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.
What do you use instead?
I'm sick of this extreme form of pointing and laughing.
No, no one is literally forcing you to use Facebook. You can gladly stay off of it.
Problem.
If any of your friends use Facebook, they can easily tag you in a photo without your ass ever knowing it. If any relatives use Facebook, they can easily mark your birthday as an event. If a boyfriend/girlfriend uses Facebook, they can boast about where you ate dinner.
If you ever joined Facebook, even if you joined back when they had the promise of privacy for those who sought it, you are permanently in their system, even if you try to delete your account.
If you stay off of Facebook, your friends and colleagues assume it's because of some anti-social horrible problem with you and treat you very differently.
But, you're right. No one is literally trying to kill you, so Facebook should be allowed to rape and pillage privacy rights.
Email, a blog and - if just for photos - Picasa; all freely available from Google...
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.
Friendster
In response to concerns about its exploding car engines, a major car manufacturer has added additional cup holders to its vehicles.
-William Brendel
One of the most important aspects of friendship is trust. A friend is not defined by by clicking the "friend" button on a website, a friend is someone that you share a bond of mutual understanding and respect with. Friends have always had privileged access to embarrassing information, stories and photos because they're the people that you trust information like that with and sharing it strengthens those bonds.
Facebook doesn't change the nature of friendship, it just provides new ways of communicating. Providing people that you don't trust with information about your personal life is a poor idea, as it has always been. "Friending" someone changes the access that that person has to your personal information and such access should be granted on the basis of trust and respect. People need to be aware of the access privileges that they provide to different groups of peers. Facebook is a useful tool and can be almost a necessity for remaining in touch, but nobody is forcing you to change who you trust your information with.
One thing that I think would be a good idea for Facebook to implement would be rule-based access privileges for different groups that you can define. The groups shouldn't be visible to anyone other than yourself, of course; the last thing you'd need would be for "friends" to see that they weren't "good friends."
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
If you stay off of Facebook, your friends and colleagues assume it's because of some anti-social horrible problem with you and treat you very differently.
Really? Mine don't seem to, they just remember to email me with announcements for things, as well as posting them on Facebook. It probably helps that I run a mailing list that my friends use for announcing parties and so on, and have done since before most of them put their faces in the book. Most of my interaction with my friends doesn't go via the Internet at all though, so maybe I'm unusual and surrounded by other unusual people. It's hard to dance online.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
google, the company that knows you searched for "gay bars in Atlanta", "hurts when I pee", "red spots on penis" and "free vd clinic atlanta" all within the last week?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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 point is that you can't absolutely control everything that other people do. No matter how much you trust people, unless a specific group is THE ONLY people you ever talk to, you can't guarantee anything.
Example: some of your friends have a party. Chances are that it's not going to just be the six of you there. There's going to be many people you don't really know that well. Those people can take pictures of the party and post them to Facebook; if you get tagged in there, that could be bad for you. Your only options to avoid that would be to either skip all parties forever, or sit in a corner the entire time and don't move (or drink), thus doing nothing that could be remotely damaging.
The bigger issue is naivety. Even if you trust people, they might not realize the damage they can do with Facebook--and I'd wager this is 90% of people using it. Unless all your friends are all Slashdot-types (Heaven help you if they are ;) ), they might do something that compromises you without realizing what they've done.
That's the problem with these things. It's the damage other people can do to you that's scary. The mere fact that you have to opt-out of what your friends can share about you is just ridiculous. It makes keeping anything but a bare-bones profile more risky than it's worth.
Another real issue with all this sharing of info is that privacy laws are based on what is "reasonable." For instance, you can't sue a newspaper if your face appears in the background of a photo taken in public. It's unreasonable to expect complete invisibility when in public. As such, as people share more and more, those things become reasonable in the eyes of the law. For instance, people don't encrypt their hard drives. If you do and you go through customs, they will presume you are hiding something and ask your to unlock it, and if you don't, they will detain you and break it themselves. In an extreme scenario, the very act of not having a Facebook account might make people (say, potential employers, or police even) assume you have something to hide and cost you.
I hate to say it, but you are unusual. Go to a college. Any college. Every dorm at my college followed the same path: Facebook friend your room mates and everyone on your floor, so you can chat with them. Then shout responses to their Facebook messages so you can both laugh out loud. I wish I were joking.
The snarky, yet 'insightful', AC comment claiming that I need new friends (as if I was using my own circle of friends as an example, ha) is a beautiful dream. In the end, the average human being is stupid, and on Facebook. You can either dissociate yourself with the millions of people who use Facebook, or you can swallow your egotistical pride. The choice is yours, although you won't always like the results.
Oh please, don't get pedantic. You obviously understood the point of what I was saying, but chose to ignore it.
There is no guarantee of privacy with Facebook. Even if you kept your information hidden to everyone but your friends, your friends can slip up. If they use an application to fill out a survey about you, for example, that application instantly gets free access to your information. If they take a picture and tag you in it, any of their friends can see it.
Plus, as Zuck made it obvious on the 13th, he's got all of your info and doesn't give a damn who gets it.
Facebook changed the nature of friendship. It gave people who don't care about privacy the ability to share private information about their friends with complete strangers, without ever getting consent from the friend.
No, it does not. I never once implied that joining Facebook magically improves your security. However, if you never register, you never know if you're tagged in a picture. I wore a Halloween costume and someone took a picture of me. Someone told me I was on a Facebook picture. Could I find it? No. Is my name on it? Who knows? I don't know the person who has the picture; but they obviously have access to my friends, so maybe they know my name.
And I'm not sure what this strange fascination is with ACs and believing I was personally attributing that friends/colleagues comment to my personal life. I keep better friends, but you are damn delusional if you don't think the average drooling moron is exactly like that.
From someone else's damn miserable life. I love that you're an AC who's replying, that's rare.
I can't find the comment I pulled that example from. If you really want to discredit my entire post because you're fixated on it being my boo-hoo miserable life, then I guess I can go find it for you. If you just want to step back, breathe, and just relax, we can do that too. All depends on how petty you are.
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
Suing shouldn't be the only solution. Facebook actually has rules written in about how you can sue them; I have no idea if those rules need be followed, I certainly doubt it's true. Even so, suing is expensive and tedious.
It saddens me deeply that the only way to protect one's privacy from idiocy is to sue.
No need to wait for your birthday to role around.
I have recently decided to leave FB partially due to privacy reasons and partially because I'm bored of my inbox being full of messages from people on Facebook asking why I haven't been on Facebook in a week or so. So I updated my status saying that I would soon be leaving permanently. I don't like Facebook and I wish I could just stop using it but friends use it to invite me to partys and nights ou,t so is if I don't use it I will end up sitting at home alone. I have now told them (using there preferred contact method) that I'm off and all the people who I really care about staying in contact with will either have my contact details or be able to get hold of them in the next week or two.
Hopefully this time next month I will not have a Facebook account at all.
Most Damage is done by people who are AWAKE
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.
At least Google is only using that data themselves rather than selling it to anyone and everyone. (at least for now)
Anybody could put a picture of your on a blog or a personal website, or on a telephone pole. You worried about that? If you are worried about people taking pictures of you doing stupid things, then maybe you shouldn't do stupid things. Even without cameras, people could still tell other people about what you did. It's not as though people in the pre-internet days had no idea what you were up to ever.
And even if the picture is on Facebook, it's really not personally identifying in any structured way except to friends. You can't search on it. It's not connected with an email address or user account. It might as well not be there.
If you stay off of Facebook, your friends and colleagues assume it's because of some anti-social horrible problem with you and treat you very differently.
Is this called the Lemming syndrome? It sounds like you sheeple need to turn off the stupid box and get out more often.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Yeah, maybe you can find some on Chatroullette.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
"Said the poster under a fake name..."
said the Anonymous Coward.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
"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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I love puppies...and only 140 calories per serving.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
It's just an AC troll. Let it go.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
If any of your friends use Facebook, they can easily tag you in a photo without your ass ever knowing it. If any relatives use Facebook, they can easily mark your birthday as an event. If a boyfriend/girlfriend uses Facebook, they can boast about where you ate dinner.
I don't see how this changes much. The same information was/is still acquired without facebook. People take out the family album all the time and people (especially parents) are happy to tell the world about children's birthdays called "birthday parties". Your girlfriend also probably tells her friends about where you went for your dinner. People are also known to spread random facts and lies about you. They're called rumors.
If you stay off of Facebook, your friends and colleagues assume it's because of some anti-social horrible problem with you and treat you very differently.
Perhaps the younger generations do this but I don't think anything of it. I do know one person that refuses to use many of the "modern" forms of communication including facebook and text messaging. That is fine except that this person also expects us to call her (voice call) and invite her individually for random small events like say watching a movie. That is bologna because I'm not going to go out of my way to call everyone else and invite them personally for something so trivial when the current mode of operation is to blast out a text message to everyone and see who's interested, THEN start communicating with those people individually. Even then I don't really treat this individual any differently, I do give her crap about making us jump through hoops to satisfy her availability.
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.
If any of your friends use Facebook, they can easily tag you in a photo without your ass ever knowing it. If any relatives use Facebook, they can easily mark your birthday as an event. If a boyfriend/girlfriend uses Facebook, they can boast about where you ate dinner.
All of this information could be aggregated anyway. The problem with facebook is centralization. And if you don't have a facebook account, then while people can tag stuff with your name, it's not linked to your identity in any other way. If it's not linked to a facebook account, a tagging isn't a link at all, it's just an annotation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
And really, we should all be able to just use any blog with syndication for this purpose. Just give your URL to anyone who you want to 'follow' you. Protect it if that's not everyone. Perhaps what we need is some sort of standard for mixing RSS and certificate authentication?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"One thing that I think would be a good idea for Facebook to implement would be rule-based access privileges for different groups that you can define. The groups shouldn't be visible to anyone other than yourself, of course; the last thing you'd need would be for "friends" to see that they weren't "good friends.""
Facebook actually already has this. I use it all the time. Grouped my co-workers into a group, and I can exclude them from seeing certain posts (of a more personal nature, not things about them.)
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.
Then maybe the problem is with your friends/family/etc... and their lack of respect for your privacy? But it's easier to blame Facebook for not providing an expensive system for free that manages the data freely provided to it in the exact fashion you want it managed so you can interact with any and everyone, but only how and when you want to.
Not to pick on you in particular. Just all the people like you.
The internet and the apps it supports make all kinds of data more readily available to anyone. Not just the data we want shared - all data. The RIAA wishes it wasn't so easy to share music. You wish it wasn't so easy to share your personal info. I wish Company X did a better job of protecting credit card numbers. Too bad - too late.
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.
One thing that I think would be a good idea for Facebook to implement would be rule-based access privileges for different groups that you can define. The groups shouldn't be visible to anyone other than yourself, of course; the last thing you'd need would be for "friends" to see that they weren't "good friends."
Use the "Friend lists" feature. You can make as many lists as you like, based around whichever criteria you like (work, hobbies, trust level).
When you post pictures/status updates/links, click the little privacy 'lock' icon and select 'custom'. It'll allow you to show your post to named individuals or lists. It'll also allow you to block it from named individuals or lists.
so Facebook should be allowed to rape and pillage privacy rights.
You don't have any privacy rights with regards to other peoples' photos, or facts (your birthday).
Don't conflate privacy rights and personal preferences towards privacy.
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! ;-)
Dude, who ever you are posting as AC, you need to get a life, a brain and a pair of balls as well.
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.
That should read, anonymous COWARD, as the COWARD part is the relevant part.
"while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
If any of your friends use Facebook, they can easily tag you in a photo without your ass ever knowing it. If any relatives use Facebook, they can easily mark your birthday as an event. If a boyfriend/girlfriend uses Facebook, they can boast about where you ate dinner.
Yes, why, if it wasn't for Facebook, there'd be no danger of friends or acquaintances revealing things you wish they hadn't.
On a completely unrelated note, I hope my friend Tom Emanekaf wises up and stops cheating on his wife, or he's going to lose her!
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.