Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Wins 'Big Brother' Award in Belgium After Being Declared Worst Privacy Villain (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the what-privacy dept.

Facebook won the "Big Brother" award in Belgium on Thursday, after people in the nation reached a conclusion that the social juggernaut is the ultimate privacy villain. "Facebook is a multi-billion dollar company that has one commodity - you!" said Joe McNamee, Executive Director of European Digital Rights. From a CNET report: Facebook, nominated by international digital advocacy group EDRi, won after being criticized for its default privacy settings in a unanimous decision. The social network didn't respond to requests for comment. "Facebook has access to a wide range of personal data, and it tracks your movements across the web, whether you are logged in or not," EDRi said. "And the devil is in the default: To opt out, you are expected to navigate Facebook's complex web of settings."

37 comments

  1. Its real simple.... by CaptnCrud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing is free.

    What gets me, is people that get there underpants all in a twist over "creepers" getting their phone number online.... ....then they plunk family photo's, past schools, past relations, eating habits, geo-location data, moments of zen on the toilet, and just about every bit of trivial/non-trivial info they can muster.... ....to some nebulous company online....

    1. Re:Its real simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing strange about that. Your phone number online allows for direct, mostly anonymous, harassment on a massive scale.
      The other stuff not so much. We all have our daily zen moments on the toilet, funny habits and failed past relations. For this reason this kind of information usually cannot be harmful, only in extreme cases.

    2. Re:Its real simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing is free.

      No kidding, Captain Obvious. That's why I don't have a Facebook account and don't recommend anyone get or keep one, unless you want a Mark Zuckerberg buttplug up your ass, which is about how Facebook treats you: they're all up in your business.

      Of course the one thing you're overlooking here is that even if Facebook had a 'subscription' option, they'd still scrape every byte of data from you they possibly could, to make more money off their users. It's a bullshit site run by a bullshit organization founded by a sonofabitch who really doesn't give a rats ass about anyone or anything other than turning as muc profit as he can. You're a fool if you continue to use Facebook, plain and simple, and all the denial in the world won't change that fact.

    3. Re:Its real simple.... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Random creepers are both hard to track down and get compensation for if they start doing something that has a negative effect on you.

      Facebook on the other hand has billions of dollars and a business address a lawyer can use when they do something against the privacy settings. So while the company is nebulous there's a level of implicit trust backed by the potential of huge payouts when they are provided with information.

    4. Re:Its real simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My phone number, family photo's, school photo's, past relations, email address and eating habits are all on Facebook while I never had a Facebook account. All thanks to 2 ignorant friends who don't care for privacy and don't understand me being upset about it. You can't stop having real life friends because Facebook tries to monetizes all friendships world wide. It should be Facebook and its users that should be stopped. I didn't even know all this information and so many photos of me from the 70's until now where on Facebook. I noticed it a few months ago and those two who put it on Facebook don't even want to remove it. I can't even 'defriend' them in real life because I take every opportunity to beg to remove my pictures and information from Facebook.

    5. Re:Its real simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a Facebook account and don't recommend anyone get or keep one,

      Some of us just can't afford it. When you are real-world famous you can't avoid Facebook. It is embedded in the whole business strategy. You just got to go with the wave, managing risks, making compromises. Life is hard.

    6. Re:Its real simple.... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      in belgium ....
      that's in belgium ? .... the place where the governments decide its completely within european and moral privacy policy to SELL your medical data to pharmaceutical companies ?
      the same one ?
      impressive

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    7. Re:Its real simple.... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      crap ... allow me to doublepost addon/correct myself ... im not sure if that has made it to actual law status but if theres money to be had im quite sure it will go down like most popular laws ... wait until the mediastorm dies, if theres any at all, then quickly pass it while the plebs is sleeping or theres footy on tv

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except for mothers and old people does anyone really use that shit anymore? -next they'll say MySpace IS the future.

    1. Re:Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So-called 'social media' is all bullshit, every last bit of it, because it claims to 'bring people together' but for the most part all it does is give people an excuse to stay apart from one another. Sure, someone is now going to point out how it allows people separated by distances to 'keep in touch', but why can't email and video conferencing work just as well for that? Then there's all the 'friends' (as in 'false') that people accumulate; people you've never met, never WILL meet, and who knows if they really even exist or not? Really, seriously, honestly, people in general need to get over this 'social media' crap and get back to actually relating to each other instead.

    2. Re:Facebook? by myid · · Score: 2

      I see your point, but in some cases, online forums are the only alternative. For example, take Slashdot. We see an article that we're interested in, post our comments, and "talk" about it.

      Here's another example: I'm a member of an online discussion group. That group switched to Facebook. So in order to read and write posts to that group, I have to use Facebook.

      As I said in another Slashdot post on this web page, I created another user id on my computer just for Facebook. I made that user id very restricted, which I hope will protect me.

      I wouldn't use Facebook unless I had to, but in this case I do have to.

    3. Re:Facebook? by Nunya666 · · Score: 1

      Here's another example: I'm a member of an online discussion group. That group switched to Facebook. So in order to read and write posts to that group, I have to use Facebook.

      I wouldn't use Facebook unless I had to, but in this case I do have to.

      No, you don't have to. You choose to.

      You had two choices: 1) not use Facebook, and lose access to your online discussion group, or 2) use Facebook and continue to participate in your online discussion group.

      Either way, it was your choice.

    4. Re:Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best thing is to not think about contacting people who are separated by distance. I don't understand the need of some people to keep in touch with people who live hundreds or thousands of kilometers from each other, while they don't even know their neighbor. What was wrong with the old social structure where you were friends with those who lived in your neighborhood? What's wrong with not seeing an old friend for years? It is always nice to see an old friend after many years. So much catching up to do. But what do you have to say when it is a 'close' Facebook friend? You can't even talk about your 'new' friends when you are a die hard social media user who never gets out anymore. It just doesn't make sense.

    5. Re: Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I shouldn't contact my sister and her family who live on the other coast of the United States from me? Wasn't either of our choices either, as my brother-in-law is in the military and has been stationed there for several years.

      I don't do the telephone, and my sister finds using Facebook easier to post once and keep all of her family and friends on this side of the United States in touch. Only reason why I have a Facebook account.

  3. Isn't that the point? by TylerJWhit · · Score: 1

    Isn't sharing information to the masses the point of social networking? Not disagreeing with the article, just merely pointing out that this isn't news. I'd expect Facebook to be the worst in regards to privacy.

    1. Re:Isn't that the point? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I put Google as the worst. They started as a search engine and making revenue from advertising. Which isn't so bad.

      They expanded into email, which seemed a reasonable way to get more advertising revenue.

      Then they bought online media through Youtube, which was great for their strength in content delivery, and provided more vehicles for ad revenue.

      But somewhere they stopped saying "don't be evil" and now they link your accounts in all the services they acquire, track your dns lookups, your searches, your phonecalls, your contacts, your webpages (through fonts), your map searches, your every location through traffic, they converted your email address into a social media profile which they track as ruthlessly and lucratively as Facebook ever did... They even photograph your home, document your wifi access points etc, etc.

      At least Facebook never pretended to be anything other than an ad-based social media company.

    2. Re:Isn't that the point? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You can leave Facebook, you can never leave Google, at least not yet, it would require new privacy legislation. Simple start, would be governments requiring all companies that retain information on citizins to notify each and every citizen about what information is being retained, not just nebulous types but the actual data and how that data is used and to reaffirm permission after that information is provided and this should be required to occur upon a yearly basis. It is most emphatically not meant to be cheap or easy but is there to force a real cost on invading people's privacy to ensure it becomes a significantly less profitable business area. Full, annual individualised privacy disclosures are required and should be legislated and if companies don't like it, they can simply delete the private data being held.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Isn't that the point? by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 1

      You can leave facebook, but facebook still collects your data. Heck, they even collect it if you never joined in the first place.

      BTW, socialist Europe has a unified law on privacy entering into force in 2018. That law stipulates that the user can ask for the exact data the company is storing, and the company must provide the whole data set free of charge. The law also reinforces that the user can request his data to be deleted, and once again this has to happen in a reasonable time frame and free of charge. It also establishes heavy fines for privacy violations, up to 4% of worldwide group revenue in case of data breach caused by negligence.

      At the same time, the current AML legislation/regulation explicitly forbids you from disclosing some user-related information to the user... and to keep all the user data for 5 years after the end of the contractual relationship.

    4. Re:Isn't that the point? by colincarter41 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you Dr. Evil, None is worse than Google, because it has the more information than Other platform. Even they say they cared about your privacy, they linked your account info to its all services. People are spending more time on Google than any other platforms.

    5. Re:Isn't that the point? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I put Google as the worst. They started as a search engine and making revenue from advertising. Which isn't so bad.

      They expanded into email, which seemed a reasonable way to get more advertising revenue.

      Then they bought online media through Youtube, which was great for their strength in content delivery, and provided more vehicles for ad revenue.

      But somewhere they stopped saying "don't be evil" and now they link your accounts in all the services they acquire, track your dns lookups, your searches, your phonecalls, your contacts, your webpages (through fonts), your map searches, your every location through traffic, they converted your email address into a social media profile which they track as ruthlessly and lucratively as Facebook ever did... They even photograph your home, document your wifi access points etc, etc.

      At least Facebook never pretended to be anything other than an ad-based social media company.

      But facebook has been abusing the data more, at least in a way that is visible to public.

      You forgot Google also collects you passwords and credit card details in plain text, if you don't make sure you are not logged into Chrome.

  4. I Swear... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    And Facebook's representative only had this to declare...

    "Aw, belgium!"

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
    1. Re:I Swear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the rep was thinking this:
      "Miserable fat Belgian bastards!"

  5. Its not that bad. by Snufu · · Score: 2

    It's worse. At least Big Brother left the proletariat alone. Big Zucker wants access to all.

  6. Spelling. by msauve · · Score: 1

    "And the devil is in the default: To opt out, you are expected to navigate Facebook's complex web of settings."

    And we all know you can't spell "devil" without "evil."

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  7. Seems odd that yahoo didn't win by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I mean, they were literally spying FOR big brother and everything.

    I guess maybe the awards were decided prior to recent email scanning revelations?

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  8. What about GoogleReich? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook is at least optional. I don't need to ever visit and I block it in my HOSTS file. The vast Google empire is much more dificult to avoid, from the large number of people using GMail to the numerous links they get into most websites. (Fonts, analytics, ads, etc.) And GoogleReich also survives on privacy infringement.

  9. As is much of the net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Facebook is a multi-billion dollar company that has one commodity - you!" said Joe McNamee
     
    Hey Joe, what about Google? Where do you think they're making their cash? Nexus sales? LOL!

  10. Don't blame the player by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the social juggernaut is the ultimate privacy villain....

    Using a subscriber's reputation for advertising is a new low and criminal in many countries but for the most part, Facebook, Twitter and friends admit you're the product in all that legalese no-one bothers to read. In other words, that lack of privacy is totally voluntary. You don't have to tell everyone your name and date of birth and for obvious reasons, you shouldn't, making the 'Real name' policy, the first invasion of privacy. But choosing to tell everyone where you live/work/play and what great toys will be unguarded when you leave town, is nothing less than stupidity and narcissism. Asking everyone to look at you, will by default, ask everyone to judge you; a bad idea as an ancient adage warns us because "you can't please everyone".

    ... for its default privacy settings ...

    Someone can't sell a fart without being hit with laws about privacy, safety and consumer rights. Facebook, Twitter and friends aren't conducting a commercial transaction but many duty-of-care laws still apply to those corporations. Except it seems, when it's done "on a computer". Why do the laws magically disappear when it's an online activity?

    ... reached a conclusion that the social juggernaut ...

    I hear repeatedly about the criminal messages posted on Twitter: It seems to be no more than a echo chamber for racist SJWs. Even Twitter knows that behaviour is destroying its usefulness. Is anyone going to judge Twitter on its inadequacy and inaction?

  11. User id just for Facebook by myid · · Score: 1

    An online group of people, that I'm a member of, moved to Facebook. So now I have to use Facebook, if I want to keep on reading and writing posts to that group.

    So I created a new user id on my Mac. I use that user id for logging onto Facebook, and sending messages to my Facebook group.

    When I set up the user id on my Mac, I went into parental controls, and made the use of that user id very restrictive. When I'm logged into that user id, Safari is the only app that can run, Facebook is the only website that can be accessed, no Mail or Contacts for that user id, etc. Hopefully that will help protect my privacy.

    1. Re:User id just for Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, it doesn't work that way. Facebook has your profile, and since you have made an account it know all the specific details in that profile. The next thing Facebook does is to track you through the use of those like buttons, cookies, advert networks, etc on other websites. Since you use internet from behind the same router, Facebook will soon notice that the one on that restricted user id is also the one on that other user id, that particular phone, that online television, etc...

      Even when you don't have a Facebook account they still track you, because they don't care for your real name but only for your online behavior. Probably every internet user has a ghost profile.

  12. There's a reason... by Place+a+name+here · · Score: 1

    GTA's Facebook expy is called "LifeInvader".

  13. Google? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Informative

    This award is only fair if Google won it before Facebook did. As evil as the Zuck is when it comes to tracking people, I'd say Google is far worse. Also, some security extensions in a browser can put a serious dent in Facebook's tracking with almost no detrimental effects to the everyday browsing experience. But if you consistently apply those same safeguards to Google, the Web becomes a whole lot less usable.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you point us to the right extension? Especially on Firefox?

    2. Re:Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look it up you lazy shitheel.

  14. Aaaaaannd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Nobody cares other than a few random internet misanthropes.

    Oh, they say they care, but in reality (practice), not really.

  15. Well deserved award by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I'm sure Zuck wears it with pride

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --