Why Facebook Won't Stop Invading Your Privacy

GMGruman writes "Every few weeks, it seems, Facebook is caught again violating users' privacy. A code error there, rogue business partners there. The truth, as InfoWorld's Bill Snyder explains, is that Facebook will keep on violating your privacy, no matter what its policies say, what promises it makes, or how shocked it claims to be at the latest incident. The reason is simple: Selling personal information on its users is how it makes money, and Facebook is above all a business."

Comments

Well, duh.

[BrokenHalo]

Selling personal information on its users is how it makes money, and Facebook is above all a business.

Why is this news? Nothing to see here, move on please...

Re:Well, duh.

[mlts]

I am cynical, but if a site comes along that does respect user privacy, they won't make the ad revenue, unless other funding is obtained.

FB does not make a dime from the people who have accounts with them, other than the gift services. The real customers are the advertisers and the developers like Zygna. To FB, account-holders are considered whining maggots, a necessary evil so advertisers can be handed their information and in return, hand FB cash.

TANSTAAFL. Want to know how to change this? Have a social networking site paid for by either subscription fees, or by grants from governments/universities/funds in return for privacy/security guarantees of user data?

Re:Well, duh.

[idontgno]

That's an unfortunate chain of events. When you explain the facts and the "OMG, they're hacking my bank accounts" panic fades away, the truth winds up seeming a lot less grim. People may not be able to work up the appropriate levels of concern. Relief you haven't been shot may keep you from reacting to the fact you're being robbed.

Re:Well, duh.

[rochberg]

"If you aren't paying for the product, you are the product." (I wish I could claim credit for the quote, but I can't. And I've heard it from so many sources that I don't know the origin.)

To quote someone on Metafilter:

[Mr_Silver]

If you're not paying for the service, you are the product, not the customer.

Re:To quote someone on Metafilter:

[technomom]

Really successful businesses are able to make you pay for the service, PLUS sell your data (or eyeballs). See the publishing industry (up until about 1999) and television.

In other news...

[gorzek]

...water is wet, the sky is blue, and Elvis is still dead.

No one cares

[RazorSharp]

And that's what's so sad about this. When friends encouraged me to get on Facebook I told them about the profit model and why they shouldn't contribute to it, but they all had the same response, "who cares?" It was hard enough for them to understand why their personal information would even be profitable in the first place, but for them to actually care was impossible. Lets face it, Facebook users have the same view of privacy Zuckerberg has: they don't value it and they don't understand why anyone would (unless, of course, they had something to hide).

I value my privacy and I find Facebook to be the finest example of everything that is wrong with capitalism. But that's why I'm here on Slashdot and not there.

Re:No one cares

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Lets face it, Facebook users have the same view of privacy Zuckerberg has: they don't value it and they don't understand why anyone would (unless, of course, they had something to hide).

And they're 100% right -- for if they do not see value in their privacy, then their privacy has no value.

For those whose privacy does have value - they'll do as you do, and avoid Facebook et al entirely.

Re:Facebook is NOT violating privacy

[RazorSharp]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular post, but Facebook is NOT violating privacy.

Really, if you post something on the internet and expect it to be private, you are an idiot. You can't reasonably expect privacy on someone else's servers. Once you release information in the wild, you have no control over what happens to it. None. Those privacy settings mean jack shit. They are only veils. In fact, those privacy settings aren't even guaranteed.

If you don't want people to know something about you, don't post it on the internet. It really is THAT simple. If you don't want the evidence to make it to your wife, your boss, or whatever, don't put that evidence in an archivable medium AT ALL. And lastly, if you don't like the way Facebook uses your information, DON'T USE THE GOD DAMN SITE. If you aren't using it, they can't "violate" your "privacy."

Bullshit. When you do online banking, you expect your information to remain private. When you click a box on Facebook that claims to protect your privacy, it dammed well better.

Re:hmm

[RazorSharp]

Nothing and no one should have first amendment restrictions.

FIRE!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21, @11:51AM(#33974432) rapes babies and strangles puppies!

The military is conducting an operation at coordinates x-y at 11:00AM (EST) on October 22.

Corporations funneling money into political campaigns are merely expressing their political opinions!

Need any other examples?

Re:This is why we can't have nice things, children

[ceoyoyo]

Why? Your name is generally a matter of public record. It's not private. Pretty much the opposite, in fact.

If you post any actual private information on a social networking site then you're taking a risk. You might be an idiot, or you might have weighted the costs and benefits and made an informed decision.

Why? Because people won't stop using it

[noidentity]

Since people keep using it, they're sending the message that they don't care about invasions of privacy. It's not too hard to figure out how to avoid this invasion: don't use the site.