Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Flaw Exposed Private Photos

Velcroman1 writes "A security hole in Facebook allowed almost anyone to see pictures marked as private, an online forum revealed late Monday. Even pictures supposedly kept hidden from uninvited eyes by Facebook's privacy controls aren't safe, reported one user of a popular bodybuilding forum in a post entitled 'I teach you how to view private Facebook photos.' Facebook appears to have acted quickly to eliminate the end-run around privacy controls, after word of the exploit spread across the Internet. It wasn't long before one online miscreant uploaded private pictures of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg himself — evidence that the hack worked, he said."

201 comments

  1. Again? by masternerdguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Facebook privacy violation? *shockface* I'm sure glad I don't use Facebook.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    1. Re:Again? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who says Slashdot doesn't change with the times? See how the (sometimes twice) daily "New remote execution flaw in Windows" articles have been replaced by "New egregious privacy violation found in Facebook" stories?

    2. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I can't wait for it to be "horrifying security hole in Linux" twice a day. That should be a lolfest.

    3. Re:Again? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cloud computing is all the rage these days. All proactive managers are moving their egregious vulnerabilities into the cloud, so it is only fair that tech journalism follow suit...

    4. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I can't wait for it to be "horrifying security hole in Linux" twice a day. That should be a lolfest.

      Any day now, Linux should be crawling with viruses.

      Any day now.

    5. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Any day now it might be the Year of the Linux Desktop (tm).

    6. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Every time someone so much as mentions Facebook people like you crawl out of the woodwork to show how much better they are than the 300 million people who use Facebook. Thank you for your meaningful contribution to the conversation.

    7. Re:Again? by CodeReign · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm still waiting for the era of Solaris workstation

    8. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And no friend of yours uses facebook?
      And no one you ever was in a party with?
      And no one who has your adress in their gmail contact list?

      Facebook is a threat not limited to its users.

    9. Re:Again? by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Who modded this troll? It's funny.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    10. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To you. It's a troll to anybody who's tired of seeing this trotted out every time there's a story that can be even vaguely linked.

    11. Re:Again? by tsa · · Score: 1

      Facebook has become the 1990's MS of the 2010's. Every week a new exploit.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    12. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See how the (sometimes twice) daily "New remote execution flaw in Windows" articles have been replaced by "New egregious privacy violation found in Facebook" stories?

      No. I'm still seeing the Windows articles.

    13. Re:Again? by fafaforza · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you don't want private stuff to be exposed then don't post it. It's that simple. When you upload/post stuff, you have no control over it. But you can still use Facebook to stay in touch.

    14. Re:Again? by Stiletto · · Score: 0

      OH MY GOD! You mean someone might just see a photo of my dog? STOP THE PRESSES, MY PRIVACY HAS BEEN RAPED.

      The Facebook "threat" to privacy is overblown. I've got a Facebook account. I hardly use it, and don't really have much there. The pictures of me that ARE there are just fishing trip pictures posted by other people. Why the hell should I care who can see them?

    15. Re:Again? by beowulfcluster · · Score: 3, Funny

      People who don't use Facebook are so superior. Whenever someone says that it reminds me a bit about this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/

      By the way I of course don't use Facebook.

    16. Re:Again? by bronney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh you missed the fun part brother. It's not whether you post it, it's I post you on it. You can't stop it, you can't delete it.

    17. Re:Again? by inglorion_on_the_net · · Score: 1

      Slashdot users with RL friends? Who go to parties with them? Resulting in interesting pictures?

      You must be new here. ;-)

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    18. Re:Again? by alanshot · · Score: 1

      OH MY GOD! You mean someone might just see a photo of my dog? STOP THE PRESSES, MY PRIVACY HAS BEEN RAPED.

      The Facebook "threat" to privacy is overblown. I've got a Facebook account. I hardly use it, and don't really have much there. The pictures of me that ARE there are just fishing trip pictures posted by other people. Why the hell should I care who can see them?

      So you dont care that FB harvests PII (personally identifiable info) from your freinds and can add more info to your account than you wish to surrender to them yourself?

      While some of the privacy issues are overblown, there are some disturbing trends. One other fun one is "shadow profiles".

      Supposedly FB is compiling the info they harvest from your freinds' contact lists and "creating" profiles for people who arent on FB yet.

      For example, your coworker "Bob" isnt on facebook. You are, as well as a dozen or so mutual friends and acquaintances. Several of you have various bits of his contact info in your contact lists that FB has managed to import "for your convenience." You have his work email address and work number. Bill has his work email and home number (they are golf buddies). His wife has an account and has his work email address and home address in her contacts. His neighbor has his name, home and cell phone numbers in his contacts.

      Using all of the above info, FB is able to piece together Bob's account before he even signs up. The disturbing part is this account is full of PII even though he never gave it to them. So even if he wanted to stay relatively private and not give them anything but his name and email address, too bad. His clueless freinds have already ratted him out.

      I'm not sure what I find more disturbing, FB privacy, or how easy it is for privacy to be compromised through no fault of the individual. Even without signing up for an account, FB can harvest enough info about a person from acquaintances its scary. So the "just dont use FB" isnt really an option anymore. Sure without an account you will just have a detailed profile with no activity, but that profile still contains more PII than the average person puts up on FB intentionally.

      I'm just waiting for the day they start allowing you to tag photos from your contacts, even if that contact isnt a FB user. Well, as FB will see it, "They arent a user YET."

    19. Re:Again? by dskzero · · Score: 1

      My question is, besides the obvious hazard that comes with posting really dangerous info (such as phone number, for example), what else can they do? Make money? Put more ads directed at me?

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    20. Re:Again? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, I could post pictures of you on flicker or my own website. You can't stop it, you can't delete it.

    21. Re:Again? by zlives · · Score: 1

      hey, LAN parties count... right!!

    22. Re:Again? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The pictures of me that ARE there are just fishing trip pictures posted by other people. Why the hell should I care who can see them?

      Me too. The pics I post up there are fit for public consumption, so I mark them public. Oh look ^ I post here with my real name too.

      The trouble that some people have is that their friends will post a photo of them 'getting crazy' at a Tijuana donkey party. And tag them.

      Either grow up or accept yourself, I say. If you really like the beasts of burden that much, maybe trying to get a job by deceit at the local parsonage isn't the right life strategy.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    23. Re:Again? by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      I don't care, nor do most people.

  2. Of course by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you upload something to Facebook, assume anyone can see it. Whether it's a genuine hack, somebody figuring out your password, or leaving a computer logged in while you go grab coffee, somebody will at some point have access to everything, so don't upload it in the first place. It's that simple.

    That means don't complain profusely about your boss every day, don't send explicit messages to you lover, and certainly don't use Facebook to archive those pictures of that wild bachelor party.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:Of course by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Always assume anything on facebook is visible to everyone always. You no longer have any control, it is never deleted, never removed.

      It is why i have never used facebook ever. It isnt worth it. While i do know some has posted pictures of me, those pictures cant truely be linked to me.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Of course by geekmux · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you upload something to Facebook, assume anyone can see it...

      Ah, you misspelled Internet.

    3. Re:Of course by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      In other words.
      Rules for civilized public discourse still apply.

      Granted Face Book really needs to fix it privacy and security to be much better. But Facebook is a Social Media site. Meaning information posted is meant to be posted socially.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Of course by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Funny

      That means don't complain profusely about your boss every day, don't send explicit messages to you lover, and certainly don't use Facebook to archive those pictures of that wild bachelor party.

      But I hate my boss; he's a total asshole! And my boyfriend loves getting steamy messages (hey, Brian, I'm not wearing panties today. Surprise for when you get home after work! ;) ), and I archive all the bachelor parties that I perform at. I need to have a portfolio after all! How will the next bachelor party find out if they want me vs. that skank across town?

      Click here to visit my private webpage, for my special webpage (Registration, and credit card required)

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    5. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (hey, Brian, I'm not wearing panties today. Surprise for when you get home after work! ;) )

      This is the classic problem of how to properly close a parenthetical statement that ends with an emoticon.

    6. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Mike! Great to see you. Keepin' it real? Would you mind explaining to me how the gp is a hypocrite?

      Ps. I'm a great and principled person. I think people should stand up for what they believe in and face the truth head on.

      -Yours in hypocrisy,
      Anonymous Coward

      pps. You're no hypocrite, Mike, I don't want to imply that in any way. You have your rough edges (all of them, perhaps), but I haven't seen you being a hypocrite.

      XOXOX

    7. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      The easy fix, in this case, is to use more tongue. ;p

    8. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      hey, Brian, I'm not wearing panties today. Surprise for when you get home after work! ;)

      I just discovered that I assume that everyone on Slashdot is male, and that guys who wear panties for their boyfriend Brian kind of skeeve me out.

      Learn something new every day...

    9. Re:Of course by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      If you upload something to Facebook, assume anyone WILL see it.

      FTFY

      Assume the worst. If you want something private, don't tell ANYONE.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:Of course by forkfail · · Score: 5, Funny

      You do understand that these forums are often frequented by folks who have forgotten more about computer security that most folks will learn during the course of their entire lives?

      --
      Check your premises.
    11. Re:Of course by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Well, of course, if you "perform" professionally at bachelor parties, then perhaps your Facebook page is a marketing tool for your entertainment business. In that case, it should present an image suitable to your profession. If that means insulting your boss to help potential customers identify with you, then so be it.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    12. Re:Of course by migla · · Score: 1

      You're very talented! I haven't seen such classic moves in a while. Cool voice, too.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    13. Re:Of course by izomiac · · Score: 2

      If you upload something to Facebook, assume anyone can see it.

      Personally, I assume that Mark Zuckerberg can see it, if he so chooses, and I trust him less than my least trustworthy friend.

    14. Re:Of course by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Can I get your number?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    15. Re:Of course by Abstrackt · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you upload something to Facebook, assume Internet can see it...

      Ah, you misspelled Internet.

      I've taken the liberty of making the correction on your behalf.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    16. Re:Of course by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      I can probably guess it: 772-257-4501

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    17. Re:Of course by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      If you upload something to Internet, assume anyone can see it...

      Ah, you misspelled Internet.

      I've taken the liberty of making the correction on your behalf.

      I think that was the correction he was talking about.

    18. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why he's reminding us. Even the best of us can forget.

    19. Re:Of course by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you upload something to Facebook, assume anyone can see it

      I used to think this, but there are some pretty convincing arguments in The Net Delusion that have caused me to rethink that position. There are a lot of Facebook users, and dissident groups cannot avoid using Facebook to reach people, simply because of the large number of people on Facebook. If Facebook does not take privacy seriously, the risk to dissidents who try to contact their fellow citizens on Facebook will grow.

      The point here is that yes, it is a problem when Facebook unexpectedly opens its users' data to the world against their wishes. There are legitimate reasons why someone might use Facebook but want to keep their account data private.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    20. Re:Of course by ToiletBomber · · Score: 1

      Click here to visit my private webpage, for my special webpage (Registration, and credit card required)

      You linked to the VEVO version? You, sir, are an idiot.

    21. Re:Of course by PNutts · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you upload pr0n to Internet, make sure I can see it...

      Ah, you misspelled Internet.

      I've taken the liberty of making the correction on your behalf.

      I think that was the correction he was talking about.

      Sorry, it still wasn't right.

    22. Re:Of course by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's what she said.

    23. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, I suspect, Brian would agree in this case.

    24. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Newsflash: any dissidents attempting to use Facebook are being plain stupid. That's like sending an email containing your entire list of friends and family to every government in the world, but with way more detail about what you do and where you are.

      You do realize that Facebook privacy terms only apply to other users who use Facebook for free, and follow the terms of service, right? Facebook hackers, bots, and government agencies (and likely some large corporations) have full access to Facebook data. So does Facebook. Not only is your "private" Facebook data fair game, so is the "hidden" Facebook data, such as your access log, answers to security questions, access patterns (when you did what), etc.

    25. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowgirl, I think I love you!

    26. Re:Of course by twdorris · · Score: 1

      I'll second that. Assuming she's a she.

    27. Re:Of course by Jim+Hall · · Score: 2

      If you upload something to Facebook, assume anyone can see it.

      In general, this is true of anything you post on the Internet. I look at it this way: try to avoid posting things on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Slashdot, Flickr, or any other site, that you might be embarrassed for a family member to see, or a future potential employer. If it's on the Internet, assume anyone can see it.

      My immediate personal response to this Facebook flaw: ohmigosh! Then I remembered that my photos are pretty much my cats, work we've done on the house, flowers, speakers at events, and similar stuff. I may have them marked "private" but not that big a deal if this flaw exposed them.

      I recognize that I am a minority of Facebook users, however.

    28. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, why does it matter? Video looks the same as the original to me.

    29. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can tell he's a coder because he substituted the placement instead of thinking about it as being "inside" a layer which must be closed regardless of the last character. Other people see the aesthetics of one vs two )'s and one for many *looks* better. As a coder we know we didn't properly close our parens.

      Programmers through process.

      Ok I'm inside a parens.
              content.
              more content.
              smiley
      Ok, I have to close this parens.

      ==
      Normal person's thought process.
      ==

      Ok I'm whispering, so I need to start with a (
      content.
      more content.
      Now I'm done. (looks at the sentence, and thinks a single closing paren looks better, does not add another one)

    30. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He made references to lovers and wild bachelor parties so, no.

    31. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even more paranoid loners. So it's probably best to take advice on slashdot with a pinch of salt...

    32. Re:Of course by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 1

      Posts like this make browsing at 0 worth it... except for all the other posts that are crap.

    33. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surprise for when you get home after work! ;) )

      It's not much of a surprise now, is it?

    34. Re:Of course by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Nah, if an employeer "hacks"and the court will accept this word in all blissful ignorance my facebook and works around their security and then denies me a job because of it, they a. have to tell me they denied it b. the findings will pail in comparison to the parties I throw when I sue them and win.

    35. Re:Of course by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Just get it from her Facebook profile...

      I mean, c'mon, it's not like it's hard...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    36. Re:Of course by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      "Two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    37. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you upload Internet to Facebook, assume anyone can see it...
      ?

    38. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you idiots assume this is some kind of "flaw" that can be "fixed"? It's their PURPOSE!

      It's not social media, where socials post socially (WTF does that even mean?) It's BUSINESS, i.e. a CORPORATION selling products (you).

    39. Re:Of course by Tooke · · Score: 1

      my boyfriend

      I archive all the bachelor parties that I perform at

      ---

      You can tell he's a coder

      Also note the GP's username and sig.

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
    40. Re:Of course by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      "Son of a bitch," he cried. And so ends the saga of: "The Last Person On The Face Of The Earth To Be "Rick-Rolled"...

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    41. Re:Of course by qubezz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... While i do know some has posted pictures of me, those pictures cant truely be linked to me.

      That is, until the other user imports their contact lists with your email addresses and phone numbers into Facebook, and starts tagging pictures of you, and they correlate others's address books with you in them. Then Facebook has a good idea who you are and who your "friends" are without you ever logging in.

    42. Re:Of course by bronney · · Score: 1

      It's hard.

    43. Re:Of course by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      (hey, Brian, I'm not wearing panties today. Surprise for when you get home after work! ;) )

      This is the classic problem of how to properly close a parenthetical statement that ends with an emoticon.

      Another semantic nugget I wanted to add, is when you use slash to separate two things ("cat/dog"). If an item consists of multiple words, you should cover it in curly brackets so that you know what words the option covers ("cat/{big dog}").

      So technically the sentences "Today I'm going to fix the garage/kitchen door" and "Today I'm going to fix the garage/{kitchen door}" are two different things. In the first one you're either fixing the door of garage or kitchen. In the second one you're either fixing the whole garage or the kitchen door.

    44. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dutch language has an elegant solution for this. We combine words into one, and have a way to abbreviate repeating parts.

      Garage door is garagedeur in Dutch, kitchen door is keukendeur. The repeated deur can be replaced with - in all but the last occurrence. So garage/kitchen door is seen as short for {garage door}/{kitchen door}, or garagedeur/keukendeur in Dutch, and that can be abbreviated to garage-/keukendeur. Garage/{kitchen door} is garage/keukendeur in Dutch.

      If the first part of the combined word is repeated, eg. keukenkast (kast==cupboard) and keukendeur, you abbreviate all but the first occurrence: keukenkast en -deur.

      Unfortunately an increasing number of people doesn't understand how to use this, nor how the meaning of what you write can change considerably if you do it wrong, as your example illustrates. The quality of education is partly to blame, but I think the English language has a lot of influence as well. A lot of English terms find their way into the Dutch language (we call a computer "computer"), and combining two systems of combining words in one sentence is awkward.

    45. Re:Of course by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      If the business is perceived too risky, customers leave and they cannot sell products and make money.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    46. Re:Of course by Pope · · Score: 2

      User name/post combo of the day!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    47. Re:Of course by Pope · · Score: 1

      That's what he said!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    48. Re:Of course by loconet · · Score: 1

      Agreed. My left eye twitches if I don't balance parenthesis properly.. in code or written language.

      --
      [alk]
    49. Re:Of course by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Always assume anything on facebook is visible to everyone always. You no longer have any control, it is never deleted, never removed.

      Right.

      It is why i have never used facebook ever. It isnt worth it.

      This seems like a non-sequitor, unless you really fear what might be posted of you. I guess if you haven't used it you haven't experienced the networking power.

      While i do know some has posted pictures of me, those pictures cant truely be linked to me.

      Oh, but this is just mistaken. One cookie swap to a site that has your real name or e-mail address or home IP address and you're completely linked and profiled. NoScript, Adblock, Ghotery, etc.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    50. Re:Of course by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Also note the GP's username and sig.

      I think perhaps that for some people, it's easier for them to believe in gay strippers frequenting slashdot than women programmers.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  3. Interesting by koan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder what constitutes a "private photo" for Zuckerberg, my guess is he has no photos that would be even remotely interesting since he knows the ins and outs of FB, and why does spell check want to turn "zuckerberg" into "rubbernecker"?

    It's all related somehow...

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what constitutes a "private photo" for Zuckerberg...

      Him fucking a sheep before he slaughters it for dinner?

  4. Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering hard links to your photos work for anyone on the internet, this isn't a surprise in the least. I wouldn't call it a hack at all.

  5. Surprised this is real. by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I saw a link to the forum discussing this somewhere. From the description of the "hack", I was certain this is a hoax. You see, the idea is that the hack is to report the user with private pictures to facebook as having "nude/pornographic" images, and in the image flagging process it shows you private-only pics as well.
    So it really sounded like a hoax to me to have people go around reporting private profiles of hot girls (or even boys I guess), and I am surprised it is a real security flaw. Not that you can call something on facebook a security flaw, since that would require security in the first place, right?

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Surprised this is real. by interval1066 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This flaw has been exploited for months by the likes of 4chan.org/b/, and others. I'm surprised it took this long to get out.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:Surprised this is real. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who abused it wanted it somewhat hush hush lest the developers catch wind and remove it.

    3. Re:Surprised this is real. by jd · · Score: 2

      It didn't. It took that long for the "popular bodybuilding forum" to archive those pictures guaranteed to improve its popularity.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Surprised this is real. by Solandri · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about that. Whether the summary was correct in that Facebook worked quickly to fix it because the exploit spread across the Internet, or if it was because someone posted Zuckerberg's private pictures.

    5. Re:Surprised this is real. by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I shouldn't ask this; I'm a little curious to know what the nature of Zuckerberg's private pictures might have been.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  6. OMG OMG OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I posted something private and it was public???? SOMEBODY PASS A LAW IMMEDIATELY! /end sarcasm

  7. Private pictures? by gmuslera · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wasnt Zuckerberg himself who said some years ago that whoever wants to have privacy is guilty of something?

    1. Re:Private pictures? by blair1q · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then I'm guilty of not wanting people to be jealous of my naked body.

    2. Re:Private pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasnt Zuckerberg himself who said some years ago that whoever wants to have privacy is guilty of something?

      Sounds reasonable. I doubt that there's anyone who isn't guilty of something. And if there is then they probably wouldn't want to admit it.

    3. Re:Private pictures? by hellkyng · · Score: 3, Informative

      "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Eric Schmidt

      Not quite... but close.

    4. Re:Private pictures? by hellkyng · · Score: 1

      BTW if you want to google that you might be surprised at how hard that is to find, try this "google ceo privacy quote"

    5. Re:Private pictures? by forkfail · · Score: 1

      There are two kinds of people in the world.

      Those who dark secrets tend to be they type that might be revealed over the internet, and those whose aren't.

      --
      Check your premises.
    6. Re:Private pictures? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      No that was the US government...

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    7. Re:Private pictures? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Canadian privacy expert David Flaherty expresses a similar idea when he argues: "There is no sentient human being in the Western world who has little or no regard for his or her personal privacy; those who would attempt such claims cannot withstand even a few minutes' questioning about intimate aspects of their lives without capitulating to the intrusiveness of certain subject matters."

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  8. thank you mark. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    A squirrel dying in front of your house may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa. -Mark Zuckerberg

    No Mark,
    The private pics of the girl I crush on, yes, those are more relevant to my interests than people dying in Africa. Thank you for giving me occasional glimpses of hope with your privacy blunders.
    Yours Sincerely,
    Creep.

  9. Omg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A "bodybuilding" forum is reporting one of the biggest Facebook flaw I ever heard of? Or in other word, the biggest anti-geek place is reporting a really geek thing??

    What's the world coming to??

    1. Re:Omg! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've actually been a long time lurker of said bodybuilding forum where you will find, to your surprise, many geeky discussion threads made on a vast range of topics. There is even a "technology" sub forum under the misc section, where this "exploit" was posted. Not all geeks have to fit the poindexter stereotype, but neither are all users on the forum "bodybuilders".

    2. Re:Omg! by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Everyone uses computers these days and may find interesting things. After all, the crack was something for which you wouldn't need special hacker skills. But yeah, it's interesting.

  10. Miscreant? by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    Them's fightin' words.

    1. Re:Miscreant? by forkfail · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Fox News calling someone a "miscreant" is like Idi Amin calling someone "a big meanie".

      --
      Check your premises.
  11. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This from the moron who shares his name and address with the entire world.

  12. A bug? In software? OH MY! by bennomatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mistakes happen. Things get through QA. When a bug occurs, if it's in a flight control system, you might crash. If it's in a backup system, you might lose data. If it's in a social network, you might block users you didn't mean to, or you might open your data to unwanted eyes.

    Unless we're going to start regulating social networks like we do products for some other industries, then, well, there's a reasonable likelihood of this sort of thing happening on a regular basis. If you don't like it, don't share stuff on Facebook.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
    1. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      don't share stuff on Facebook.

      No real comment, I just thought this deserves repeating.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      I do not remember reports of a Facebook bug that accidentally blocked people you wanted to share with.
      Seems to always be accidentally the other way round.
      Hmmm.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    3. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by jd · · Score: 1

      Regulating social network software might actually be a good idea. Not as in restricting content, but as in requiring certain standards to be met. Like it or not, we live in a connected world where information is shared, collated and mined. Errors in that data are next to impossible to correct because they spread faster than you can correct them. In the absence of data privacy laws, it is essential that the calibre of software be such that inappropriate access is kept to an absolute minimum.

      Having said that, I would argue that this should be coupled with improvements to the way certification programs work. Most of them are too expensive for projects that actually do exist in regulated markets, but obviously you can't make them too cheap because the effort and expense of certification would leave those involved in such efforts open to a social denial-of-service attack.

      If social network software had to pass a certification program, the standards required aught to be clearly laid out, the methodologies clearly defined and the certification program stringent enough to be useful but also affordable enough (how doesn't matter) that even a college kid could get one release fully reviewed before going live.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by biodata · · Score: 1

      In Europe we have a thing called data protection. Organisations who monger personal information have a legal obligation to protect it. Facebook are not exempt. Social networks are already regulated in the advanced world.

      --
      Korma: Good
    5. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by hey! · · Score: 1

      Sure, but it helps to have a system that is designed from the ground up with privacy in mind, rather than having it bolted on when people scream bloody murder.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Why u h8 America?

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    7. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I don't think there's a single active social network which was designed from the ground up with privacy in mind. Hell, even the most carefully designed network is only as well controlled as its participants. The moment I share something with you, you can share that with the world. Even if copying and pasting isn't possible, you could take a screen shot of any comments I make and post them anywhere.

      I was thinking of designing a p2p social network as a thought exercise. Such a network would require that you be on-line, running the client for that network, any time someone wanted to see something about you. You could easily revoke anything that you did not want shown on that network. However, problems in usability and the underlying truth that you can't get toothpaste back into the tube made it seem like a vain pursuit.

      For me, I use Facebook to post pictures of my kid and to make pithy statements about politics and friends' posts. I try to clamp it down some so that most people don't see most things, but I assume that some of it will slip through. The worst problem I had with FB, actually, was when my sister-in-law posted a picture of me from a family event that, well, there was no good reason to post, and a lot of bad ones. Basically, I looked like crap, and other than me looking like crap, there was nothing interesting in the photo. She tagged me in it, and all of a sudden everyone in my circle could see it in the "Pictures of Ben" folder. I asked her to take it down, and I've since changed those settings, but truthfully, anyone could post anything they want about me, and there's not much I can do about it, regardless of how good FB's privacy settings are.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    8. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by lgw · · Score: 1

      From what I hear from friends who have recently interviewed at Facebook, right now there are apparantly banners hung on the walls in the Facebook offices that say "Don't test, just ship." Every developer has the power to push code to production.

      There's considerable space for improvement in quality here before getting to some sort of certification program; for example "a social network should have some QA, more than none" seems like it would be an improvement.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

      Seconded. We might suck at many things, but we are starting to drive technology forward instead of being driven by it.

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    10. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by hey! · · Score: 2

      You have to assume that things will slip through of course.

      This particular bug could easily have been prevented by making all object requests pass through a layer that implements some form of mandatory access control. But given this story it's obvious there's no such layer in Facebook, and it's up to the developers to bake uniform security policies into every feature they implement. This is a problem that following the DRY principle would have prevented.

      But this kind of thing happen all the time in software. Some architectural shortcomings don't bite you until you've got a successful product that needs to be maintained. If you had a choice of course you'd do everything perfectly right out of the gate, but if you can't then you want to address the problems that stand in the way of success. Obviously privacy shortcomings haven't hurt Facebook that much, certainly not as much as failing to scale their system extremely rapidly, which was a remarkable technical success which enabled a remarkable business success.

      But Facebook still stinks.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by biodata · · Score: 1

      I don't hate America, I've had some lovely holidays there (except for that one time in New York when they blew up the WTC) and some of my best friends are Americans. I do hate America's lack of data protection legislation, dangerous gun laws, propensity to vote oil industry shills into power, desire to market dangerous food to the rest of the world, and one or two other things, but nowhere's perfect. Not a reason not to call out the bad parts when you see em though.

      --
      Korma: Good
    12. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless we're going to start regulating social networks like we do products for some other industries

      Which brings up the question on when the software industry will mature and bugs will not be considered just part of doing business. I'm a software engineer and real engineers just laugh at that title.

    13. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by jd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but how do you get them to actually implement that? People won't stop using Facebook, no matter what security holes there are, so there's no market force you can use, Facebook isn't going to publicly show any kind of audit or QA trail, and you can't enforce what you can't measure. I dislike a lot of the measurements that do exist in the Real World (tm), but that's a problem with the measurement used and not with the idea of measuring in the abstract.

      Yes, there's got to be "more than no" QA and it almost doesn't matter how much more than none because any non-zero improvement is an infinite order of magnitude greater than absolute zero, but Facebook is demonstrably not going to implement QA out of being nice or considerate and the A-Team is sadly fictional (though the image of the board of directors being thrown out a window by B.A. is oddly appealing...)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    14. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Regulating social network software might actually be a good idea.

      Regulations always protect the incumbents at the expense of their competition. They usually agree to be regulated for this effect and have a large hand in writing the regulations.

      Sorry, but you're outlining a scenario that's only beneficial with non-corrupt certifiers.

      If you want to start one, or pitch the likes of Consumers' Union, then perhaps you can achieve decent market regulation.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    15. Re:A bug? In software? OH MY! by jd · · Score: 1

      Sure I'd like to start one, but I lack the kazillion dollars needed to bribe Congress - err, promote the concept. You are correct that non-corrupt certifiers are needed if the concept is to work (since we can be fairly certain mandating open source isn't going to work), and your implicit constraint that the incumbents can't be the ones writing the regulations is also very true.

      In this case, it's not an impossible task - merely a very very difficult one. Good programming practices are fairly well defined, there are source validators out there, and there are some very respectable vulnerability scanners. These wouldn't eliminate all defects, they might not even eliminate the majority of defects, but the three combined aught to eliminate at a practical cost the majority of defects that can be casually found and exploited by anyone.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  13. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Inconveniently, tiny networks are dubiously useful for most of the purposes to which people put facebook, network effects and all that.

    It's not my cup of tea; but the notion that one could usefully improve one's security by simply replacing facebook with a personally implemented private network is roughly similar to the notion that one can usefully improve one's security by severing one's LAN from the internet.

    Both are true; but not terribly useful for most users.

  14. too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i barely ever post ac

    this worked great. i made a burn account this morning, logged in from my server in another country using x forwarding and a chrome session, and got some *very* excellent photos of an old high school crush. a mormon girl in a bright red skimpy bikini. i have filled the fap data bank from high school back up for a few months, to say nothing of the photoshopping that is to be of her face.

    it was exhilarating to gain access to her account. i tried it on other girls i have crushed on too, and although none of them had the same results, today was a day i will look back on fondly, with my pirate hat fanning my perspired face and all my new digital booty.

    thanks facebook for giving me something i should never, ever have had. her private bikini photos were just for her boyfriend, but your crappy api let me be a fly on that wall for mere hours of undisputed glee.

    1. Re:too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      proper form mandates that you : 1) print out a copy of your ill-gotten booty, 2) place on a flat surface, like a table, 3) squeeze one off, making sure to land on the picture, 4) take a picture of that , making sure cawk is in frame, 5) post to /b/, 6) lulz

    2. Re:too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd settle for digital copies of the original photos.

  15. This is old news to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This flaw in Facebook has been known to the internet since 2009.

    I remember there was this one image floating around on 4chan for a while showing people how the flaw worked. All it consisted of was some messing around with the URL, and you could see any person's private images, whether they were on your friend's list or not.

  16. more QA, less agile? by Sadsfae · · Score: 1

    I can't help to think this is why more emphasis on QA and staging changes appropriately and testing thoroughly and less focus on agile, devops type methodology would have helped. It's a well known fact that Facebook developers work on live production data.

    --
    Have a squat over at the hobo house.
    1. Re:more QA, less agile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "agile devops". combining buzzword to create even less meaning!

    2. Re:more QA, less agile? by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

      All the QA in the world won't help if the findings of the QA engineers do not result in defects being acknowledged or fixed. QA in those cases is not a testing group; it's a rubber stamp for which the question "do we ship it" is required to be "yes". This arises either because QA reports to a development manager (i.e. someone whose performance review is based what is released how close to schedule under budget, therefore someone who simultaneously has the motivation and the power to ignore QA findings), or because it exists only because the company's executives require that they be able to tell customers that they have a QA department (regardless of its effectiveness or lack thereof). Either situation means that there is little incentive to invest in more QA engineers, to listen to those engineers, or for QA to expend any effort above minimum. Why try if it doesn't matter?

      Even if QA's findings are acknowledged, if the release schedule is cast in stone then those findings are not acted upon (I'm looking at YOU, Bethesda). "Patch in production" is considered acceptable, so there is little urgency to act upon QA's findings for anything less serious than "causes cancer in rats, children, lawyers and other vermin". Again, does quality matter?

      The reason this situation exists is because lack of quality so often is irrelevant. If a customer complains but buys anyway, the complaint is guaranteed to be ignored. Using the aforementioned Bethesda as an example: Bethesda's reputation for releasing bug-ridden unstable games that would be fantastic if it wasn't for the hourly crashes (Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout Vegas, Skyrim) is irrelevant in the face of their huge sales figures. Quality, in fact, does NOT matter; people buy anyway. They bitch, but they buy. Which do you think speaks more loudly to the product managers and execs: bitching or buying?

      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
  17. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a bot with a troll starter post, a no life loser who keeps monitoring replies to make sure they last as long as possible.

  18. link? by rabidmuskrat · · Score: 1

    Is the archive of Zuckerberg's pictures still up somewhere? Every link I have been sent has been devoid of images.

    --
    Need any dad jokes?
    1. Re:link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://imgur.com/a/PrLrB

      Thank me later.

  19. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    karma police, ban this man his blatant troll posts, are making me feel ill he's like a first post goatse.

  20. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Having a conversation/discussion != trolling. However only a minority actually understand this concept - the ones on the far right side of the bell curve.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  21. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by migla · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    karma police, ban this man his blatant troll posts, are making me feel ill he's like a first post goatse.

    First they came for Michael Kristopeit, but I didn't speak up since I wasn't Michael Kristopeit. Then they came for Michael Kristopeit 2 and 3 and on and on, until, one day, they came for Michael Kristopeit 412, but I didn't speak up, since I wasn't any of those. Then they came for the muslims and the communists and other uncool people, then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

    --
    Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
  22. As Vader said ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As Vader said:

    Now, I have you in my sights " ..... Zuckerburg.
    Get back to your washed out facebook and buy me a bus.

  23. Did You Really Authorize All Those FB Apps? by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 4, Informative

    The other day I finally got around to configuring those privacy settings that everyone has been so on about. Facebook sure doesn't make them easy to find.

    I was shocked to find that my account granted access to about three dozen apps that I never even heard of. There were only two or three that I signed up for with my own conscious knowledge. I don't have the first clue how I got signed up for all the rest.

    That just pissed me off. As I was no longer actually using the two or three apps that I did voluntarily use, I deleted all three dozen from my account.

    You may be completely unaware that a whole bunch of private companies that are not affiliated with Facebook have access to your personal data. Even if you want to use a particular Facebook app, you should configure that particular app's privacy settings to grant it access only to the data you voluntarily want it to have. If you are no longer using an app, or don't recall ever requesting the use of it, you should delete it from your account completely.

    Here's what you do:

    Log in to your Facebook account. (Heh, when I did that just now, I found my account locked. It turned out to be because I had deleted my cookies, not because Facebook caught me spreading the word about how to dump what Facebook considers to be its real customers!)

    At the top-right is your username, "Friends", "Home" and a small triangle. Click on the small triangle then select "Privacy Settings".

    Click on "Edit Settings" to the right of "Apps and Websites". You may need to scroll down a little bit.

    Click on "Edit Settings" to the right of "Apps You Use".

    I no longer use any apps so I can't continue from here, but at this point it should be pretty clear what to do.

    Some apps really will require access to your details so they can function. If so, be certain that you really want to continue using those apps. Give them the minimum level of access that you really want them to have. Delete all the rest.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Did You Really Authorize All Those FB Apps? by Dan667 · · Score: 0

      mine is easier, only one step. Don't use facebook.

    2. Re:Did You Really Authorize All Those FB Apps? by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      You may be completely unaware that a whole bunch of private companies that are not affiliated with Facebook have access to your personal data

      Anyone who is unaware of that fact clearly does not understand Facebook's business model.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:Did You Really Authorize All Those FB Apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bet you dont own a TV either, or a radio, and walk to work... You grind out your own electricity at home on your own bicycle.

      Harsh? No. That is how you sound.

    4. Re:Did You Really Authorize All Those FB Apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't own a TV or a radio. The majority of my peer group don't either.
      They do all use Facebook though.

    5. Re:Did You Really Authorize All Those FB Apps? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Yea but that means your not online... Wait?!? What?!?

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    6. Re:Did You Really Authorize All Those FB Apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, yeah, I added all of those apps. Check your password? (And don't post anything you want private on Facebook? Everything I've posted there is available to find elsewhere, including my public LinkedIn profile. My phone number, address, and any other private information are not in my account. Um, I guess there's a Yearbook photo that someone else posted, but that's not really private so much as embarrassing in a hilarious way)

    7. Re:Did You Really Authorize All Those FB Apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be mentioned that the user above has severe sociopathic issues, and has repeatedly taunted MDC, and stalked him across the internet (looking up old usenet posts from decades ago), as well as, probably, in real life. In fact I am reasonably sure that modus was responsible for some of MDC's hospitalizations, either by melodramatically notifying authorities, or at least by goading and prodding MDC into a more serious state. That he was fully aware of the effects of his actions, yet felt no compunction, and presently feels no remorse but seeks to continue to drive MDC crazy, demonstrates the unfathomable depths of modus's sociopathy.

    8. Re:Did You Really Authorize All Those FB Apps? by Cable · · Score: 1

      Ignore this troll. Adding noise to the conversation. Mods please vote down.

  24. Definitely real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I decided it was real when I saw someone post Zuck's photos.

    1. Re:Definitely real by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 2

      If ever I thought there was a link that would go to goatse, that was it. But, no, the photos are of Zuckerberg fully clothed. Not mounting a goat or anything along those lines.

  25. What kind of photos? by cvtan · · Score: 1

    Now if there were porn photos of Mark Z. Ewwww!

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  26. Surprisingly weak architecture by matthaak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think this story is revealing about Facebook's security architecture. One would have hoped that security policies are defined within the application at a very low level and that all requests for information -- be it photos, posts, whatever -- must pass through that low-level security layer. What this story reveals is that the security architecture of Facebook is such that each developer of each separate function (in this case, the report-a-nude-photo function) is responsible for re-implementing security checks.

    1. Re:Surprisingly weak architecture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. This is EXACTLY the real nature of the problem.

    2. Re:Surprisingly weak architecture by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      This sounds a lot like cooperative multitasking, and the consequent hanging problems OSes that chose that route had.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    3. Re:Surprisingly weak architecture by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There seems to be some major design flaws in Facebook.

  27. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by berashith · · Score: 0

    I have also found versions 100, 200, 300, 400 , and I think 500. I was hoping to find a different pattern to the wonderful banter he provides, but no, just the same format over again. I was truly amazed when I was first trolled by this amazing contributor, but then I found I was just being fed a formulaic troll, with only 3 different patterns of attack, and a few variables to spice up the form. I am not even sure if it isnt a test of a script.

  28. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by berashith · · Score: 1

    no no no ... these are great fun.

  29. The pictures by slasho81 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Re:The pictures by Sez+Zero · · Score: 1

      He's not wearing a seatbelt; quick, someone raise his insurance rates!

    2. Re:The pictures by Mathness · · Score: 1

      Looks like Obama is wearing a tiny black wizard hat ... OMFG, he is the Bloodninja. :O

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
    3. Re:The pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dig Asian chicks.

  30. Regardless of THIS flaw by dmomo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Please know that on Facebook, whatever your privacy settings are, your photos are only secured by the obscurity of the URL. The Facebook servers that serve static content do so efficiently by doing nothing else. No cookies, no session management, etc. If you happen to know the url of an image (not the facebook url that wraps the image but the actual resource url) you can view it from anywhere whether or not you are logged in.

    1. Re:Regardless of THIS flaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      In addition to that if you have the static URL to the photo it persists after the photo has been deleted as well. I tested this by loading a URL after a photo had been deleted from the profile and voila! Its still there.

      So creeps, grab those URLs from your cache while you can.

    2. Re:Regardless of THIS flaw by dmomo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah. And if for some reason, you share it to someone.. and they post it anywhere, and google pics up the url, forget it:
      https://www.google.com/search?q=a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7&oe=utf-8um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

      You can also run a search for partial image names through the google image search api using facebook known static content servers.

    3. Re:Regardless of THIS flaw by grantek · · Score: 1

      In addition to that if you have the static URL to the photo it persists after the photo has been deleted as well.

      Well, that's to be expected when using a static cache - it's the only way DNS can manage, for example (DNS changes take a while to "propagate" through the Internet).

      If the deleted content is still there a week or more later, then you've got problems.

    4. Re:Regardless of THIS flaw by blackraven14250 · · Score: 4, Informative

      This has nothing to do with DNS. When an image is "removed" from Facebook, the image is left on the server. The URL is something like this: http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/ . Using the rest of the url, you can always access the image because they're not changing around which servers are assigned which names.

    5. Re:Regardless of THIS flaw by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If the deleted content is still there a week or more later, then you've got problems.

      We're talking about Facebook here. The content is never deleted, and that's by design.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  31. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by masternerdguy · · Score: 1

    i'm not sure you isn't a test of a moron.

    i'm not sure if you isn't a test of a moron either mate.

    --
    To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
  32. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Inconveniently, tiny networks are dubiously useful

    Too bad we don't have, like, the ENTIRE BLOODY INTERNET then. It's pretty big, and I've been using it to communicate with people since the mid 1980's.

    Oh, I forgot. Facebook is the only way to communicate with your friends and family online. The internet provides no other mechanism for doing so.

  33. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inconveniently, tiny networks are dubiously useful for most of the purposes to which people put facebook, network effects and all that.

    Smaller "Facebooks" doesn't mean that the different nodes wouldn't be able to exchange information. Look at emails, it's decentralized and it works. There is no reasons social networks couldn't work in a similar way.

    I refuse to use Facebook because it's centralized and out of our control. I would gladly use an open alternative where I can open my own servers at home or at work.

  34. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by meiao · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Do you have a key bound to spell "you're completely pathetic."?

  35. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad you've finally come to your senses.

  36. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Having a conversation/discussion != trolling. However only a minority actually understand this concept - the ones on the far right side of the bell curve.

    Ummm, isn't that where it goes back down to zero?

  37. Re:you can't trust 3rd parties with private info by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Thank you sir for making my point for me. Known on the X axis, variable on the Y, etc.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  38. Some of my best friends are strippers by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 1, Informative

    One of them had the idea that she could shock me by giving me her business card that bore a professionally photographed wide-open beaver shot.

    If you're anywhere near Santa Cruz, California, Seraphina Landgrebe does excellent erotic photography. I rang her up once in hopes that she could do a nice portrait for use as a Valentine's Day gift, but I did not yet have the kind of relationship with that young lady that would have made Seraphina's suggestion that I pose while clad in nothing but a leopard-print jockstrap appropriate.

    That stripper invited me to a party at her place once. There were only three men there, and all manner of incredibly hot young women. It turned out that the lot of them were strippers as well.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Some of my best friends are strippers by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Satire.

      I am not actually a stripper, nor am I engaged in any form of professional erotic enterprise.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  39. Silly by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

    It's silly to expect anything you place on the internet is private

  40. What a cute dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe he cooked it for dinner!

  41. Not a Flaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a required feature.. Give it up. Fucknut Co.

  42. I confess: I have an Internet stalker by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 1

    Some guy over at Kuro5hin who I know only as modus got the idea that I am some manner of dangerous criminal psychopath because I was so inconsiderate of his easily-wounded feeling to point out that, after two decades of working as a coder, I was weary of the work and wanted to change careers by going back to school to learn how to compose symphonies.

    If you look at his comment and diary history at his user info page I linked above, you'll find that the vast majority of them are focussed entirely on me, quite commonly telling all manner of bald-faced lies about me.

    He want to all manner of trouble and expense in hopes of making me completely unemployable, by running Google AdWords Select ads that pointed to the rather sarcastic diary I posted in which I requested that my colleagues at Kuro5hin stop giving me crap for not having ever shipped a Free Software product I've been tinkering with over the years. I have always made it crystal-clear that the real value of Ogg Frog was its website, because of its informative articles as well as its opinion pieces, with the Ogg Frog software being meant mainly to attract readers to those articles.

    I wrote them all in 2005 and 2006, so I cannot possibly imagine why anyone would have cause to complain. I won't release Ogg Frog because it has some severe bugs in it; because the product is targeted towards naive music fans, I don't want to subject them to the usability problems, crashes, and end-user data loss that are so commonly found in Open Source products that are "Released Early, Released Often".

    While I can see the value of having my code inspected by "Many Eyeballs", the two I have are sufficient.

    I don't have a problem with some troll being so obsessed with me that he has nothing better to do with his sorry existence than lie about me from the basement of his mother's house.

    What I do have a problem with is that this guy devotes vast quantities of effort to discovering where I live or what company I am consulting for. Whenever he is able to figure either of those out, he blasts news of his incredible discovery All Over God's Creation.

    For this reason, for a couple of years now I've been very quiet about where I live, and I never, ever mention anywhere who I am working for. When he pointed out that he was following my updates to my resume on my website, I removed my resume entirely then replaced it with a redirect to a general description of my company's consulting services.

    He has the idea that he's just being funny in the way so many Internet trolls think they are. If he had not, at this point, kept this crap up for two or three years I might believe him. But by now I feel I really do have reason to be concerned that this crime I committed by pointing out that I want to follow my passion rather than working as a corporate whore anymore is so serious, that if he knew how to physically locate me, he might come after me with a gun.

    Don't think I'm just being paranoid. That kind of thing happens All The God Damn Time. I recall as if it were yesterday the incident in which some Silicon Valley engineer for reasons I don't recall brought a gun to work one day and slaughtered seven of his colleagues.

    It was at one time possible to obtain personal information from the California Department of Motor Vehicles database. I don't think it was public record, exactly, but somehow some stalker was able to get his victim's home address from the DMV, then showed up at her place and murdered her.

    This of course made headlines all over Creation, so now the California DMV database is locked down much more tightly, but I would not be at all surprised if all of the other government databases which have not yet been used to obtain the street address of your next murder victim are not so secure.

    In the US, banks, credit card companies and the like use the account holder's mother's maiden name as a form of identification. Given the divorce rate in the state, as wel

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:I confess: I have an Internet stalker by thexile · · Score: 0

      tl;dr

  43. Here's Why I Really Do Need To Use Facebook by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of old friends that I want to find again don't have the first clue how to use Google.

    While I'm pretty good at "Feeling Lucky" myself, the kind of people who don't know how to use Google also tend not to appear anywhere on the Web under their own real names.

    One of my very best friends during my Freshman year of high school was a fellow Roman Soldier in Armijo High School's production of Jesus Christ Superstar. I'm handy with tools, so with the help of Ted and the other tool-handy Roman Soldiers, I supervised the fabrication of all of our spears in my family garage, using my Dad's tools.

    Over the summer after that year, Ted totally disappeared. Fell Off The Edge Of The Earth. Left The Building.

    I figured that he's moved somewhere and neglected to ever tell me where he moved to. After a while I gave up on ever hearing from one of the very best friends I ever had, ever again in my life.

    A couple of years ago I turned Ted up on Facebook. I left the theatre when I graduated from high school, but Ted made theatre his career.

    Not long after we Friended each other, Ted invited me to the taping of a TV commercial for one of the big science museums in downtown San Jose, California. I was living in San Jose at the time.

    If you ever want to walk right on to a movie or TV set while taping is taking place, just walk right up to the security guard, politely introduce yourself then say "I'm here to see Ted." He'll show you right in. I don't think it really matters whether anyone named Ted is actually present on the production set.

    Ted had lost a lot of weight since high school. We used to call him "Little Orange Basketball". He was also a lot taller, as we were both fifteen when we knew each other back then.

    Despite the very real Starfleet uniform, green facepaint and pointy prosthetic ears, Ted's very un-Vulcanlike smile was totally unmistakable.

    I have all the same objections to Facebook that any rational software engineer - or any rational human being - would have, but if it were not for Facebook, I would never, ever have found my old friend Ted Arabian ever, ever again.

    It would be the same for so many of my other friends. There are many that I'm still searching for, but have not yet found. I was once quite stoked to discover that my very best friend from elementary school was the lead actor in a live theatrical production I attended one night, but woe is me, it was not him, he was just using my childhood friend's name as his stage name.

    Maybe I can find you a YouTube of The Little Orange Basketball appearing as Commander Spock... damn, I'm not finding it. There are lots of videos of that exhibition online, but I can't find Ted's TV commercial.

    I'll drop him a line; if he has a link I'll post it in a followup.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  44. Want To Provide A Valuable Public Service? by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 1

    Point out that fact to all of your Facebook friends.

    After I deleted all that Apps from my FB profile, I pointed out what I'd done on my FB wall.

    One of my FB Friends immediately replied to thank me for doing so, and told me that it was only because of my advice that she knew to do the same thing for her own profile.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  45. Wait... by meowris · · Score: 1

    Why would someone put their ‘private' photos up on the Facebook?

  46. To all Failbook monkeys: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHA!

    Too bad the Facebook generation already lost the mental capacity to learn from this.

  47. Greetz Modus! Congrats On Stalking Me At /.! by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 0

    The creep who posted the parent comment is most likely Kuro5hin's modus, who has been stalking me over the Internet for two or three years.

    The reason he knows that I am mentally ill is that I devote a great deal of time and effort to educating the public about mental illness, my own as well as that of others.

    For some reason that I am as yet unable to fathom, my colleagues at Kuro5hin feel that it is flatly impossible for me to work as a self-employed software engineer, despite the fact that I persisted with coding as a career because I found that it accomodates my condition far better than my original career choice of Physics did.

    I was never actually hospitalized for fixating on, threatening or stalking anyone at all.

    The single mother with a sick child happens to be one of my oldest and closest friends. I am just about the only real friend that poor woman has ever had in her entire life.

    We met in 1986 or so. At the time she introduced herself to me as "Crystal". I had the idea that her nickname was due to her being quite strikingly beautiful and amazingly talented, as well as being one of the most intelligent people I have ever met in my entire life.

    A year or so later I happened to refer to her as Crystal, but she asked me not to do so anymore as her nick was short for "Crystal Methamphetamine", to which she was horribly addicted for many years.

    She was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder when she was in high school. I have ADHD too, and so I have to take a completely legal, prescription form of Amphetamine with the brand name of Adderall to have any hope of providing for myself.

    I've known a whole lot of drug addicts over the years, and so am quite vividly aware of what would eventually become of me if I ever yielded to the quite tempting impulse to take more than my psychiatrist's recommended dosage of three ten milligram tablets per day.

    But because Crystal was, when diagnosed with ADHD, quite addicted to Cocaine, she was completely unable to find a doctor willing to prescribe any manner of stimulant medication for her condition.

    There is an antidepressant-like medicine called Strattera that is licensed for ADHD now, but it had not yet been developed when Crystal was in high school.

    Despite my never having been addicted to anything, the use of stimulants for the treatment is quite unfairly stigmatized, so I sometimes have trouble obtaining the Adderall which a nationally recognized expert on Adult ADHD was completely convinced I needed to take. This I was on Stattera for a few months earlier this year, but it was not effective in any way whatsoever. I did not notice any effect from it of any sort. I did give it some time to take effect; then my p-doc put me back on Adderall after I complained that if I had to stay on Strattera, I'd be homeless in no time at all.

    While I met Crystal at UC Santa Cruz, she had also been accepted to study pre-medicine at Yale, with the intention of becoming a surgeon. At UCSC, she graduated with Thesis Honors in Microbiology.

    I've know this poor woman since 1986. She has to be the most fucked-up, miserable dysfunctional human being I have ever met in my whole entire life. Having been in a whole bunch of mental hospitals over the years, I've met quite a few crazy people, but Crystal tops them all.

    Crystal knew very well that there was no way she could survive UCSC's Microbiology course, let alone do well in her studies, unless she could get medication for her ADHD. It happens that Methamphetamine works even better than Adderall for ADHD, and in fact is available in prescription form, completely legally. Provided you keep a lid on the dosage, Methamphetamine - the very same chemical compound that Crystal Meth is composed of - really is the best treatment there is for ADHD.

    Crystal's family was once quite wealthy, but for reasons I won't go into, things didn't work out well for her father's business

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Greetz Modus! Congrats On Stalking Me At /.! by Nimey · · Score: 1

      See? All that time you spent writing a WALL OF TEXT could have been productively spent getting Warp Life finished.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  48. Counterproductive defeatism by blubadger · · Score: 1

    If all Facebook's users thought like you (and many others here apparently) then Facebook would have no reason whatsoever to safeguard anyone's privacy. That is the reality. Users expect the level of privacy that is described to them, as per the settings that they chose. (We're not talking about advertisers here, we're talking about other users.) And Facebook generally upholds its side of the contract. Why? Because it is afraid of user outcry, of PR disasters, and in the end of regulation. Your attitude gives Facebook a free pass. I just don't understand it. If you don't trust Facebook, don't use it. But this idea that Facebook can and will get away with anything is utterly cynical and gets us nowhere. Please stop.

  49. Why do you regard my software's so important? by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 1

    I have always been clear that I regard coding as the same kind of day job that enables any starving artist to get by as a Batista. It should have been obvious long before Rusty wrote his first line of Perl that it is my writing an music that I regard as my real life's work.

    yet whenever I devote any significant attention to either of my passions, the very first response from the vast majority of kurons is that my devotion to my craft is either taking time away from work that I regard as largely pointless, or is evidence of som psychiatric symptom despite me being stone cold sober when I wrote it.

    I have moved Heaven and Earth to benefit humanity through my writing since 1980, and my music since 1984. yet so many of you regard me as some kind of moral failure because I don't devote myself to the kind of work whose only substantial benefit to anyone is to make wealthy people far richer than they would be without my contribution.

    it's not just me. your own tick on the Mortal Plane will expire before long. as you lay in your deathbed looking back at your life, will you only consider it to be well lived if you met more of your deliverables, or if you met the same objective I meet every day of my life, to ease the agony of those who suffer, or to impart the benefit of your extensive experience to your younger colleagues who struggle to understand the work set out for him.

    yesterday some guy asked me to purchase his used train ticket. that's a common scheme here because port lands transit passes are time stamped and so can be used by any number of passenger before the timeout expires.

    I sadly informed him that I wascas broke as he was, but spent ten minutes with him so we could get to know each other.

    younalready know that when I'm not so broke, panhandlers don't get my spare change but any meal they want atba good restaurant, during which I put even more time into getting to know them.

    I bought my first meal for a panhandler in 1984. perhaps you don't show thatbsame kindness to thosevwhonsuffer, but do show show any manner of kindness atvall?

    Ricardo Stallman's very first priority is not writing code and never has been. write anything you want to him; you'll be surmised not that you get a responsevat all but the time and care he devoted to his reply. barn striustrup does the same thing.

    if you and Richard ever meet in person, ask him for some money. his life's work of changing society does not permit him the time to dine with you as I would, but he will buy you a meal.

    I've been struggling for years to understand thevattitudes of people such as yourself towards my life's work. enlighten me, I beg of yup.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
    1. Re:Why do you regard my software's so important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait so is your life's work is to prowl the streets for people to buy meals? Or is it to make music? How new is your most recent CD? 1994? And how many songs are on it? 4? How many songs are still as of yet untitled very nearly 18 fucking years later? Jesus christ that shit is getting old. I'm going to whip my dick out and masturbate to your latest cd because it's damn near legal age.

      Q: What's free at Denny's and takes longer to prepare than a Michael Crawford Software Project?
      A: Their charity cassoulet?
      Q: No. A Michael Crawford Music Project.

  50. I make music every single day by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 1

    i just don't record it. I vastly prefer live performance. the bulk of my music work is actually theoretical study. to the extent that I play it is to more deeply understand music theory. I have made it clear for many years that I want to learn to compose symphonies. one must understand music theory for that. producing recordings does not do much to advance me towards my musical goals.

    it's not so much that I regard buying meals for the poor as my life's work. it is to convince others to do so.

    I have been homeless and hungry. the worst part of it is not sleeping out in the cold but being treated by others as if I don't even exist.

    even if you don't feed the poor, when someone asks you for money, just politely decline, then introduce yourself, ask for their name, offer to shake their hand, then spend sometime getting to know each other.

    you'll quickly find that the poor, mentally I'll and homeless get far more out of genuine human companionship than any amount of food or money.

    consider that the very worst punishment that is applied in Americas prisons is not execution but solitary confinement.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  51. Failbook is in bed with M$ by FriendofTwitter · · Score: 0

    What? For agreeing with you that Failbook is similar to M$ in terms of privacy? Fact : Failbook is in bed with M$.
    Fact : M$ also owns the data on Failbook

    Fact : Failbook is attacking software developers using imaginary property laws to give M$ a bigger monopoly. All paid for by Failbook l-users

    That is the tip of the iceberg for the partnership between Failbook and M$. The FTC needs to investigate the whole deal between M$ and Failbook, revoke corporate charters, then shutdown both Failbook and M$ for numerous privacy violations and for abusing a monopoly. Even non users must deal with less privacy due t0 M$ and Failbook.

    --
    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk
    Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.