Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Retracted Zuckerberg's Messages From Recipients' Inboxes (techcrunch.com)

Posted by msmash on from the of-course-they-do dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: You can't remove Facebook messages from the inboxes of people you sent them to, but Facebook did that for Mark Zuckerberg and other executives. Three sources confirm to TechCrunch that old Facebook messages they received from Zuckerberg have disappeared from their Facebook inboxes, while their own replies to him conspiculously remain. An email receipt of a Facebook message from 2010 reviewed by TechCrunch proves Zuckerberg sent people messages that no longer appear in their Facebook chat logs or in the files available from Facebook's Download Your Information tool. Casey Newton, a reporter at The Verge, tweeted, "Deleting Mark's messages while leaving the recipients' intact highlights Facebook's actual views on privacy better than any statement it makes on the subject ever will"

Update: Facebook has just announced that it will give all users an option to unsend messages.

53 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Their servers, their service by DogDude · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is their service running on their servers. They can do whatever they want with it. Why would anybody be surprised?

    I also have my own servers, and I can also delete whatever I want from them. So what?

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Their servers, their service by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I also have my own servers, and I can also delete whatever I want from them."

      Exactly! You're an asshole, they're assholes, no difference.

    2. Re:Their servers, their service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but as the OP you're insulting said...why is anyone surprised? It's always been like this, a minority have been saying don't use facebook for years and we were ridiculed as paranoid, and now suddenly everyone is shocked and surprised and jumping on the bandwagon.

    3. Re:Their servers, their service by e432776 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The sad mistake by the public seems to be thinking that their correspondence on Facebook actually belongs to them. This sort of event shows that is absolutely not the case.

      Keep your bits on your own machines, kids!

      As for Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg: Have you no shame? This sort of move looks terrible. Perhaps you have no brain.

    4. Re:Their servers, their service by DogDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This sort of move looks terrible.

      Does it, though? People using Facebook are already doing so because they don't care about their data. Other people already know they shouldn't give their data to Facebook. I think that stuff like this has zero impact on Facebook.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    5. Re:Their servers, their service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Keep your bits on your own machines, kids!

      The rule in Health class was, "If it's wet and it's not yours, don't touch it."

    6. Re:Their servers, their service by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      Only if you care about security.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    7. Re:Their servers, their service by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      Why would anybody be surprised?

      Human decency keeps a lot of people from otherwise "doing what they want", and the fact that its absence still surprises some people, that people still expect it, is -- in its own way -- one of the most encouraging things one can hear. Yes, putting down the beast that Facebook is will require widespread realization that Facebook lacks human decency (or even corporate decency), but don't dismiss the hopers and dreamers altogether... the world they want is the only one worth fighting for.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    8. Re:Their servers, their service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      your Primary assumption is wrong.

      "People using Facebook are already doing so because they don't care about their data."

      The majority of people do not actually understand the implications of sharing their data so freely with facebook. They start off initially with way too much trust in Corporations as they have been taught to by the politicians. The main difference is that activities like this is where trust is lost which is bad for facebook. While the average technical person may understand the implications of data sharing, the vast majority of people using facebook dont. so its not that they dont care about their data, its that they dont know any better and it is things like this that will teach them.

      The general public is now learning from the school of hard knocks and that is why it looks terrible for facebook!

    9. Re:Their servers, their service by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Keep your bits on your own machines, kids!

      Except your backups!

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    10. Re:Their servers, their service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I like how people talk sense and then try to pretend they said something radical or paranoid. You didn't. Yes, shunning the cloud and circling the wagon at home is what people should be doing. It's not unreasonable, it's appropriate and it's even practical (though various interests try to portray it as not practical). And (though I realize I'm posting on Slashdot) it's fun!

      It's just unusual. Getting vaccinations also used to be unusual. Taking a cab home from the bar instead of driving drunk was also unusual. Using a condom when banging someone you just met at that bar was unusual. Wearing a seatbelt in the car was unusual. In all these cases, the more you learn about how things are, the more you get the idea to do the sensible thing. Then you see other people doing dumb things and you say, "hey, try this and you might start losing less."

    11. Re:Their servers, their service by edtice1559 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Removing it from certain people's inboxes would not be destruction of evidence as long as Facebook still has the records. Now it's harder to get that evidence (need a subpoena that can be fought), but just adding a visibility flag to the data does not destroy any evidence. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm anal.

    12. Re:Their servers, their service by e432776 · · Score: 1

      From the perspective of what Facebook is actually about I agree with you. However, I think many people probably think that "their" messages on the platform belong to them, and are for them only. This is a mistake, as many readers here have known for a long time.

      Perhaps "looks bad" is not the best way to put it, more like "reveals too much, and what is revealed is very unflattering and contradicts how they generally present themselves and/or are perceived by most"... or something.

  2. Stop using Facebook by hazardPPP · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Facebook's policies piss you off so much, stop using it (I stopped in 2011). It's not like you have a subscription you paid for the year and now have to use up to get your money's worth or something. Just log off. Delete your account. Say no.

    You can live without Facebook. It's not necessary. If they change their ways, you can always go back. Nothing will get Facebook to change the way they operate like losing millions of users really quickly. If users just bitch about, but keep using it, nothing substantial will change. If people start leaving in droves, then they will change things.

    1. Re:Stop using Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      don't worry, they can put together quite a nice profile of you from all of your friends and family that still use it.

    2. Re: Stop using Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      my hero for quitting FB so long ago. the smartest people never used it in the first place (or my space or friendster for that matter).

      it's such a privacy nightmare I don't understand how anyone would choose to.

    3. Re:Stop using Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      don't worry, they can put together quite a nice profile of you from all of your friends and family that still use it.

      It is a fallacy to say that just because they have data on you already that you might as well just give them more data by using their service. The more you use them, the more they violate your privacy. It's about risk mitigation. If you care about privacy, don't use them.

    4. Re:Stop using Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I stopped in 2011

      stop talking and ravage me
      tell me about how you dont have a tv too

    5. Re:Stop using Facebook by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Never started. Way back in the "before time", I looked at it and concluded that if I'm not paying for it I'm not the customer, I'm the product. Gave it a pass.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    6. Re:Stop using Facebook by bobbied · · Score: 1

      If Facebook's policies piss you off so much, stop using it (I stopped in 2011).

      And yet here you are on Slashdot? Ok.. I believe you..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Stop using Facebook by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      It is a fallacy to say that just because they have data on you already that you might as well just give them more data by using their service. The more you use them, the more they violate your privacy. It's about risk mitigation. If you care about privacy, don't use them.

      Who says anything about using the service? If you don't have an account, their shadow profile data on you is marked as "public". Open an account, and you can set all that profile data from public to private.

      That's all I use facebook for. Other than the odd acquaintance I have that remains as the only way I know of contacting them.

      My friend list is only about 20 people I actually know. I have work friends stuck in my "approve these invitations" queue for years. And the only reason I log in is because I get tagged in something so I have to log in and untag myself from the photo.

      Granted, Facebook bugs you if you don't log in constantly, but that's easily filtered out and deleted.

      And yes, I block facebook javascript always except for the few times a year I log in to reset the privacy settings.

    8. Re:Stop using Facebook by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Privacy is an illusion.

      Its what we tell ourselves to protect us from what other people might think about us. With enough effort, anyone can gather just about any information about you that they want. Hire a PI and have them follow you around for long enough, and they will tell you things about yourself that in some cases you are unaware of.

      Once you realize that privacy is an illusion, then you'll be much happier about your life. Playing pretend is a child's game.

      Likewise, most people don't care about much of what you do behind closed doors. Sure there are exceptions, but I can tell you that most ./ers don't give a shit about what's growing in my back yard.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Stop using Facebook by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      don't worry, they can put together quite a nice profile of you from all of your friends and family that still use it.

      A nice profile? It's going to be a substantially fuzzier profile than what they get if you directly feed them (and even personally curate!) information.

      Also, if you're not using it, then friends and family have less incentive to endure it.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    10. Re:Stop using Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like you, I stopped using Facebook.

      The feeling that I got doing that was VERY similar to when I stopped smoking.
      To put the finest point on it: It was the feeling of withdrawal from an addiction.
      An addiction with both physical and psychological components.

      It was then that I knew two things:

      1. People aren't going to quit without a very compelling self-interest reason that overrides an addictive attachment.

      2. The future will look back on us allowing children to have social media accounts as an incredibly horrible evil that we were at first too ignorant and then too lazy, to do anything about.

    11. Re:Stop using Facebook by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      don't worry, they can put together quite a nice profile of you from all of your friends and family that still use it.

      I don't have any friends or family, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    12. Re:Stop using Facebook by hazardPPP · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Privacy is an illusion.

      Its what we tell ourselves to protect us from what other people might think about us. With enough effort, anyone can gather just about any information about you that they want. Hire a PI and have them follow you around for long enough, and they will tell you things about yourself that in some cases you are unaware of.

      Once you realize that privacy is an illusion, then you'll be much happier about your life. Playing pretend is a child's game.

      Likewise, most people don't care about much of what you do behind closed doors. Sure there are exceptions, but I can tell you that most ./ers don't give a shit about what's growing in my back yard.

      I'm afraid you've drunk the Zuckerbeg Kool-Aid.

      Yes, absolute privacy is an illusion. Unless of course you are willing to live as a hermit completely isolated from society. People, of course, at least intuitively, know this. Relative privacy on the other hand, is not an illusion at all - it's a real thing. It's about what we decide to tell or reveal about ourselves to different classes of people. This is a fundamental pillar of social relations. Some things, I tell to no one (although it's conceivable that people could find out about them if they really tried). Some things, I will tell my wife, but not my co-workers...some to my friends, but not my wife...and so on. Of course, those different sets of people could talk to each other and destroy my perception of relative privacy. Which is where we get to another thing: trust.

      The whole uproar about privacy in the modern era and its impact by modern technologies is really about two things. The first is exposure. With these new technologies, the vast majority of people have no idea how exposed they are to the world when they are using certain services, and very few of those service providers communicate that in a clear way. It's hard to intuitively understand, because what is done to your data is very opaque to you as a user. The average person will make the connection between using a free service (Free-to-air TV channels, Gmail, Facebook) and being shown ads while they use it: OK, they will say, by serving up advertising they make money since I don't pay them directly. However, the average person will not make the connection between the ads and data gathering (now they might of course after all the news on it, but at the beginning of such services years ago, they would not have). If I read a book (a paper copy), and do not talk about it, no one knows I read it. If I buy a newspaper, nobody knows if I've read the sports section or the cooking section. If I read an article on my phone, tons of apps might be tracking me and seeing what I've read. If I talk to a friend in a cafe, I know that besides my friend, what I said was perhaps overhead by a few people around me. If I chat to that friend over Facebook, Facebook knows the entire content of that conversation...and who know who else as well.

      People need to know about this, because if they don't, they will be unwittingly exposed. This can go from the party-pooping (I'm buying a surprise gift for my wife, we share computers, then before her birthday Google and Facebook ads spam her for the exact thing I bought - no longer a surprise) to the life-destroying (I have a fight with my wife, think of divorce, google it up but then forget about it - then at maybe a very bad time, she realizes I was doing this via some Google Ad or whatever, and things get worse). That doesn't mean we should limit people's exposure at all times. It means people have a right to know what exposes them - so that they can choose what and when to expose to whom - to protect their relative privacy.

      The second issue is trust. If I say something to a friend, I have some expectations about whether he will share this information, and with whom: I have a certain level of trust in him regarding the protection of my (relative) privacy. With Facebook and the like, the level of trust you

    13. Re:Stop using Facebook by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      If Facebook's policies piss you off so much, stop using it (I stopped in 2011). It's not like you have a subscription you paid for the year and now have to use up to get your money's worth or something. Just log off. Delete your account. Say no.

      You can live without Facebook. It's not necessary. If they change their ways, you can always go back. Nothing will get Facebook to change the way they operate like losing millions of users really quickly. If users just bitch about, but keep using it, nothing substantial will change. If people start leaving in droves, then they will change things.

      If only it were that easy. Network effect.

      It's almost like saying "just give up your phone, don't use phone calls". After all, you can live without a phone.

      Yeah, you can do that ... sort of. Tell everyone "no more phone calls for me."

      And you can get all your friends, family, and associates to use some other communications channel just for you. In a dream world.

    14. Re:Stop using Facebook by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      If only it were that easy. Network effect.

      It is that easy. I've done it long ago. As have many other people.

      It's almost like saying "just give up your phone, don't use phone calls". After all, you can live without a phone.

      Yeah, almost like that...except that it isn't really. You can't really compare it to a phone back in the pre-internet days (you could compare it to a phone in current times...now it is conceivable to live without a phone entirely, as long as you have internet access and people can reach you through other means). Phones used to be the only method for real-time long-distance voice communication...also, the simplest way for most people. Facebook doesn't have near the monopoly plain old phones used to have on such communication. Smartphones have cemented that - there are tons of ways to communicate besides plain old phone calls and e-mail: Skype, Viber, WhatsApp (+ endless list of messaging apps). The old instant messaging programs (ICQ, AOL, MSN) have died off mostly but the smartphone-based instant messaging apps (most of which also have desktop clients) have replaced them.

      Yeah, you can do that ... sort of. Tell everyone "no more phone calls for me."

      When I tell people I don't have Facebook, usually the reply is "OK, what about WhatsApp?" - a while ago, I might also get a strange look along with that question. Nowadays people just ask about alternatives...because they exist, and they are used.

      And you can get all your friends, family, and associates to use some other communications channel just for you. In a dream world.

      So I live in a dream world? I would beg to differ. Yes, most of the people around me have Facebook. I don't, and I still communicate with them just fine. We use other communication channels, because, wait for it...none of them are just for me. Those other people use WhatsApp, or Viber, or whatever to communicate with other people too. I never tell anyone "here's an app I designed that you use just to talking to me, and no one else". Of course that's nonsense. However, there are other, widely used channels of communication that are not Facebook.

    15. Re:Stop using Facebook by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      Tell it to employers who want a FB account, or disqualify you from being hired, as you are a "fossil."

      Tell that to organizations that do all their group stuff on FB, because it is free, easy to manage, and works well.

      If you really have to be on FB, for the reasons you mention above, you can always create a very basic profile. Name and picture. Nothing else there. Nothing that anyone couldn't get just by Googling you. That's what I would do if I needed to have FB to get hired (I mean, first I would try to avoid having to work for an employer who requires me to have a *personal* Facebook profile prior to being hired...because that employer is likely and idiot. I understand of course that some people have no choice).

      Tell that to people who want a one stop "watering hole" for socialization.

      Not exactly sure why I should care...?

      Even with these issues, there is no way FB will ever stop growing... people like being social, and FB is the only game in town.

      Facebook isn't the only game in town. A lot of the kids and teens already think Facebook is lame and full of old farts, and prefer Snapchat (or whatever). "No way it will ever stop growing" - I'm sure a lot of people said that about MySpace, too.

    16. Re:Stop using Facebook by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      Like you, I stopped using Facebook.

      The feeling that I got doing that was VERY similar to when I stopped smoking. To put the finest point on it: It was the feeling of withdrawal from an addiction. An addiction with both physical and psychological components.

      It was then that I knew two things:

      1. People aren't going to quit without a very compelling self-interest reason that overrides an addictive attachment.

      2. The future will look back on us allowing children to have social media accounts as an incredibly horrible evil that we were at first too ignorant and then too lazy, to do anything about.

      If I could moderate this discussion, I'd mod you up. I totally agree.

  3. It's good to be the King by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That is all.

  4. As usual by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    It's good to be the King.

    1. Re:As usual by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      Dilly Dilly!!!

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    2. Re:As usual by Alypius · · Score: 1

      As long as hecklers love to heckle, you can count on Geico to save customers money!

  5. It's just a glitch in the Matrix by olsmeister · · Score: 2

    Most people wouldn't even notice it. The fact that you did notice means you must be our salvation... the one that's been foretold, the one we've been waiting for.

  6. Facebook is Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And Zuckerberg and Sandberg (the latter of whom is on a nationwide media dissembling tour) are lying sacks of shit.

  7. Facebook 2020 == MySpace 2010 by Oxygen99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How long can Facebook stock hold up while Peeping Tom Zuckerberg carries on as CEO? Even the general public can't be dim enough to continue contributing to this Orwellian freakshow.

    --
    I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
    1. Re:Facebook 2020 == MySpace 2010 by HiThere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wish you were correct, but my real guess is that Facebook will continue until something just as intrusive, or more, replaces it in popular fashion.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Facebook 2020 == MySpace 2010 by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Even the general public can't be dim enough to continue contributing to this Orwellian freakshow.

      I think that you grossly are overestimating intelligence of the general public. Have you seen who they elected as their president in the US?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
  8. This is why I take backups of my inbox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I always backup my company in/out boxes. That way if there's ever a problem I have the messages. If I worked at Facebook I'd probably get millions in bribe money.

  9. Re: Who is behind this by Bradmont · · Score: 3

    Instead of bitterness, my reaction is, "finally," with a sigh of relief. I just hope whoever is orchestrating the blowback doesn't lay off and that it really starts to eat into Fancebook's user base.

  10. Because they can? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "These included limiting the retention period for Mark’s messages in Messenger."

    Are they still Mark's messages if he sent them to somebody's inbox?

    If Mark writes a snail mail and mails it to Baker,
        then it is called Mark's letter but is owned by Baker.
    Mark can't disappear it because he no longer owns it.

    Why should E-mail and retention policies be any different?

    The answer is because they can.
    Might be a tactical error if you are trying to show the world that you are not getting too powerful.

  11. Don't add an unsend option by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Facebook should just admit that the execs of the company have that and more powers and the
    ability to exercise more actions than mere mortals when it comes to messaging tools and access
    to data on the website, because clearly they do.

    Unfortunately they don't yet have control of users' e-mail accounts, so they can't yet delete receipts or E-mail based proofs,
    although they might in the future tweak the feature that sends messages to E-mail accounts to prevent it from being used to
    prove a message was sent.

    just announced that it will give all users an option to unsend messages.

    That's bullshit. Once you send a message and someone's read it;
    what to do with the copy of the message within their Inbox should be their decision.

    I could think of dozens of different scenarios where I would want to keep a message against the sender's
    desires, such as evidence of wrongdoing, OR evidence to protect me (E.g. Proof they directed me to do X), and they should have no say in that.

    1. Re: Don't add an unsend option by Bradmont · · Score: 1

      Do email notifications of messages still exist? They stopped working for me a couple years ago (I never went on FB except when I received one), but even before that it was unreliable, notifying me of maybe 75% of messages.

  12. Good policy by aglider · · Score: 1

    We do something nasty.
    You complain.
    We let you do the same nasty things to others.
    You are happy.
    We win.
    You've lost.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  13. Too bad by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    You can delete a message or recall an email, but you can't ever get rid of the account and all the data they have on you and will continue to collect, aggregate, and market.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  14. How convenient, apropos Congress testimony by IHTFISP · · Score: 1

    How convenient, considering Zuckerberg's upcoming testimony before Congress, I don't suppose he had anything to hide, nor was he worried about contradicting anything he said on line that might enter the public record? Of course not.

    Surely he's as honest and trustworthy as everyone in Congress. Right?!

    It is merely a coincidence that he debuted this new message deletion feature at this particular time. Obviously.

    Wiped them like with a cloth, he did: “No witness, no crime.”

    --
    Error: NSE - No Signature Error
  15. It is surprising that there is any outrage. by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2

    It is said so often it is cliche. On Facebook, you, the people, are the product. Whatever privacy and other protections put into place will be the minimal palatable to keep the product engaged.
    Farmers maintain a minimum Quality of Life for animals so that they can be managed. This is generally kept at the commercially minimal level so the animals don't die, and produce the optimal quantity and quality of product.
    Facebook is no different.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    1. Re:It is surprising that there is any outrage. by arnott · · Score: 1

      But the animals treated better according to their natural surroundings taste better.

  16. Okay. Next option wanted. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Update: Facebook has just announced that it will give all users an option to unsend messages.

    An option to unsend all the data they've collected from us through third-parties, especially people w/o Facebook accounts (you know, the ones with "shadow profiles") ...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  17. Time to Update the Quote by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2
    Even kings did not used to be able to do this. To update the famous quote from Omar Khayyam:

    The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it, but thy request to Mr. Zuckerberg can obliterate it from history if he wills it.

  18. "all users an option to unsend" by tlambert · · Score: 1

    "all users an option to unsend"

    And pedophiles and cyberbullies the world over are now cheering...

  19. Re:Did they wipe the servers? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    ALL of the states, usually called the United States.

    Hillary Clinton joked to reporters in Las Vegas about whether she wiped her email server clean before giving it to the FBI. What? Like with a cloth or something? she asked, then laughed (more like cackled).