Slashdot Mirror
US Congressmen: Facebook Evading Privacy Questions
An anonymous reader writes "Two U.S. congressmen have accused Facebook of evading questions about whether it tracks users in order to deliver targeted ads. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, and Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said the social networking giant failed to adequately answer questions raised by a patent application that suggests Facebook could be tracking users on other websites. The duo previously asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate accusations that Facebook tracks its users even after they log out of the social network, an issue the company says it has since fixed."
It's exactly the same privacy issue as the Facebook buttons, except that Google is much less likely to have your real name.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Two U.S. congressmen have accused Facebook of evading questions about whether it tracks users in order to deliver targeted ads
If they want answers, they should just check Facebook's "Facebook Ad Targeting" group page. I'm sure it's "leaking" all the answers they crave. /sarcasm
Its simple, Google ponied up the dough, Facebook did not.
Watch out Google, Facebook is coming after you for patent infringement. If you do not pay the licensing fee, SOPA will be activated.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
And even after logging out a week ago, I find 2 cookies for "any type of connection" that won't expire for at least a year. They "fixed" it but good.
90% of what you see and hear is ads, only 10% is actual content!
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Honestly, guys, it isn't that hard. Pretty much any question about facebook can be answered by asking yourself "If the NSA and the National Enquirer merged, what would they do?"
I think congress should look in the mirror when it comes to evading questions... or taxes for that matter
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
||facebook.com^$third-party,domain=~facebook.net|~fbcdn.com|~fbcdn.net
||facebook.net^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com|~fbcdn.com|~fbcdn.net
||fbcdn.com^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com|~facebook.net|~fbcdn.net
||fbcdn.net^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com|~facebook.net|~fbcdn.com
I'm way more worried about a government which now has free reign to spy on my phone calls, emails, etc. with no warrants and even gives retroactive immunity to protect the telco's from any nasty civil rights lawsuits over this than I am about Facebook sending me some targeted ads.
In short, a government that treats the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution like a piece of toilet paper is a lot more important a concern than Mark Zuckerberg trying to make a quick buck.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Golf clap. You really can turn every thread into something negative about Google, can't you? You must be some sort of meta-anti-search engine, what with all the insightful information you bring to each and every thread where you fear that someone MIGHT not have the opinion that Google is evil. Did Larry and Sergey go to Stanford with you and make jokes about your mom? What's the deal?
. . .At this point, believe anything congress has to say? I hate Facebook, but come on. Congress cares about privacy? Give me a break. These guys have continually voted against privacy in the form of Patriot Acts, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretaps, etc. What is happening is Facebook just hasn't given the correct amount of "campaign contributions." When Facebook ponies up, you'll hear the tune change.
Bzzt, wrong, both track only the pages on which the tracking code is placed (typically ALL of them). I know this because I've set up these systems as part of my job.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The best thing you can do about all this as an individual? TURN OFF THIRD-PARTY COOKIES. I've been browsing with third-party cookies disabled for the last six months, and am yet to find something I care about that doesn't work because I have them disabled. It protects your privacy and security, it eliminates various irritating bits of targeted advertising and the like, and most browsers have a "block third-party cookies" setting built in.
It's the new Anti-Google astroturfer. The last one got killed because it he admitted he was a paid astroturfer for MS. This one isn't going to last very long either. Note for anyone who is wondering why I know (with >95% certainty) that DCTech is a paid astroturfer:
* brand new handle
* posts random Google is evil posts in the most unrelated topics
* does so within seconds of the article being up
* does little other than post Google is evil
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
No you're still wrong. Yes you can put it in the template, and you can do the same with the Facebook button. The Analytics code doesn't use mind control waves to force the web dev to put it in the template. It isn't unusual to see a Facebook button in a site's "static areas" that appear on every page that lets you Like the company. Technically you are 100% wrong and practically you are grasping at straws.
Facebook is pretty close to GA in popularity now. Look, even Slashdot, the home of the privacy-aware geek, has fucking facebook buttons now, what does that tell you.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Yes. Though, I'm sure that Facebook would prefer people believe otherwise.
Check your premises.
Probably not yet.
Facebook can refuse to co-operate. Then congress could start an investigation and subpoena the information, which facebook would be obliged to obey. And then congress could write new legislation targeting facebook.
Or, facebook could try to quietly ignore the request and ratchet up their sponsorship of legislators.
Yes, because completely blocking whole amazon aws and facebook is such an awesome idea.
I don't know why you guys are arguing... you both said the same thing. The components of either exist exactly where site owners put it.
Yes, site owners tend to put analytics code in sitewide templates. That's kindof the point of analytics. On the other hand, FB code goes on millions of sites that don't use google's analytics, and it almost certainly correlates and stores more actual user-specific data.
It was the evil twins done put secret cookies in all my codes.
-mark
Their best plan of action is to do as little as possible, exactly what it takes to make politicians calm down and nothing more.
3rd-party cookies are a contributing factor to some of these privacy violations.
At what point did it become standard for browsers to accept 3rd-party cookies? The original cookie spec explicitly forbid them, and only reason that I know of to support them is to allow sites to track you across other domains. No web application, shopping cart, etc. should ever need to use them. Further, they seem like a terrible security flaw.
I was surprised to find that Firefox enables this by default, and some web forums (Engadget) are even complaining if you turn them off. I think we need to nip this in the bug, but I am curious when and why this default changed.
OF COURSE they track you to provide targeted ads, how else do you think they stay in business? Do you think they have a gigantic infrastructure just for your personal pleasure? While I fully support forcing facebook to divulge all the info they store on you (i.e. that gigantic PDF they'll send you on request), I also have no problem with them doing just about anything they want with data they collected. If you find that so incredibly repugnant, don't use facebook at all.
This story to me is about the same as the headline "Pfizer dodges questions from senator that it 'sells drugs' to what they call 'patients'"
Or perhaps "INTEL refuses to deny that it makes computer processors!"
Ze Atomic Device! It iz Ztolen!
Joe Barton:- You can’t lie, so tell me Mark, where is this user?
Mark Zuckerberg:- Uh, hmm, well, uh, I don’t know where he’s not.
Joe Barton:- Your telling me, you don’t know where this user is?
Mark Zuckerberg:- It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume that I couldn’t exactly not say that it is or isn’t almost partially incorrect.
Edward Markey:- So you do know where he is?
Mark Zuckerberg:- On the contrary. I’m possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that I undeniably (Eward Markey tells him “Stop it!”) do or do not know where he shouldn’t probably be, if that indeed wasn’t where he isn’t. Even if he wasn’t at where I knew he was............
--- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
At this point, probably not, but if they choose not to they could end up receiving a congressional subpoena. And even in the absence of that ignoring congress critters that have taken an eye to ones business practices isn't necessarily a wise idea.
That makes no sense. Facebook like button really isn't on all pages of the internet because it makes no sense to have it on them, and isn't as widespread either. But every site wants to see how many visitors they have and all other information about them.
But hey, if you don't believe me, take a look at Blekko's Grep the Web. As part of crawling the web they do exactly this kind of stuff, to determine how many websites have something compared to other.
Here we can find number of domains with Google Analytics: 12,380,670
Here we can find number of domains with Facebook like button: 522,242 + 817,817 = 1,340,059
Yep, exactly the same. Except that Google Analytics is installed on 11 million more domains than Facebook like button.
Will the people who are not using a script in ABE (the Application Boundary Enforcer) in NoScript to prevent Facebook from doing things to you on other sites kindly make yourselves known by raising both feet?
The script to enter looks something like this (see NoScript website):
# This one allows Facebook scripts and objects to be included only .facebook.com .fbcdn.net .facebook.com .fbcdn.net
# from Facebook pages
Site
Accept from
Deny INCLUSION(SCRIPT, OBJ, SUBDOC)
Whatever happened to the NoScript feature for dealing with Web bugs or as AT&T / Yahoo call them, web-beacons? IRC there was a feature for that on untrusted sites. It seems like one to have all the time. Maybe something to avoid loading ANYTHING from other domains would be a good default much of the time too. If other content is that important, the host could be a proxy or users can grant permission. Ebay surely needs something like that.
I thought you were being just paranoid and delusional, but I took a look at his post... All of them are:
* Google is evil (with a minor in Bing isn't)
* Linux UI stinks (imply MS is good)
* Right holders RULE!
I hope he got good money for his soul.
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
I'd like to voice my disagreement with the above AC, whose rudeness casts a shadow upon the proper anon's who provide interesting and thoughtful commentary. NeutronCowboy, thanks for the analysis; it was insightful. Don't let the above 1% fellow get to you.
Who thinks these congressmen are so vigorous to get up off their asses cause they have something extremely incriminating to hide? (That facebook might have?)
Yep, I've noticed the slant. All you gotta do is mark him enemy, watch the FUD spew, ignore and move on. Hell, his post history matches what you say and it's relatively new.
I guess MS must be a bit bored with the last astroturfer.
That's okay, anybody concerned about this can just not use Facebook. If they are really concerned, they could help the public and probably earn a bundle, too, by starting up a competitor that has better practices and expending their advertising funds educating the public as to why this is better.
Meanwhile, my concern is people like Barton and Markey, who keep taking my money against my will, and meddling in things like this, all the while claiming to "represent" me. Unfortunately this is not so easily solved as the Facebook problem, since the option to "just not use Congress" is not available to me, nor is the option to "just start a better one, and educate people with advertising so they will use yours and quit using the flawed one."
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Facebook is not "required" by anyone or anybody. It is purely voluntary. If you don't like what they are doing with what you post there or the information you provide them by using their FREE service, feel free to stop using it.
You're right that companies are built from individuals, and that they have their own, valid opinions. However, that's not the problem here. If an MS employee wants to post their opinion under a pseudonym, I'm fine with that. I'm fine with someone liking MS products, and posting that. But that's not what's going on here: someone is paid to take a position and defend it at all cost. There is no debate going on here, merely advertisement.
I object to being advertised to by someone pretending to not be advertising, in an environment that I specifically selected because it is not filled with advertisement. Dupes, hot grits and GNAA won't get me to leave Slashdot. Astroturfers will.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
But you are missing out on all the cyber stalking possibilities. Want to know if that cute girl from high school is still cute? Often Facebook is the only way to find out ;-)
Yes, because someone who has different opinion is obviously a paid shill. Do you even notice how paranoid you sound?
Why is it that our Congressmen are willing to criticize Facebook for privacy issues, but when it comes to SOPA, they just look the other way? Something is seriously wrong here.....
NOTHING on Facebook is private. If you remember this, then you're okay. If you can't figure this out, then ... well ... too bad for you.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Actually, I'd argue that there's evidence that he's simply a crazed MS fanatic who wants to bash all of it's competitors. Here's a list of what I've compiled supporting this:
*Microsoft would only pay him if he could even marginally make them look better instead of looking like a hare-brained MS-loving lunatic.
OK, I admit it was a short list, but I think a valid one.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I guess the same thing that happened to the phone telemarketers is going to have to happen with tracking web sites. They have clearly made it apparent they will not do anything until forced too.Well im all for that,how do we get it started? A law preventing tracking unless they ask first. We all have groceries store/Drug store saver cards. We allow them to track what we buy in exchange for lower prices. WOW thats a great Idea
Jack of all trades,master of none
I see the 'google-analytics.com' on several sites when I go in an enable certain domains in chrome. I block all JS and cookies, and only allow what I want to.
So, I block all the facebook, google, and doubleclick stuff that shows on the page.
Having said that, I've been using google for years. I am sure I was stupid sometime back in the day and logged into my Gmail, G+, Google Wave, Gdocs, etc on an unsecure browser, and they have my settings.
If you use Google login, do you know that you should turn off your 'browsing history' with google? Yea, they keep track of that shiat...
https://www.google.com/history/
Then shut it down... I turned mine off years ago, but if you haven't done that, you're being tracked regardless...
It's all damned lies and statistics!! I mean 47% of all people use statistics to back up their arguments.
Covers any program that is webbound, not just particular browsers that have AdBlock, per the subject-line above:
(Add either of these lines to your hosts file using a text editor & be sure to save it as "hosts", not "hosts.txt" (notepad's NOTORIOUS for that)).
---
127.0.0.1 fbcdn.net
or
0.0.0.0 fbcdn.net
---
* The latter's actually smaller & faster, thus imo, is the better, more efficient option (that's just as universally compatible as the loopback adapter address, but smaller by 2 characters, & has no loopback operation @ all (just a "blackhole")).
(Of course, this OR the AdBlock filter noted by the poster I am replying to's going to go over like a "lead balloon" with actual FaceBook users - man, in MOST folks I know that are "into facebook"? Well... I've noticed they REALLY TRULY LOVE THAT PLACE!)
APK
P.S.=> Hosts files also operate out of PnP driver ring 0/rpl 0/kernelmode operations, which are FAR faster than browser addons (which tend to slow browsers down & add memory + CPU consumption & other forms of I/O too), which operate in ring 3/rpl 3/usermode... apk
I was obviously talking about how people usually do it. Of course you can do all sorts of tricks or server side determination on when to include GA, but that's completely beside the point and not how majority do it.
All other problems having been solved, two Congresscritters are shaking Facebook down. Folks, if you use a "free" service, then the product being sold is you. That's the QPQ.
I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
The ones I know are SharkLaser and InsightIn140Bytes but they are so obvious.
You would think someone would actually realise what they are doing. It's like going to a party and bullshitting to everyone. It makes you an ass and unacceptable in social situations.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
You are a paid shill. You have no genuine opinions since you are obviously willing to change them on a dime.
Don't you want to think for yourself?
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
Yeah I turned off the "browsing history" feature shortly after it was rolled out. As I've discussed elsewhere in this thread I'd like to "sandbox" any Google account activity in a separate private browsing window, I can't wait until Firefox allows concurrent private browsing like Chrome does.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel