Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Gave More Than 150 Companies, Including Microsoft, Netflix, Spotify, Amazon and Yahoo, Unprecedented Access To Users' Personal Data: NYT (buzzfeednews.com)

The New York Times obtained hundreds of pages of Facebook documents which were generated in 2017 that show that the social network considered these companies business partners and effectively exempted them from its privacy rules. From a report: Facebook allowed Microsoft's search engine Bing to see the names of nearly all users' friends without their consent, let Spotify, Netflix, and the Royal Bank of Canada read, write, and delete users' private messages, and see participants on a thread, allowed Amazon to get users' names and contact information through their friends, and let Yahoo view streams of friends' posts "as recently as this summer" despite publicly claiming it had stopped sharing such information a year ago, the report said. Collectively, applications made by these technology companies sought the data of hundreds of millions of people a month.

The records also show that Russian search giant Yandex, which was accused last year by Ukraine's security service for giving user data to Kremlin, also had access to Facebook's unique user IDs in 2017. A Yandex spokeswoman told the Times that the company was unaware of the access to user data provided by Facebook. Yandex did not immediately respond to BuzzFeed News' request for comment. In response to the report, Steve Satterfield, Facebook's Director of Privacy and Public Policy defended the actions of the social network.

114 comments

  1. If it's free, you're the product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course they did. If you put anything on Facebook you better be ok with everyone seeing it eventually.

    1. Re: If it's free, you're the product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and a well written terms and conditions to deny all responsibility.

      For a while the required real names

    2. Re: If it's free, you're the product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook should educate users on how to control their data. People would pay for that

    3. Re: If it's free, you're the product by Hylandr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There used to be a time when anyone logging into a BBS was presented with a notice as required by law that nothing on the system was to be considered private and you were advised not to treat it as such. The impression I had at the time was that this was Legally enforceable. We may be able to apply those older laws to the current iteration of message boards. Should be interesting.

      tl;dr;
      This generation has never had a sufficient level of distrust instilled at an early age.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    4. Re: If it's free, you're the product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Educated people don't use facebook. Those people that use it even after been told what is going on are just not that smart.

      I know, I know...you consider yourself intelligent but somehow you are forced to use it because work or family or cat pictures. Not smart.

    5. Re: If it's free, you're the product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I believe they do have a similar notification but rather in a different form. It is the check off (or whatever) when you signed up for an account. Also you would see it (once) when you log on and they had changed something in their ToS. Furthermore, the ToS (notification) is now multiple pages that very few people would read through before accepting it. As a result, the notice now turns into somewhat a click and ignore type of thing. Sad isn't it?

    6. Re: If it's free, you're the product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used BBSs from the early 80s until they went extinct, and I am sure you made that up. Site this law you invented, please.

    7. Re: If it's free, you're the product by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      There used to be a time when anyone logging into a BBS was presented with a notice as required by law that nothing on the system was to be considered private and you were advised not to treat it as such. The impression I had at the time was that this was Legally enforceable. We may be able to apply those older laws to the current iteration of message boards. Should be interesting.

      tl;dr; This generation has never had a sufficient level of distrust instilled at an early age.

      I was not on Facebook for many years. Why? Because I actually read the terms and conditions for joining. At the time (I haven't gone back to check recently) it said that anything you post on Facebook belongs to you, but as long as it is on the site Facebook can use it for absolutely anything whatsoever. By signing up you are giving Facebook carte blanche to do anything they please with the information you put on the site.

      Like you point out, the fact that people are surprised or upset by whatever Facebook does just shows their naivete. It shows they have not read what they agreed to when they signed up. It shows they don't understand Facebook's business model. I am now on Facebook, but I never post anything or "like" anything because I am keenly aware that whenever I interact with the site I am giving them information about myself. My profile picture isn't even me. I am only on it because I missed out on a few social gatherings, because "Oh, you're not on Facebook..." So I signed up to get the invites. Even that tells Facebook something about me.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    8. Re: If it's free, you're the product by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      The impression I had at the time was that this was Legally enforceable.

      Reading comprehension for the win. The key word here is 'impression'.

      I was on from the late 80's and there's still some around. I Modded WWIV and did a lot of interesting configuration with Renegade. TW2000 Was my favorite door game of the age. No small wonder I play a lot of Eve Online now.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    9. Re: If it's free, you're the product by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      I haven't logged into my account in ages, but then I tend to not keep in touch with people once they out of my line of sight.
      Bad habit, but that's just me.
      Facebook is a handy place / way to keep in touch with people (if that's your thing) so I can understand how more gregarious people (yes even the smart ones) use it.
      Just don't expect any sort of privacy whatsoever when using it and act appropriately.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  2. Well that explains it by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was wondering why Netflix started to bring up a video category "Shows for People Who Wear Blue Underwear on Fridays".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Well that explains it by msauve · · Score: 1

      Zuck wears blue underwear?

      #deletefacebook

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  3. How much access did they give Governments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can opt out of doing business with most companies. Not so with the government.

    1. Re: How much access did they give Governments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to write "good question"... but that implies governments would bother asking. Also most of those companies have government contracts and could be the ones relaying information.

    2. Re: How much access did they give Governments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you captain obvious

    3. Re: How much access did they give Governments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are the government. We're simply being lied to.

    4. Re: How much access did they give Governments? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly functioning as an extension of government, at the very least.

  4. same ole, same ole by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Zuck sucks....

    ad $ $,$$$,$$$,000,000

    1. Re:same ole, same ole by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Zuck sucks

      Difficulty to manage at a young age. He might not be that bad, but with that high level of responsibilities and that low level of experience he is more prone to other people influence, people who care more about blind profit (they're paid by the company) than ideas and ethics (more the CEO side).

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re: same ole, same ole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smell a jew

    3. Re: same ole, same ole by imborg007 · · Score: 1

      I thought the real story was Facebook was still being used. Online privacy is an oxymoron.

  5. No shit. That's their business. by SensitiveMale · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's why people who know what Facebook does couldn't believe the uproar over the Cambridge Analytics "scandal." Selling user data is what facebook does.

    Well, they sometimes sell and they sometimes give it away as they did when they learned Obama's team sucked "the whole social graph." Not only didn't they stop Obama's team, they actively helped them afterward.

    Yeah, this'll be modded down, but it's all true.

  6. For the slow people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this enough of a final nail in the coffin to get you to quit FB yet? It should be.

  7. The Business model by Arzaboa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone had to be sharing that data. How else is every service so perfectly in sync? These stories about Facebook handing out data, collecting data, and correlating data are simply stories about how Facebook operates.

    --
    If men were angels, no government would be necessary. - James Madison

  8. They're all US intelligence front companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Everything makes sense when you see them for what they actually are.

    1. Re: They're all US intelligence front companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the ones fronting other governments

  9. Accused by Ukraines security services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's like, a trademark of quality, man. Nothing beats integrity and professionalizm of the Ukrainian security services.

  10. Just shows... by msauve · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "more than 150 companies..."

    And the Goog isn't listed. Which only means Google knows more about you than the bookface, and so wouldn't gain anything from their data.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Just shows... by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or google and fb have more animosity towards one another than google vs apple (something about direct competitors?)

    2. Re:Just shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems that hurts to some people that Google doesn't appear on the list. I think the reason is simpler. They are two of the most direct competitors in the advertising market.

    3. Re:Just shows... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      It's somewhat ironic that Google is the one that's always being accused of selling your data when its business model actually revolves around making money by using the data, but keeping it secret, while Facebook "leaks" (actually sells) your data over and over again, and everyone's attitude is just "Oopsie, don't do it again" when selling your data is their actual business model.

      (There's kind of an implicit recognition that they use, rather than sell, the data in your comment, I thought it was worth highlighting. I suspect though that there's more to it than "Google already has your data".)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  11. Cambridge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand why everyone is mad at Cambridge for data analytics yet here is Facebook letting companies glean data information? Also, why wasn't anyone mad when Maxine Waters said that the Obama Campaign "captured everything" and has the largest database ever when it comes to voters.

    I don't understand.....

    1. Re: Cambridge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Cuz orange man bad in peach fowty fie

    2. Re: Cambridge? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Because people draw a distinction between product ads and political ads. The law does too, for that matter.

    3. Re: Cambridge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As do I. Political ads are far worse. At least with product ads there's a chance I might be interested. Political ads just tell me what to do. They also tend to be very pushy and very bossy about it.

  12. An ad company by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    has to go full ads.
    Whats paying for the services offered? Ads and the way the users interact.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:An ad company by MrKaos · · Score: 2

      Whats paying for the services offered? Ads and the way the users interact.

      Users are the product and the ads are the service they offer to their customers.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  13. Re:Bible predicted it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeremiah, 4:20

    And Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, the Jew known as Mark Zuckerberg will rent his flock for thirty pieces of silver, for he knows not my father."

    Nice trollin', except for the bit about Mr. Z being Jewish. Hate to burst your bubble, but you might want to consider that most of the dudes mentioned in The Book are actually, well, Jewish. The good ones (including Jesus himself), and the bad ones. There are a few hangers-on who don't belong to the club, but the vast majority are Jews. As shocking as that might be to Good Aryan Christians Who Hate Jews (also known as Very Confused People).

    Of course, omitting the bit about him being a Jew would make your posting not racist, and considerably less stupid, so you obviously had to do what you did.

  14. Some chick at work is back to pushing Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She claims to be "woke" so after the Cambridge Analytica stuff she stopped trying to get me to sign up for Facebook, but now she's back at it, constantly telling me about all the shit I'm missing out on.

    1. Re: Some chick at work is back to pushing Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys at the Royal Bank of Canada are probably loving her private naked pics.

  15. Gave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe Facebook was PAID handsomely for that information. It is in fact their business model.

    While we shit on Facebook, let's not lose track of the greedy bastards who are "just fine" with purchasing personal information. All of these companies claim to live by strict rules of user data confidentiality, which is why they are more than happy to fuck over their users by buying the information they want to use from an outside source.

  16. Social media amnesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wipe the data and all the backups.

  17. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You go to someone else's website and post all sorts of information, but then somehow don't think they are doing whatever they want with it?

    That's just stupid.

  18. evil company is evil by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    well, surprise surprise!

    when are you guys going to FINALLY make good on your promise to delete this crap from your lives?

    you can email anyone who is on FB; you wont lose contact.

    just leave that godforsaken place, already!

    the longer you stay, the more rope you give them. why empower those bastards? they could not care less about you. and you don't need them, either.

    grow a pair. leave FB.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:evil company is evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Don't use that evil adware company, email your family with Google gmail instead!

      no, but seriously, I agree, but just sayin...

    2. Re:evil company is evil by MrKaos · · Score: 2

      well, surprise surprise!

      when are you guys going to FINALLY make good on your promise to delete this crap from your lives?

      I never joined facebook and found that the friends I make are the ones I share an interest with. The other thing I've found is that when I see people I haven't seen for a while there is plenty to talk and ask them about themselves.

      Talking about cutting out things I cut TV out back in 2013, I do binge watch Netflix occasionally with my wife though. Cutting out commercials dropped a noticeable amount of stress in my life, they're a waste of attention.

      The point I'm making is that, from someone who was never interested in the first place the only thing I feel like I'm missing out on from FB is maybe missing the opportunity to find old friends that I lost touch with.

      On the plus side, I find I get a lot done because I don't have things stealing my attention.

      Except slashdot.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    3. Re:evil company is evil by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Yes, they're [sociopathic] (evil is a child's word) but email solves a different problem than social media. This is just axiomatic - everybody had email before social media arose. There are CS terms for the collection of services social media provides, but that's not the main point here; email does not.

      The problem is ISP bans on "running servers". Everything Facebook does is possible (and better) in a fully distributed manner but governments grant service monopolies and then allow them to impose a "no servers" restriction on that monopoly. That's not Internet.

      ISP's and big-tech both would like to see home internet restricted to ports 80/443 because it benefits both to move everybody into centralized silos. Frankly, the governments granting those monopolies also benefit, so we have quite a quandry on how to wriggle out of this.

      Maybe Starlink will save us.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  19. Re: Bible predicted it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The concept of a "Jew" is less than 500 years old. Enjoy your broken translations of The Bible, though

  20. cyberstalking as a business model by astrofurter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Creepy Faceboot is creepy.

    That much _everyone_ knows by now. Including those people who for social or business purposes continue to use Faceboot.

    It's time for Congress to ban cyberstalking as a business model. One way to do that would be too impose very high (instant bankruptcy high) mandatory fines for data spillage. And require that data hoarders be _fully insured_ against the maximum fine. Let the insurance companies take care of the rest.

  21. Death to Facebook by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Lock up Zuckerberg, burn Facebook to the ground.

    1. Re:Death to Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incitement to commit arson. Nice.

    2. Re:Death to Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Facebook is such a Medusa, it's hard to conceive what a statement like "burn Facebook to the ground" would even mean in a literal sense. It's quite obviously not a literal appeal.

    3. Re:Death to Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fecebook shills need to stfu and leave. Social media is a cancer, it all needs to go away.

  22. Re:Bible predicted it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >putting this much effort replying to a fucking troll

    are you new to the internet bro?

  23. But They Value Your Privacy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's left of it anyway.

  24. Just a few points... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firstly, when will the editors (in this case at Buzzfeed) do their GD jobs and proofread this stuff?
        "which was accused last year by Ukraine's security service for giving user data to Kremlin. "
        (in my worst Russian accent) Am giving user data to Kremlin.

    Secondly, this is the reason it's called a privacy policy.
        Not a contract, not a guarantee, not a Term of Service -- a policy, which can be changed at any time.

    Lastly, virtually every privacy policy I've read covers this.
        For Facebook in particular -- Sharing with Third-Party Partners
        This is not "exempted them from its privacy rules," this is part of its privacy rules.

    Since it's generally too late for those who have already given all their information to Facebook, this is just click-bait.
    Assume any information given to any corporation becomes public information as you will not be too far off.

  25. What will it take? by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    What revelation, what scandal, what breach of trust, what humiliation, what complete lack of concern for your private life by these "social media" corporations will it take for people to stop posting every personal intimate detail on social media? Tune out, turn off, experience life and keep yourselves private.

    1. Re:What will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A successful prosecution using shared partner data. Ideally someone should set a nasty trap. Point the RIAA to a crack house, Mexican cartel shop for pirating a disney movie. Both sides will be winners. FB may have to step up security when victims decide enough is enough.

    2. Re:What will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no perceived tangible harm, so it'll never stop. So a shoe company is going to send you shoe ads just as your current ones are wearing out? Many people see that as a feature. The only way it'll stop is if there's some sudden shift in thinking and some innocent thing that lots of people used to do is grabbed up as an excuse to lock those people away. Well, that probably won't fix anything anyway since those people would then no longer be able to vote and other people won't want to stick their necks out for the now degenerates. If they were good people then they wouldn't have done that thing 20 years ago so it serves them right. Even if they did manage to get something changed, it'll only last at most two generations before people forget the original whys. The slow cycle will start to repeat itself again.

    3. Re:What will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing. Conspiracy theory: all these news and fake news about breaches, privacy violations and whatnot serve to condition the public about the new "normal". It's the 22nd century. Abandon your privacy, folks.

    4. Re: What will it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None, because the boundaries of privacy have shifted. The younger generations have been taught to erase privacy. Everything must be transparent, out in the open, and talked about. If your fundamental belief system entails sharing everything about your life on the Internet then this is a non story.

  26. I fail to see why we are by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    surprised every social media company makes their money selling every bit of user data they collect on all of their users to anyone with cash. That is what made Zuck a billionaire.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  27. Re: Bible predicted it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jews have been around for over 3000 years.

  28. Conclusion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook sucks, but then thereâ(TM)s those 150 plus companies who are also significantly evil. I wonder which (if not both) of Republicans and Democrats are hoovering up everyone on Facebookâs systems.

  29. Ads don't require handing out users' data. Counter by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Showing ads doesn't require giving Microsoft data dumps of all the users' data. In fact, that's counter-productive to selling ads to Microsoft. Facebook could:

    A) get Microsoft to pay every month to have Facebook run ads using the profile data that only Facebook has

    B) Get one payment from Microsoft and hand over the data, the golden goose, allowing Microsoft to run and target their own ads without Facebook

    It seems Facebook chose option B.

    Google does option A. Google collects as much information as they can from you, because it's very valuable to them in order to be able to target ads for their customers. The data they have on users is their biggest asset, so they guard it. They don't hand out data dumps to competitors, as Facebook has been doing, and as many marketers used to do before Google took over the industry by keeping the valuable data in-house, secret.

  30. Re:No shit. That's their business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "...and the Royal Bank of Canada read, write, and delete users' private messages..."

    That's the problem. These companies have more administration rights over your profile than the owner does.

    If you don't want to be dragged into courts by the techno-police you'd better not be writing about bombs and stuff on your Facebook feed. This is basically saying that these companies can write whatever they want into your IMs. The potential for abuse is quite staggering.

    In any other jurisdiction this is called wiretapping, and it's expressly illegal.

    Don't use Facebook. Get off of Facebook. These companies are pure scum out for profit above even human decency.

  31. To quote Zuckerberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know why.
    They "trust me"
    Dumb fucks.

    1. Re: To quote Zuckerberg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not. Haiku needs more syllables

  32. Re:No shit. That's their business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Yeah, this'll be modded down, but it's all true.

    Score 4: Informative

  33. In a capitalist utopia, corperations ARE the gover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No problem General Idiot. Always a pleasure to serve sir.

  34. Woosh...right the frig over his, admitadely small, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hebrews dude. The people who make those kick azz hot dogs.

    Jews are peoples originating from....wait for it..........Judea!

  35. Re: Bible predicted it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Both of you are incorrect in various ways. The Kingdom of Israel refers to the descendants of Jacob, in the twelve tribes of Israel. These tribes were divided into the ten northern tribes, which were dispersed into Asia when the Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians, and the two southern tribes, which were the Kingdom of Judah. The southern tribes, Judah and Benjamin, were conquered and put into captivity by the Babylonians. During this conquest, Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed.

    However, the tribes of Benjamin and Judah returned from captivity and rebuilt the temple that was previously destroyed. The second temple is sometimes referred to as Herod's Temple, because of renovations that were supported by Herod the Great. The Kingdom of Judah lasted until 70 AD, when after a rebellion against Roman rule starting in 66 AD, Jerusalem and the second temple were destroyed. That marks the end of the Kingdom of Judah.

    The tribes of Benjamin and Judah can be referred to as Jews, since the word Jew is derived from the name of the tribe of Judah. The tribes of Benjamin and Judah date back more than 3,000 years ago before kings David and Solomon. However, they are generally referred to as Israelites, along with the ten northern tribes, prior to the northern tribes being conquered by the Assyrians.

    Regarding Jesus being a Jew, that's misleading. Jesus did observe many Jewish traditions such as Passover. However, it was Pilate, a Roman, who proclaimed Jesus as the "King of the Jews. This is recognized the form of the INRI inscription at the top of a crucifix, and was also something the Jews objected to. The Jews considered Jesus to be a false Messiah, and a particularly damaging one at that. In Christianity, Jesus established a new covenant and offered salvation to both Jews and Gentiles, superseding the previous covenant rather than continuing it. A Jew in the present day would be one who believes in the Messianic prophecies, but believes they have yet to be fulfilled. And i haven't a clue what those beliefs have to do with the business practices of Facebook.

  36. Re:Ads don't require handing out users' data. Coun by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Ads always result in data moving around. Some brands just hide that movement from users in fancy ways :)
    The user is always the product been sold for a "free" service :)

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  37. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The article is hidden behind a privacy invasion wall where you can't simply say no do not track

  38. BUZZFEED! Hahahahahahahaha..... AAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy shit why is this Buzzfeed garbage on my fucking slashdot? Get the fuck out of here back to reddit/facebook/tumblr

  39. Let's be clear by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    They didn't "give" anyone anything.

    They sold it. That has always been their model.

    How precisely did you think zuckerberg got to be one of the world's richest men ?

    --
    -Styopa
  40. Privacy Chernobyl is upon us by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    Actually that's not a great analogy, in privacy terms this is even worse than the quasi-sabotage of Chernobyl, but the damage is worse than Chernobyl, Fukushima and Kyshtym combined.

    Everyone involved in this should be banned from working with personal information for life, and a concrete sarcophagus should be built over Facebook HQ.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Privacy Chernobyl is upon us by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Actually that's not a great analogy, in privacy terms this is even worse than the quasi-sabotage of Chernobyl, but the damage is worse than Chernobyl, Fukushima and Kyshtym combined.

      No, it isn't. Privacy laws can be revised however civilizations can rise and fall in the amount of time that those radio isotopes have decayed through their daughter products.

      Everyone involved in this should be banned from working with personal information for life, and a concrete sarcophagus should be built over Facebook HQ.

      What do you personally do? Do you write to a congress critter expressing your outrage? Do you read proposed bad laws and try to stop them from passing? Did you lobby your representatives to work in your interests?

      No, you just keep whining and hoping someone else will defend your freedom and rights. Get used to disappointment, I've been doing it for 25 years now. Analysing hundreds, sometimes thousands, of pages of law which are basically converting our democracies from a covert to an overt police state. The AssAccess Bill passed recently in Australia gives all five eyes countries access to Facebook and everything else via intelligence sharing arrangements.

      What's that got to do with this? You're a product delivered to whoever will pay for your information so they can market or do what they want with it. Facebook offers an API for the task. You didn't value the information when you gave it away and now you're outraged because a company who obvious business model is to sell access is deriving value from it. What did you think would happen if you gave up all your data about who you associate with, it's so naive and you're only now realizing what a commodity information about yourself is. No one cares, tommorrow's another day and FB will still be selling you data in another 12 months time.

      I bet you're still using FB now.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re:Privacy Chernobyl is upon us by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'm still using Facebook as much as before, which is 0 because I don't have an account.

      Radioisotopes decay but the Internet never forgets.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Privacy Chernobyl is upon us by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I'm still using Facebook as much as before, which is 0 because I don't have an account.

      ok good, a least you are not a hypocrite - Apologies if I was a bit harsh there however it seems like there are a lot of people prepared to join outrage culture without doing anything to change the situation. I too have never signed onto FB.

      Radioisotopes decay but the Internet never forgets.

      This is a belief system that is being subverted and used against us. Our truth is that it is gradually being used as a tool to enslave us. I'm more inclined to believe that everything on the internet is a lie until it can be aligned with what is known to be true.

      Unfortunately, the more self-serving we are the more effective the lies become.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    4. Re:Privacy Chernobyl is upon us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >civilizations can rise and fall in the amount of time that those radio isotopes have decayed through their daughter products.
      Oh come off it. Chernobyl is already safe enough that flora and fauna in the region are flourishing in the absence of humanity. So what, 30 years between an absurdly enormous nuclear disaster resulting from total incompetence on every level, and the site becoming an accidental wildlife preserve? That's a far cry from the tends of thousands of years+ anti-nukes are always whining about.

      It turns out that radiation is quite common, so all organisms are at least somewhat durable against it.

    5. Re:Privacy Chernobyl is upon us by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      >civilizations can rise and fall in the amount of time that those radio isotopes have decayed through their daughter products. Oh come off it. Chernobyl is already safe enough that flora and fauna in the region are flourishing in the absence of humanity. So what, 30 years between an absurdly enormous nuclear disaster resulting from total incompetence on every level, and the site becoming an accidental wildlife preserve? That's a far cry from the tends of thousands of years+ anti-nukes are always whining about.

      Well go help clean up Fukushima. Oh that's right you're full of it and you don't know what you're talking about.

      It turns out that radiation is quite common, so all organisms are at least somewhat durable against it.

      Another moron that doesn't know the difference between radiashun and radionuclides, is too mentally limited to attempt to understand bio-accumulation in the food chain and continues to ignore the difference between internal and external radiation exposure.

      Fuck off idiot.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  41. Re:No shit. That's their business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    facebook is evil. i've been saying this since 'the' was part of its name.

    google is too. it could exist solely as a web search engine, without all the data collection, but they're too fucking greedy.

  42. Shareholders are all that matter in the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do no evil is almost impossible.

  43. Re:Ads don't require handing out users' data. Coun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When google feels that giving away your data is the only way to earn a profit. They will do it.

  44. If you aren't paying for it by wiredog · · Score: 1

    you are the product. Why are people still so surprised by this?

    Heck, you get people here at /. who are incensed that you actually have to pay full price for Apple products.

  45. I don't understand by Dan+East · · Score: 2

    I don't understand. When you have a company like Facebook, making BILLIONS of dollars from aboveboard, legit, standard advertising, why are they stooping so low to totally thrash user privacy for.... what? Another fraction of a percent additional revenue? This hints at some god-complex thing going on in the upper echelons of Facebook for these kinds of LARGE decisions to be made with other big corporations. My hunch this is for status symbol / power demonstration to show off to other multimillionaire executives the power you wield.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saying that you realize all this is just a smoke and mirrors in the grand scale of universe, right? start learning about the damn shit all around us, how about: "a phenomenon which is impossible" for a starters

      who cares about faceplant anyway

  46. WHAT ABOUT GMAIL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your private data can potentially be shared without your consent.

  47. The more we learn about Facebook... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ... the worse Facebook looks. Is there a bottom to Facebook's decline?

  48. yeah that's how Facebook's has always worked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the uninitiated, this is Facebook's business model. They're information dealers.

    To curtail your eventual surprise, Google has a similar model and shares similar data, as does any information collecting service.

    "But what can we do!" Stop using their services, or demand your data never be stored.

    Keep it skmole. If they collect it, you no longer have control over where it goes.

  49. ORLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well...it did not give mine, that is for sure.

    Next April is my anniversary of 4 years without Facebook, Instacrap, Twitter and LinkedIn.

    I do not miss a THING about any of those "social" tools.

    For the case of companies that have only Facebook presence on the Internet, I have a ghost account with 0 friends and no personal info.

    Duck Facebook!

    1. Re:ORLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you will find it is shitbook, Instacrap, shitter, crappedin

  50. Quelle Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How deeply predictable

  51. They care about your privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Luckily all of these companies keep insisting they "care about your privacy" so no need to be concerned!

  52. Re: Bible predicted it by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    " it was Pilate, a Roman, who proclaimed Jesus as the "King of the Jews. "

    To add to the depth of this discussion, Pilate probably came to that because Jesus was claimed to be the 'Son of God', calling God 'Father', a blasphemy to the ruling Jewish authorities, Pharisees and Sadducees. The declared Him deserving of death, but being proscribed from executing criminals etc, gave Him to the Romans, claiming He was leading a rebellion against the Roman authority. Close, that description.

    Of course, Jesus actually answered Pilate, variously translated as 'Yes, it is as you say'. (Matthew 27:11), and Pilate asked a crowd which of two prisoners should be set free to celebrate a festival, and they chose Barabbas. And so, Pilate washed his hands of the affair. On the cross, even 'chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. "He saved others", they said, "he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down from the cross..' (Matthew 27:41-42)

    So actually the Hebrew authorities mocked Him with that appellation. Huh.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  53. Re:No shit. That's their business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup. Whatever convenience factor existed for communications upkeep and sharing with those in ones circle of family and friends, the cost is certainly fully realized.

    It has been all along of course, but I don't think a lot of people thought how unscrupulous FB would delve to for profit's.

    I have to sigh a little, when my younger brother, who is heavily vested in all social media platforms, primarily due to being an entertainer, gives me flack for not mirroring the same. Granted he's far more social than I, but ... being in IT, I'm well aware of just what I'm getting myself into every time I jump on a service or add myself to a forum. I know full well, what could and likely come down the pipe when I submit my info. The problem with his line of thought is, I'm not sure is aware of it... or worse, if he cares. Unfortunately, I think it's the latter...

  54. Facebook didn't "Give" anyone anything. by sycodon · · Score: 1

    They sold it.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Facebook didn't "Give" anyone anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is a fantastical experiment. Never before in history has anyone attempted to privatize and create a profit center from the secret police data bases. Certainly not at this scale. There have been some examples of small scale blackmail, but nothing approaching the scale and ambition of Facebook.

  55. Re: Bible predicted it by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Stay anonymous. It suits you.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  56. Just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just stop using facebook already. If we all ignore it, it will just go away.

    1. Re: Just by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why does this company still exist? Why is it even allowed to exist?

  57. Throw another log on the fire by Miser · · Score: 1

    Yet another reason to not have a Facebook account.

    (or delete yours if you have one)

  58. Re: Ads don't require handing out users' data. Cou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at you trying to make this about Microsoft. Lol.

  59. #freedumbs #itsonlyaBBS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So millions of people gave up their freedom and identity to our Corporate Overlords to use a Bulletin Board System?

    SAD.

  60. face-fuck your fucked.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Bud, admit it, your fucked..
    the world bought into a pit of shit, deal with it.

    Just as bad as msmash.

  61. Jesus followed al jewish teachings by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    He said it himself, at no less a venue than the Sermon on the mounts
    Matthew 5:17–18
    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

    SO if he walks like a jew and quacks like a jew, he's a jew right?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  62. Re:No shit. That's their business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting how these data breaches are more serious and more widespread than just app developers having unintended/unauthorized access since Facebook made the switch from serving their own ads to using AdChoices. Corrolation might be causation after all... look at the major names behind AdChoices!

  63. Re:No shit. That's their business. by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, my ex is the same, always on FB, she is also in IT so she knows the implications and acts accordingly, but I don't want ANYONE knowing that much information about me. As soon as FB listed they become entirely profit driven (like any listed company) after that scruples fell to the wayside. One day when I am big and start my own company the day it gets listed is the day I cash out and walk away.

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.