Slashdot Mirror
'Dating' Site Imports 250k Facebook Profiles
mark72005 sends this snippet from Wired:
"How does a unknown dating site, with the absurd intention of destroying Facebook, launch with 250,000 member profiles on the first day? Simple. You scrape data from Facebook. At least, that's the approach taken by two provocateurs who launched Lovely-Faces.com this week, with profiles — names, locations and photos — scraped from publicly accessible Facebook pages. The site categorizes these unwitting volunteers into personality types, using a facial recognition algorithm, so you can search for someone in your general area who is 'easy going,' 'smug' or 'sly.' ... [The creators] say they will take down a user’s profile if a person asks, and the site doesn’t have any indication they are actually trying to make any money. Instead, it’s part of a series of prank sites, the first two of which aimed at Google and Amazon, intended to make people think more about data in the age of internet behemoths. Moreover, it’s a bit funny hearing Facebook complain about scraping of personal data that is quasi-public."
But if someones wife happens along and sees their spouse on a new dating site there's gonna be hell to pay for this particular " joke"
itâ(TM)s part of a series of prank sites, the first two of which aimed at Google and Amazon, intended to make people think more about data in the age of internet behemoths
Making it a Facebook app would have largely defeated the point. The impact is made greater by removing the data from the context of Facebook entirely and putting it up somewhere else in another context.
It's seems their "facial recognition algorithm" has categorized me as a "stalker" and "potential date-rapist"!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Those people running the site behind the "make people think more about data" link should be made to think more about server capacity
Gee, what are the chances that the Facebook Terms of Service explicitly forbids scraping all the profile data and using it on another website? These two guys are probably going to have their Facebook accounts canceled! Other than that, I'm not sure what recourse Facebook has.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The Social Network movie captured the original Zuckerberg hack described in the Harvard Crimson. They just did it on a larger scale.
Because they will kill the new site's referrer requests ASAP.
This space for rent.
When I was a member of Yahoo Personals, I was always sure to report users who had photos of famous porn stars for their profiles. Then I found out that Yahoo was responsible for the fake profiles:
http://plentyoffish.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/yahoo-class-action-lawsuit-settled/
Apparently, dating sites are still playing the same old game.
No, this is how it started:
According to The Harvard Crimson, the site was comparable to Hot or Not, and "used photos compiled from the online facebooks of nine houses, placing two next to each other at a time and asking users to choose the 'hotter' person".
Mark Zuckerberg co-created Facebook in his Harvard dorm room.
To accomplish this, Zuckerberg hacked into the protected areas of Harvard's computer network, and copied the houses' private dormitory ID images. Harvard at that time did not have a student "facebook" (a directory with photos and basic information). Facemash attracted 450 visitors and 22,000 photo-views in its first four hours online.
From Wiki, with sources linked on it.
/ And seriously slashdot, still no italics? WTF.
Aren't photos copyrighted?
Not necessarily.
Incorrect. All works which are copyrightable, ARE copyrighted the moment they are created, including photography. No exceptions. You do not need to register or claim copyright in any way; it is yours exclusively by default. You hold all rights unless you have explicitly granted those rights to others. You need do nothing to reserve all rights to yourself. Public display does not grant public license. (It never ceases to amaze me that people still claim "you put it on the Internet so it's public domain"... those people either also probably still believe the Earth is flat or are shooting off their mouths to try to justify illegal and unethical behavior.)
That being said, when you upload info or a photo to Facebook, you are granting Facebook many rights (it's part of the terms of service). Facebook doesn't outright own your photos, but you have granted them a perpetual nonexclusive license to use those photos.
However, that doesn't allow sites not affiliated with Facebook to use the photos on their own site (though deep linking kinda-sorta skirts that). You haven't given Facebook the right to sublicense your copyrighted materials to unaffiliated third parties. Additionally, if a third-party site implies that the "scraped" users are in any way voluntarily endorsing or participating in the third-party site, or are attaching false statements to the taken profiles (i.e. "I'm looking for a date"), that's a textbook case of fraud as defined by the law (a false statement of a material fact, knowledge on the part of the fraudster that the statement is untrue, intent on the part of the fraudster to deceive the alleged victim, justifiable reliance by the defrauded person on the statement, and injury to the alleged defrauded person as a result. Definition paraphrased from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud)
All that being said, it's funny as hell that Facebook, the number one mass purveyor of exploitative privacy-compromises, is suddenly up in arms about getting as good as it gives. Karma's a bitch, ain't it, Zucky ol' bean?
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
If Commander Taco was really Sarah Palin, I'd date her, except she's married.
Let's go over your fantasy:
(a) Commander Taco is really Sarah Palin. <-- Check!
(b) Taco/Palin would date you. <-- Check!
(c) You would date a married woman. <-- No Way!
That's an interesting place to inject reality...
<Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
Perhaps I'm in the minority, but why exactly is this unethical? The data is publicly available and TFA's screenshot (the real site is apparently /.'d) only says "[Lovely Faces] lists real people, sincerely positing their real data and picture" which is not a lie (modulo marketing exaggeration that everyone seems to be happy glossing over) as these people posted their data to Facebook. Suppose for a moment there was no implication whatsoever that the people listed on Lovely Faces intentionally signed up. In that case, what's wrong with collecting publicly available data and putting it into one site? Is the issue entirely that people expect dating site profiles to have been created by that person, and Lovely Faces doesn't smash that expectation?
Scraping data violates Facebook's Automated Data Collection Terms, though in what way are those binding? I don't have to explicitly agree to anything to view some information, like certain profile's pictures.
I agree it is unethical to take someone's picture, point at it, and say "this person endorses this site" when they actually don't. It doesn't seem unethical to take someone's picture and put it on "the online database of pictures of people". Most people seem to be saying the scraping itself was unethical, while I disagree. I think it's just the implied endorsement.
But Facebook doesn't own the copyrights of the photo.
It's definitively a copyright violation, but Facebook can't sue for that, only the copyright owner (the photographer, usually, unless it's a work for hire).
Dilbert RSS feed
I have my cat's pick on my facebook pic, now i'm going to get a ton of furry peeps wanting dates.
Guess I better get Second Life up and running.
Be seeing you...