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."

12 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't a bone.. its not even scraps, its more like the leftover grease from a Macdonalds happy meal.

  2. Red herring by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)

  3. Non Sequitur by sexybomber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Non Sequitur by dontmakemethink · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well we're talking about people who run scripts taken from Facebook pages promising them a $100 Walmart card, then when the card doesn't arrive, they make a group slagging Walmart for being dishonest, all the while not realizing it was a scam all along, Walmart had nothing to do with it, and their Facebook info is pwned. Last I saw before it was taken down, the anti-Walmart group had 78,000+ fans. The ENTIRE purpose of Facebook is to sell as much of your identity as they legally can. The more of your identity they can convince you to agree to share, the more money they make. Knowing this, I am still a Facebook user since I actually get most of my freelance work by following the actions of my peers and seeing when they're in the market for my services. For me it's definitely worth it to stay on my toes and maintain as much privacy as I can, but for most it's a trap with potentially dire consequences.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
  4. Even MORE information for them! by Rand310 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Security, not privacy by Protonk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:BFD by ZekoMal · · Score: 5, Interesting


    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.

  7. Re:wha? by Bearhouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Email, a blog and - if just for photos - Picasa; all freely available from Google...

  8. In other news... by wbren · · Score: 5, Funny

    In response to concerns about its exploding car engines, a major car manufacturer has added additional cup holders to its vehicles.

    --
    -William Brendel
  9. Re:BFD by Interoperable · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  10. Re:BFD by ZekoMal · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  11. Completely Irrelevant by coaxial · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.