Slashdot Mirror
Mark Zuckerberg and the 2012 Facebook Moscow Hack
Long-time Slashdot reader theodp writes: As Facebook's privacy debacle rages on, it's interesting to look back at Mark Zuckerberg's 2012 visit to the Facebook Moscow Hack (photos, video), at which Facebook provided training in how to access the data of app users' friends and awarded prizes for apps that did so.
In a 2012 video, Facebook's Simon Cross shows the Moscow crowd how they can "get a ton of other information" on Facebook users and their friends. "We now have an access token, so now let's make the same request again and see what happens," Cross explains (YouTube). "We've got a little bit more data, but now we can start doing really interesting stuff. We can get my friends. We can get some more information about one of my friends. Here's Connor, who you'll meet later. Say 'hello,' Connor. He's waving. And we can also get a ton of other information as well."
Cross, ironically, was the spokesperson Facebook later tapped in 2015 to explain to the press why giving friends' data to apps was a horrible idea that had to be curtailed lest Facebook lose its users' trust. Cross told reporters that Mark Zuckerberg said one of Facebook's new slogans was 'People First', because "if people don't feel comfortable using Facebook and specifically logging in Facebook and using Facebook in apps, we don't have a platform, we don't have developers."
In a 2012 video, Facebook's Simon Cross shows the Moscow crowd how they can "get a ton of other information" on Facebook users and their friends. "We now have an access token, so now let's make the same request again and see what happens," Cross explains (YouTube). "We've got a little bit more data, but now we can start doing really interesting stuff. We can get my friends. We can get some more information about one of my friends. Here's Connor, who you'll meet later. Say 'hello,' Connor. He's waving. And we can also get a ton of other information as well."
Cross, ironically, was the spokesperson Facebook later tapped in 2015 to explain to the press why giving friends' data to apps was a horrible idea that had to be curtailed lest Facebook lose its users' trust. Cross told reporters that Mark Zuckerberg said one of Facebook's new slogans was 'People First', because "if people don't feel comfortable using Facebook and specifically logging in Facebook and using Facebook in apps, we don't have a platform, we don't have developers."
You GAVE Facebook that information on yourself.
For people who signed up for FB, yes, I agree. And they are fucking idiots, the lot. However, the problem is those idiots give FB information on their friends who never signed up for FB, so you can't totally stay out of their clutches.
I am more concerned about data gathering by organizations where I didn't willingly give consent.
Guess who does that? Facebook.
Data miners dig into your Facebook shit, via API, and you're screwed.
By Facebook.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Forget Facebook. They are the least of what you should be worried about. If you don't have a Facebook account their information on your is very limited. However, Acxiom has a LOT more information on you.
I agree with the direction you're taking this.
Twitter, Google (all their shit), Apple (all their shit), Instagram, Snapchat, every goddam web page ...
We're so screwed and there's absolutely no turning back.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
You GAVE Facebook that information on yourself
They weren't supposed to share that data. If my doctor goes around telling people that I have herpes I'm going to get mad at my doctor.
If my doctor says you GAVE me that information, I'm still going to be mad at him.
And if he tells me one of my dumb friends consented to sharing his information and that included my information, I'm still going to be mad at him, and I'm also going to be mad at my dumb friend.
Yep.
But FB and the like have nothing to fear from the American government, so they will keep doing it, say that they are very sorry and continue doing it. Maybe they get a fine from the EU but those are low compared to what they earn selling your data, so they say sorry again and continue.
The only thing that can stop them is strict legislation.
-- Cheers!
The majority of users donâ(TM)t give a crap about their privacy, all they want is more likes under their selfies.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but it needs to be pointed out...
/dev/null on the way to be counted. This may make you mad, of course, if you use Facebook, but let's face it. Wouldn't you rather be on Facebook right now? Wouldn't you rather be clicking on links and watching your "friends" videos and reading their stupid meems or meams or memes or whatever, on Facebook right now? Why not click on the address bar, and type "facebook" right now, and go hang out there, where you won't be exposed to ideas you disagree with? Facebook facebook facebook, friend facebook friend facebook book face. Face?
If how you vote can be swayed by some bullshit you see on Facebook... you probably shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway. Now this begs the question, "who decides who is allowed to vote?" and that is, of course, the $64,000 question, isn't it? How does one verify if someone HAS a Facebook account? Seems simple. Announce anyone with a Facebook page will be allowed to cast their votes for local, state, and federal offices, right there ON Facebook. Then those people are saved the trouble of having to come OUT on election day, wait in line, and cast votes, and have their votes actually COUNT. It would be a great way to get people incapable of thinking to self-select their voices and their votes to be routed to
Are they gone? Good. Now...
The fact that people HAVE in the past tried to prevent people voting based on their race, their religion, their opinions, etc., has made it difficult for a democracy to exist, and have a legitimate claim to BEING a democracy, and yet a lot of people are NOT allowed to vote anyway, in the United States. Like convicted criminals. Somehow, some morons decided to disenfranchise people for being convicted of certain crimes and sent to jail, and the court system let that stand, (which they should NOT have,) since it is sadly true that not everyone convicted of any crime actually COMMITTED that crime, and sure as fuck it is NOT the case that ALL people who commit crimes are expeditiously caught, convicted, and locked up. MANY walk free, and shockingly, or perhaps sadly, it is often the greatest and most heinous crimes that go unpunished. Corruption is the cancer killing our civilization. Courts are too busy worrying about nonviolent and victimless "crimes" to be concerned about real ones, with real, actual victims.
If modern America is anything, it's an indictment of the very idea of democracy itself. You give people power without responsibility, and... well, this is what you get. Sickening as this idea is, I'm wondering if Bre-entry is a possibility at this point. If enough Americans start drinking tea, ditch the coffee, apologize for the revolution, agree to start misspelling things again, like litre and metre, and colour, and ask with a properly stuffy and British accent, do you think they'd take us back?
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.