is starting to crumble. I know it's stupid, but maybe if they kept it simple like back in the day.... (Although I love the API for batch uploading photos)
The result of this will be very telling. If the firestorm over Facebook's privacy settings dies down after they roll out two features that have absolutely nothing to do with the problems people had with them, then people are even bigger sheep than I thought they were. I weep for the future of civilization.
When you white-list your computer, the suggestions are something like "my home computer", and "office computer 1", and "vacation computer". This simply provides facebook with even more personal information to use in targeted advertising. If anything, though this does enhance security, it is at the expense of even more of the user's privacy.
Insofar as those two things are separate. Both of these measures are security measures. The former a convenience measure designed hopefully to get people to use better passwords in exchange for not having to remember them on a half dozen mobile devices. The latter for damage control of sorts.
The fundamental problem remains: facebook's founder and corporate elite have a specific interpretation of privacy, identity and self. Their service is built around this interpretation and so their users are forced to share it, operationally. That is the problem which eats away at the core of facebook. Small feature changes only shore up the edges.
They're good moves, don't get me wrong, but I'm more worried about all of the privacy data flying around to who-knows-where. Was anyone complaining about how a friend took their phone and logged into Facebook to look at their Friends' vacation photos? If someone hacks my account that's a completely separate issue.
Nobody is sticking a shotgun to anyone's head and forcing them to use Facebook.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Facebook is so 3 years ago. People still use it?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If the company was any serious regarding their user's privacy and rights then they wouldn't come up with a propaganda campaign regarding supposedly intensive talks on privacy (which was nothing more than a PR stunt to come off as seriously facing this profoundly serious problem while doing absolutely nothing) to, in the end, come up with absolutely pathetic measures such as past logins and associating devices with the user accounts.
These measures are profoundly insulting to any semi-intelligent user . They amount to nothing more than hand-waving and bring absolutely nothing to the privacy field, let alone do any thing protect it. Facebook still keeps generating it's income by abusing all their user's privacy and it still presents a serious security problem, as they intentionally and intensively sell very personal information they continuously compile from their herd of users.
Delete your account the night before your birthday. That way, your friends are aware of your birthday (because FB notifies people of this a few days in advance), and when they go to wish you a happy one, but can't, they'll contact you and ask what's up. You can simply reply you've stopped using FB for privacy concerns.
You won't sound preachy and paranoid to them, you'll just reinforce to them by example why they may not want to use this service. Also, in somewhat notable and dramatic fashion you'll be telling your friends that from now on they'll need to contact you the old fashioned way.
The morning drive-time radio DJ I listen to (Rod Ryan in Houston) did a segment yesterday on how people were fleeing Facebook due to privacy concerns. He interviewed his own interns who all said the same thing "I've shut down my Facebook account. I'm not going back there." (or words to that effect).
When it breaks to the mainstream press that Facebook is bleeding subscribers, when even the morning DJ runs a long segment on the problems with Facebook and talking about how to go about leaving Facebook, then I'm prompted to ask - Is Facebook toast?
More down to earth - Was that DJ right? Is Facebook losing huge numbers? Is there any way to know for sure?
Did they claim that these two *security* features were in response to the privacy concerns? Or did speculation make that connection? I agree that there are privacy problems, but unless they claim that this is in response to those concerns, don't assume that they are.
In response to concerns about its exploding car engines, a major car manufacturer has added additional cup holders to its vehicles.
-William Brendel
You're gonna bleed....
To quote a phrase, "Dumb fucks."
Funny how Facebook implements these new security measures when most of the uproar has been over privacy issues relating to changes in their terms of service (changes which were made without user consent or re-agreement).
Seems like an attempt at misdirection to me.
One of my friends showed me this project. It looks promising. http://www.joindiaspora.com/
Essentially, a peer to peer open source social network
The meat is for the man
The bone is for the dog
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
These features have been around for longer than the meeting. Facebook is just screwing everyone over.
Credibility is hard to build and easy to lose and Zuckerberg's crew has lost it thoroughly and permanently. The "dumb fucks" story has already been told and the decisive minority (essentially the opinion makers of the Internet) has already decided: Facebook is a dead man walking. Can't say I'm sorry to see them go. The question is now how long will they be able to delay their demise and who will replace them.
It actually goes one step further than that: It gave people who don't know every single detail of the TOS and all the other agreements the ability to share private information about their friends with complete strangers, without either friend's even knowing they've done so.
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
I didn't "quit"[*] because I was afraid my data was being leaked to my phone. I "quit" because it was being leaked across the whole goddamn Internet. This move is beyond worthless, and shows just how Zuck doesn't get it.
[*] No one really quits. They just "deactivate," while facebook keeps all your data. Remember when Facebook said that users owned their own data, yet never provided a way to completely delete it, nor export it? Talk is cheap. Platitudes even cheaper. Code is law.
"It's clear that despite our efforts, we are not doing a good-enough job [of] communicating the changes that we're making," Elliot Schrage, vice president for public policy at Facebook said to the New York Times.
No. You're not getting it.
If people disagree with what you're doing, it's not a question of your needing to communicate better.
This is not a "bone for privacy advocates." It's a tiny, insignificant little thing that changes nothing and barely warrants an update on the Facebook site. So why do all these trivial little details become Slashdot news worthy?
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that Slashdot does keep me up to date with the more critical Facebook changes, but I find it a bit pathetic that Slashdot users feel the need to use the news literaly as a changelog for Facebook.
Hah, so i just tried to log in to Facebook to tell my friends about this, and now Facebook requires me to "Register this computer" in order to continue. No option to do otherwise. All you can do is click on the facebook logo, which then asks for your password again. SO now I can't use facebook at all unless I "register my computer".
Zuckerberg is a Bitch.
And whats with verifying your identity? I mean, aren't my 100 friends enough verification? Who needs my verification?
So essentially they are selling one feature to lower your privacy, and one to guarantee uniqueness (veeery useful for advertisers) as “more privacy”.
That is spin doctor masters’ class stuff right there.
Unfortunately they are not actual masters, as it’s in-you-face obvious that it’s fucked up.
Should have asked the MAFIAA instead of Glenn Beck for advice. ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Zuckenberg's strategy on privacy has long been to do something, see what the reaction is, then peddle backwards or forwards as appropriate. Then do it again. Creeping forward while they're not looking has worked brilliantly for Google. I hate the idea of their recording my search history and scanning my e-mail, but slowly I've learned (unwisely?) to trust them and so while those things bother me still, they don't bother me so much as they used to.
Look at Google's recent scanning of Wireless networks from the Streetview cars. Supposedly this was an accident. Oh LOL. But if they do it again in a few years maybe by then people won't mind. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/13/2898947.htm?section=business In most countries we even accept Google peeping over our fences, literally! When this news broke I remember some people (who presumably weren't employed by Google) vigorously defending Google's rights to do this: the public screaming for less privacy. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/biz-tech/google-to-reshoot-japanese-street-view-images-20090615-c9f1.html
We shot the messenger when Scott McNeally said we had no privacy - get over it, but he knew what we didn't: Never stand between a corporation and a pot of money.
I had more privacy than Facebook.
Glad I wiped my FB.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I was browsing my Facebook settings just last night. I believed that I had already handled this chore, but this time I paid more attention to the section with application settings obscurely nestled four clicks into the mess they call privacy settings. For some reason you can't actually tell what's going on at a single glance as I previously thought, and need to switch among views like 'authorized' and 'allowed to post' (whatever the difference is, I do not know) to actually see what's going on. That's where I discovered that a couple like Farmville and some quiz app had been "authorized" despite the fact that I have never used them nor ever opted into them.
I suppose I should feel grateful that they even allow us to delete them.
So now I wonder how long my information has been shared with these parties that I don't even use. And that doesn't even explain all the other apps, because I'm sincerely unsure if they're all enabled by default and I have to block them manually. For example, I was on a site called Livestream the other day to find it had accessed my Facebook cookie with my user information splayed about their page. I can't find any recourse to this--my privacy settings claim to have 'select partners instantly personalizing their features with my public information...' disabled. Evidently, some select partners are more privy than others. Meanwhile, clicking the privacy button on Livestream simply routes one to the Facebook privacy policy where they kindly explain that you are fucked.
Unfortunately, Opera has no pertinent settings about ensuring that cookies are only retrieved by the original domain so if Facebook won't take measures against this then perhaps the browser devs will and I am going to post the feature request later. Clearly we are going to have to take these measures ourselves because this story proves that Facebook staff aren't even listening.
There are two things I don't understand:
1) people who are addicted to Facebook, and feel the need to post every single one of their inane thoughts on FB
2) how those inane thoughts have any marketing value and/or how it affects the users "privacy".
I understand the PII (Personally Indentifying Information) issues like birthday, hometown, etc, but does ANYONE really care that one of my friends from High School (whom I haven't spoken to in over 18 years but 'friended via FB) is proud that his daughter scored her first goal in soccer today?? (True story, btw.)
Is someone actually mining that random piece of trivia into an actionable data point that can then be used to generate revenue? I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
Facebook is useless. I don't even get the appeal. If I want to talk to someone I call them on the phone, or talk to them directly. Why would I want to have 100% public conversations with people about eating a ham sandwich?
.. create misinformation. Can't delete your Facebook account? Fill it up with superfluous information unrelated to you.
* change your name to something like "Max Power"
* change your music preferences to the most common rubbish you can think of
* etc etc etc
This is the only way out, folks. Your information is there forever, but you can still change it.
No one ever said what Google was doing is illegal. They're too bright for that, and the law hasn't caught up with them. Two hundred years ago if you wanted a private conversation you went behind the barn. These days there are snooping and roving eyes, ears and message drops everywhere. The same law that says nothing about Google snooping at your Wifi, would throw the book at them if they tapped your cellular (GoogleConversation(TM)! Hear what people are saying on their phone! Now in Beta!) The difference there is the law has caught up.
BTW do you see a pattern in these mea culpas for those incidents?
Facebook: Everyone within the company understands our success is inextricably linked with people's trust in the company and the service we provide.
Google's Chief Engineer Akan Eustace: 'Maintaining people's trust is crucial to everything we do, and in this case we fell short.'
See? Try it, and if you're caught apologize (and don't get caught next time! ;-)
In the past few months, my employer has issued this directive:
"Employees that use social media that also discloses their employment with the company are directed and required to report that to HR, or to remove references to their employment with (redacted). If you disclose your employment, all postings must meet professional guidelines as defined in the employee handbook. Directives to edit or remove postings as directed by HR or Communications are non discretionary as long as the site identifies your employment. Employees that maintain a "comment" area of any kind are instructed to ensure all viewable "comments" are within the guidelines of the employee handbook. That the comments themselves are made by others
is irrelevant - If these comments are visible to the general public, they must remain within published employee
handbook guidelines if your site identifies your employment.
Violations of this policy are subject to review of employment (eg: getting fired)."
On balance, I see this as reasonable. If you say you work somewhere, then the employer may review the posts, regardless of who made them. If you don't say where you work, then what anyone says is none of their business.
If you want to say you work for XYZ Corp. Fine and dandy - as long as it conforms to their policy.
If you don't want to conform to their policy, you are free to do so - as long as you don't say you
work for XYZ.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Privacy? What privacy? As long as Facebook requires your real name and age, I will not create an account on it. Facebook has no right to that information. An email address and nickname should be all they ask for.
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
And that, my liege, is how we know the Web to be banana-shaped.
This new learning amazes me, Sir Zuckerberg. Explain again how a series of tubes may be employed to eliminate privacy.
Oh, certainly, sir.
Look, my liege!
[trumpets]
Facebook!
Facebook!
Facebook!
It's only a website.
Shhh!
Friends, I bid you welcome to your new home. Let us ride... to Facebook.
[singing]
We're Friends of the round table
We Poke when e're we're able
We do Farmville and play Mob Wars
With mousework impecc-able
We lurk around on Facebook
We tag and quiz our friends a lot!
[dancing]
We're Friends of the round table
Our Likes are for-mid-able
Though many times we're given gifts
That are fake and unuse-able
We're news-feed mad on Facebook
We check from mobile phones a lot!
[tap-dancing]
Oh, our Walls we cradle
Quite indefatigable
Between our posts we friend request
And pad our list where able
It's a busy life on Facebook
I have to push the 'Hide' a lot!'!
[outdoors]
Well, on second thought, let's not go to Facebook -- it is a silly place.
Right.
Right.
for legal battles to begin. Grab the bull (Facebook) by the horns and FU&K it up the arse. Now there is a bone we can all appreciate.