Slashdot Mirror
Married Woman Claims Facebook Info Sharing Created Dating Profile For Her
jenningsthecat writes A happily married Ontario woman was shocked and dismayed last January to discover that she had an active account with dating site Zoosk.com. Mari Sherkin saw a pop-up ad on Facebook for Zoosk, but wasn't interested, so she "clicked on the X to close it. At least I thought I did." She immediately began to receive messages from would-be Zoosk suitors in her Facebook mailbox. When she had a look on Zoosk she was horrified to find a dating profile with her Facebook picture, name, and postal code. Zoosk denies ever setting up profiles in this way, yet their terms of service explicitly allow them to do it, and there are apparently several Facebook pages with complaints of similar occurrences.
...I would never have done something like that.
but found out she's the product.
Facebook knows her true feelings about her husband.
So either this lady went through a lot of steps to create a profile, or this company is lying and actually created it for her.
I'm far more likely to believe the combination of Facebook and whatever this Zoosk thing is are the culprits.
That's pretty slimy as far as I'm concerned.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Delete your Facebook account already. You can live with out it, I promise.
Zoosk has awful business practices in my experiences. Lots of spam and fake profiles. Lots of bots.
Anyone who has ever been a programmer at a social networking company however will know it was management's decree. This type of stuff doesn't happen on accident.
Zoosk denies ever setting up profiles in this way, yet their terms of service explicitly allow them to do it
Naturally, they would never do a thing that they had written out legal language to explicitly allow them to do.
Their programming and legal teams just happened to make the same mistake.
I had the same problem, I clicked the wrong button and Facebook loaded up all these photos of my ex-girlfriends! Hopefully if I show this article to my wife she will take me back.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Sounds like a user poaching tactic on Zoosk's part. Whoops, did we do that? Sorry...
Some dating websites just scrape information from social media sites to create profiles (and damn the consequences). It's all just so they can draw in people to pay money for a matchmaking service.
Why do people insist in posting personal details in a place like Facebook? Is it because that makes them feel important? Do they really have such pathetic lives that Facebook is a must?
From the fine print:
"By accessing or using our services through a social networking site, you are authorizing Zoosk to collect, store, retain and use, in accordance with our privacy policy, any and all of your information that Zoosk has obtained from the social networking site, including to create a Zoosk profile page and account for you.”
So by closing the pop up (the ‘service’), she was technically ‘using’ the service - and Zoosk can now create a profile page. Looks totally legit /s.
Great PR company of a service I haven't heard before. Seems that paid article on cbc is chepaer than using AdWords to attract new customers.
Morpheus: What is Facebook? Control. Facebook is a computer-controlled world built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into this.
[holds up an ad]
Neo: No, I don't believe it. It's not possible.
Morpheus: I didn't say it would be easy, Neo. I just said it would be the truth.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Here is one valid use-case for Facebook... Our kid is growing and the small army of great- and grand- parents — as well as uncles and aunts — want to see as many pictures as there can be.
I host our collection on my own computer (FiOS rulez), but it is somewhat tedious to keep the collection up to date. Facebook, on the other hand, makes it much easier to get from snapping a picture to its world-wide availability.
Now, I am unlikely to give-in and open an FB-account — I'd rather figure out, how to automate such uploads myself (ownCloud sounds promising). But I do not (any longer) blame other people, who choose the easy way out. Why would they include optional personal details — I don't know either. Maybe, because they don't realize, it is optional?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
On second thought, Zoosk is a weird place.
I have the same problem, unfortunately my Zoosk account doesn't bring me the candidate pool that I seek,
Neutered female pitbull age 5 became a single, never married woman age 35 (7 dog years for each human year)
My dog's profile soon became inundated with ads for lesbian dating sites. I'm trying to imagine actually setting up a date between my pitbull and one of the women-seeking-women. Might be amusing.
you forgot the filthy part of your account... "Happily married 50 yo FILTHY RICH man seeking SWF 18-21"
What the tuck is this doing here on Slashdot?
Our algorithms analyzed the tones of your status updates and thought you might like a change of scenery. You're welcome
This is just a friendly reminder that the purpose of Facebook games is to get your personal information. When you "install" the game you get a EULA that grants the game access to your profile. But, as far as I know, clicking on a Facebook ad should not give them your profile. The article mentions OAuth, but that should not be relevant to an advertisement.
How did she get a popup ad on facebook? I finally succumbed to getting a facebook account because that is how the big band I am in communicates. I have literally never had a popup ad while on facebook.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
After some of the post I made on Facebook, I automatically had profiles of me created by the FBI and the NSA. And dating sites as well, I suppose.....
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
the original article can only be commented on by those who are jacked into
social media....
those who understand the nature and purpose of social media are not
jacked in. they are not commenting... a kind of irony.
what a morbid web we weave.. by we I mean most of you :/
Obviously she clicked "X" for "X"-treamly interested. Isn't that how everything works these days?
in case of whoosh.
Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
Doesn't have to be Facebook/Zoosk's or her fault. Well not completely anyway. Could be another party doing this just to troll, maybe someone who doesn't like her.
Think about it, why would Facebook/Zoosk create a profile of her with her real contact info? It's not uncommon for shady dating sites to use someone's pic and some info to create fake profiles, but they do it for the pretty pics and are gambling that the owner of those pics doesn't find out about it. It would be really stupid to give out the owner's real email address, since would be instantly notifying them that you are committing fraud. Companies that want to stay in business generally avoid that.
On the other hand, third party, doing it either just for lolz or to do something bad to a specific person could easily do it. Facebook pics are out there, so is some basic profile info to make it look more legit, real email isn't hard to get especially if you know the person. I'd say they knew it would put this woman in hot water. Hell, maybe give her husband's email as backup contact.
It's like an hour worth of work to do this to someone who is stupid enough to have their info and pic plastered all over a public web-site like Facebook. That's the part where it's her own fault, though not completely, since there are plenty of other uses for Facebook and this kind of thing doesn't happen to everyone.
...the one where all the celebrities with sexual addiction problems blame it on the alien wizard. It was Facebook that created all those dating site profiles honey, honest. Yeah, the alien wizard.
Hey it worked for the "Virgin" Mary
You know that story can't be true after only five words.
> socnet user is surprised to learn her Facebook dataz aren't under her control
I am shocked. Shocked, I say.
I appreciate all the "happily married" jokes and etc. but for the people who are think that she's lying or this isn't serious, I pray you don't work in security because this is a great example of how big of an issue social media linking is.
It's gotten pervasive and everywhere lets you sign it with Facebook now, and your Facebook account is your authentication, so it's not a huge leap that via an advertisement on Facebook, a click on a n "x" box that was actually an open redirect that wasn't noticed or didn't really show anything besides registering what was needed for her Facebook account to be "authenticated" with Zoosk (it was from within Facebook, after all!) wherein Zoosk took Facebook's permissions to allow third-parties to access personal information to farm what they could from her Facebook page, and then try to get her onto the site by giving notifications that very well could have been spam as well.
It's an incredibly scummy tactic, but it's common of scammers. Scammers aren't interested in, say, the /. crowd for example (so yes, backpats to everybody for not using Facebook), they're interested in the people who don't have the sense to look at this skeptically and instead go "Oh! Interesting! This dating website? I should check this out more."
This woman obviously had the sense to take an incredulous, somewhat horrified look at what Zoosk had done with her personal information (probably exacerbated by the fact that she was married) and connect it with the benign event of closing an ad she'd seen previously for the website through another website that contains the personal information that somehow showed up on this other website.
It's incredibly worrisome how much of scammer tactics have become "normalized" because people mistake it for convenience, or that it just goes under the radar or is dismissed otherwise. This is some real shady shit.
Wasn't there a site that did this before?
I remember reading something like this...
Hosts cant do any of that shit you hopeless fucking idiot
Don't use facebook
She got caught, and now she's lying. Simple as that.
Zoosk sent me an ad where they randomly took two names from my facebook friends list, male and female, and heavily implied they were dating after meeting on Zoosk, with their stylized heart graphic. In fact they had never heard of each other. The man, my next door neighbor, was very angry and i don't blame him.
You convinced me apk's right with that weak illogical ad hominem attack alone.
Do go fuck yourself with a rusty cactus.
CAPTCHA: violate
As was said here already earlier: You only convince me apk's right http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... as you did that other replier when the best you have is illogical ad hominem attacks only.
... rather than having their own web page, and then the only way you can find out about scheduled events etc. is if you log into Facebook. It's even more of a "walled garden" than Compuserve or AOL used to be.
Go on, ask me if I feel the least bit bad about stealing from poor site owners by blocking these advertisements.
A quick Google of her name shows she has many profiles scattered all over the place to publicise her acting career.
That's what you get for using facebook.
"A happily married Ontario woman was shocked and dismayed last January to discover that she had an active account with dating site Zoosk.com."
At least, that is what she told her husband.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Subject sums it up really.
Apparently the red X has a *totally* different connotation on dating sites.
Stories like this are the reason why people should:
A - Avoid Facebook altogether (better)
OR
B - Take some precautionary measures which include but is not limited to the following:
1. Install Adblock extension or have a HOSTS file blacklist.
2. Never use Facebook credentials if a 3rd party website asks for it. Never ever login with a Facebook account into a dating site (or any other "legit" site) that asks for it.
3. Lock down your Facebook profile with high privacy settings and avoid the apps.
4. Run your browser in a application virtualized environment, see Sandboxie.
But wait, most people don't have the skill of figuring that out. Most people want their cookies so that the password is saved.
Stories like this will continue to become more common.
... I would put dark glasses on the dog, too.
Just to be on the safe side.
Those guys are exactly the reason why people have ad-blockers installed.
http://boingboing.net/2009/08/...
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
that X on a pop-up ad doesn't necessarily mean close, does it?
How do you think I felt after years of trying to blend in and not stand out in a crowd when I happened upon Slashdot and found out they created an account without my knowledge or approval?
Hi, AlecStaar!
Guess you forgot to take your jagged little pill today, eh?
Otherwise, you might remember this?
cat
complete lies.
APK lives within 10 miles of me. Give me an assload of kickstarter cash and I'll kickstart his anus.
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit: http://start64.com/index.php?o...
Can AdBlock do 15 things hosts can?
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites (beyond malicious adbanners)
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirected dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux botnet attacks + stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns botnet attacks + stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm botnet attacks + stop their communications to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing by adblocking + hardcoding fav sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all that & block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs).
12.) Give you direct notepad/texteditor controlled data
13.) Block trackers
14.) Block spam mail
15.) Block phishing mail
(Answer's "NO" to each for AdBlock)
APK
P.S.=> Hosts yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
* Hosts do more w/ less @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slow ring 3 browsers) via filtering the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing + are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.
* Addons slows usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM + excessive cpu too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... )
Adblock doesn't do its job -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
All you can manage is to avoid disproving apk, downmodding him here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... which only convinced me he's correct.
STFU, pussy.
They minus mod your posts not proving you wrong: all indicative of my subject. They're trying to hide a better way of doing things using hosts for more speed, security, reliability and other items you noted.
I'll let Hairyfeet speak for me (as he said it best):
"My grandfather taught me long ago that when someone tries to silence speech? You had damned well better start following the money, because it WILL be involved. But lately we've seen a LOT of places where if you don't jump on board? They do NOT debate, they sling insults and try to silence you. And wadda ya know? A LOT of that shit ends up being traced back to people cashing checks" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @05:11AM (#48416149) Journal
Truer words were never spoken - & whom *might* those parties be? Well, ok:
1.) Advertisers
2.) Makers of inferior competing "so-called 'solutions'"
3.) Malware makers/Botnet Herders
4.) Webmasters
(Who, in the latter unfortunately, take a beating on adblocking - however, *IF* they & their advertiser colleagues would've payed more attention as to what goes on in their ads, ala them infecting us via malicious code which has happened TONS of times since 2004, infesting millions out there online no less? I'd never have released it... in fact, I held off until 2012, but not after I saw more malcode in ads than ever before so... out the door she went)!
APK
P.S.=> Each time they do it, they fail to realize others read well below the default moderation threshold, neutralizing their "further your hidden agenda" methods used on /. (of sockpuppet accounts to farm karma with for those downmods vs. those they can't beat with truth or fact):
Doesn't matter!
Folks see the posts of mine anyhow & truth they enumerate...
(Thus, they're fighting a losing battle vs. myself - truth & facts always win - hence their inability to prove my points on wrong on hosts being FAR superior to adblock on many levels in abilities, efficiency, and more...)
... apk
Jeez....the adolescent quality of the comments on this item do no reflect well on Slashdot: I don't think it is a laughing matter that someone is presented with a deceptive UI " so she "clicked on the X to close it. At least I thought I did."". What part of that is so funny? Real issue; real harm done - and it could (and does) happen to anyone, just in different guises. I hope you all get ripped off when each of you next use a credit card. It might teach you a lesson in humility.
My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability & more, doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
Can adblock do 15 things hosts files can for more speed, security, reliability, & more:
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious adbanners - see 2 thru 6 below next)
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.
APK
P.S.=> The ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?
That's illogical: I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!
... apk
W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).
I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!
Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!
He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!
ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!
Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk
got away with jesus things have gone downhill for the married man