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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.'"