Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Suspends Personal Data-Sharing Feature

Suki I writes "Facebook has 'temporarily disabled' a controversial feature that allowed developers to access the home address and mobile numbers of users. The social network suspended the feature, introduced on Friday, after only three days. The decision follows feedback from users that the sharing-of-data process wasn't clearly explained and criticism from security firms that the feature was ripe for abuse."

13 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by Lose · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tell users they can earn stuff to use on FarmVille, and people won't care so much anymore.

    1. Re:Well... by scrib · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, they can't. I don't have a landline, so I'm not in the phone directory.

      They can, however, access public records and I got many letters congratulating me on my house purchase last year and offer to insure/protect/refinance my mortgage. They couldn't tell that I paid cash and don't have a mortgage which made their attempts to like like the were from someplace important all the more laughable. That was a minor nuisance, but at least they COULD NOT CALL ME! The fact that I own a house makes for pretty poor marketing data outside of pest control and lawn service fliers.

      Facebook is a much richer and more intrusive source of advertising info. Primary email? Have some spam! Mobile number? IM offers! ASL? Creepy!
      If I hadn't white-walled my facebook account already, this would have done it.

      I agree that trading info for stuff is a perfectly valid market transaction. However, the user's information was being shared without the user's explicit consent and with no value to the user. I recognize that the USER isn't the OWNER of that information, facebook is, but I suspect most people don't realize that.
      "You gave facebook this information?"
      "Yes, but they are abusing it!"
      "Do you understand the verb 'gave'?"

      I simply do not trust facebook's application vetting process to work well enough to keep the information away from people with malicious intent.

      --
      Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
  2. Bad decision. I hope they reverse it. by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    As an applications developer, lacking this feature means that I cannot increase my budget to hire more programmers and produce a better product. Without the personal information I have nothing to sell to advertisers, and must rely on much lower advertisement rates and donations from users.

    Users will suffer from lower-quality apps, and I'm sad that Facebook has taken this step. In a world of openness, this is a huge step backwards.

    I don't want to go back to a "pay to play" internet. Please lobby FB to reenable these features if you also believe in keeping the internet free.

    1. Re:Bad decision. I hope they reverse it. by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As an applications developer, lacking this feature means that I cannot increase my budget to hire more programmers and produce a better product. Without the personal information I have nothing to sell to advertisers, and must rely on much lower advertisement rates and donations from users.

      Users will suffer from lower-quality apps, and I'm sad that Facebook has taken this step. In a world of openness, this is a huge step backwards.

      I don't want to go back to a "pay to play" internet. Please lobby FB to reenable these features if you also believe in keeping the internet free.

      This would be more convincing if there were any quality Facebook apps in existence. Don't worry, though. No lobbying is necessary. As always, Facebook will quietly re-enable the identity theft features as soon as the public's attention drifts elsewhere. Then you can get back to chipping away at privacy for the sake of profit.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  3. Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    3 days was enough for most of the big apps to collect most of the data from the nearly entire userbase.

    1. Re:Meanwhile by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly what I was thinking. Three days is an eternity to have such things like that open. Harvesting the data has already occurred and cannot be "undone."

      Still, people stupid enough to put that information in there ALMOST deserve to have it exploited. I say almost because "ignorance/stupidity" is not a valid excuse for exploiting people. Children are ignorant and stupid and yet we have laws that say it is rape to have sex with them simply because they aren't capable of making a good and informed decision about whether or not it is good for them. So clearly, at some level, we recognize that ignorant and stupid people need to be PROTECTED from exploitation and I don't think age should be the only factor worthy of consideration.

  4. Facebook's Unified Messaging by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consider again Facebook's recent proposal that they become the new unified messaging service. Every email, text and IM goes through them.

    And consider again how many times Facebook opens up private data and hands it out.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  5. Shocked! by Painted · · Score: 4, Funny

    I, for one, am shocked, shocked! that Facebook of all companies has introduced something so invasive!

    --
    http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
  6. I wonder... by Yaa+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is it so hard for people to understand that with Facebook and other so called free stuff that they are the product that is being sold.

  7. Nothing to see here, move along... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Another attempt by Facebook to undermine its users' privacy? I'm shocked!

    Facebook introduces some hugely draconian abuse of privacy, then 'backs off' - lather, rinse, repeat. And every time this happens, their users, and the public-at-large, get more and more immune to the controversy, and more and more immune to the abuse. That's why Facebook, and Google, and your-favourite-evil-giant-company, and your-country's-government, do this kind of thing.

    Sadly, as a society, we keep falling for it, over and over again.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  8. And this is why I don't belong to Facebook. by RevWaldo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If there was a $5/month social network that had no ads and guaranteed privacy, I'd consider joining it.

    If there was an open-sourced not-for-profit social network that had no ads and worked to ensure privacy, I'd consider joining that, and donating to it.

    Otherwise, you're at the vendor's mercy. And like they say, there's a zucker born every minute.

    .

  9. Seems to be the way of it by Boarder2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like this is how Facebook continues to do it. Expose the users without telling them that they're going to do it, wait for the backlash. If there's enough, backpedal on the decision. But only after giving the parties interested in the data plenty of time to mine a ton of it, making the reversal pretty much pointless.

    Well played, Facebook. Yet another example of why you don't post anything on the Internet that you don't want known publicly.

  10. Facebook/Wikileaks by JerryQ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" Julian Assange