5 ms·

Simple strategy .. but so borderline ethical.

by yannis 17y ago

maxklein 17y ago
I've been thinking about this since I discovered it - is it not facebook being unethical here? They give full access to the personal info of a person given their email address. Their new 'privacy' terms is basically about nobody having any privacy. Small and agile business like mine will capitalise quickly on this info, but sooner or later, big companies like coca-cola will also see nothing wrong with storing public information that a user has 'chosen' to make public.
- yannis 17y ago
  Max, I thought you would have given it a lot of thought and so did I, that is why I called it borderline. I am with you when you say that these persons have opted to allow their information to go public and that Facebook effectively has let its users down. Anyway running a business is tough and marketing at some point in time was compared with guerilla warfare:) (now is JavaScript!)
- Semiapies 17y ago
  If the question is "Am you being unethical?" and your response is, "But isn't the real wrong being done by someone else?", then the answer is "Yes, you are".
- rsheridan6 17y ago
  Is it really unethical? Everybody knows that part of their facebook is viewable to the world, and they can change it and make it private if they want. I don't this tactic makes spamming any more or less ethical.
  - ahlatimer 17y ago
    I wouldn't go so far as to say everyone knows that part of their Facebook profile is viewable to the world, but one should still assume that any information posted online is public, even if said person has some quaint notion of privacy. Simple rule: if you don't want it made public, don't put it on the internet. As for ethics, I don't find anything wrong with using information gained using this method unethical if it's used in an aggregate. If, as the article suggests, you use it to find out that the majority of your users are gay, you might be able to fine tune your site to better serve their needs. Or it could reveal to you that your site is too niche and make you generalize it better. If you use it to cold contact random people using their personal information gained surreptitiously, then your ethics could certainly be questioned.
  - mattmanser 17y ago
    This is where our hacker stupidity/blindness sets in. 'Everybody' in your sentence actually means 'computer programmers/tech savvy people/criminals'. And this is why Facebook's move is so distressing. My Mum and Dad don't know this. My 'normal' friends don't. It is a disaster waiting to happen.
    - sailormoon 17y ago
      'Everybody' in your sentence actually means 'computer programmers/tech savvy people/criminals'. Considering the overwhelming, and increasing, importance of information technology in basically every aspect of our lives, I feel less sympathy every year for people who are not "tech savvy". Now sure, cue calls of arrogant elitism from the privileged classes, etc. But tell me, where does it end? At what point do we say that people should learn the basics about the things they use every day, and that might harm them? We teach kids that electricity is something to be careful about. We require drivers to pass tests. And yet the internet is, or soon will be, the single most important thing on earth and yet I know people who could not tell you what HTTP or DNS stands for or where "internet" even comes from. We need to start teaching this shit in schools. It is becoming basic required knowledge to function in modern society and should form part of standardised education. Ignorance is not a defence in law, why should it be here?
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        But tell me, where does it end? At what point do we say that people should learn the basics about the things they use every day, and that might harm them? Agreed; but none of these sites tell you, in a clear, concise and understandable way what information is available and at what level. Facebook is fairly good - but you still have to go digging.
        sailormoon 17y ago
        Good point, but people don't even seem to be thinking enough to look for such a document. They should be intuitively aware of the risks and possibilities associated with companies holding this kind of information. I didn't need to read Facebook's privacy agreements to know that there was no way in hell I was going to hand them my entire social graph on a platter just in exchange for a free blog and image hosting. Just the certain knowledge that law enforcement will have easy, reliable access to a list of all my friends, with contact information no less, is a total showstopper. Maybe I'm paranoid but I don't understand why more people aren't considering these things.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    Everybody knows that part of their facebook is viewable to the world No, that was a CHANGE in Facebook's policies after at least 200 million people had signed up. Some of those things can no longer be changed to be private.
    - foldr 17y ago
      >Some of those things can no longer be changed to be private. Which things?
      - maxklein 17y ago
        You cannot make your friends list private from your friends or friends friends anymore. If you had this turned on, it was switched off.
      - tokenadult 17y ago
        Someone else can check the ToS and privacy notice, but if I remember correctly sex and religion went to world-viewable by default if they are specified on the profile at all. After edit: "The Ugly: Information That You Used to Control Is Now Treated as 'Publicly Available,' and You Can't Opt Out of The 'Sharing' of Your Information with Facebook Apps" http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-c...
        foldr 17y ago
        >Someone else can check the ToS and privacy notice, but if I remember correctly sex and religion went to world-viewable by default if they are specified on the profile at all. I know some of the defaults changed, but that's not what I asked.
- physcab 17y ago
  I don't believe Facebook made this decision lightly. I'd like to believe that if they found that by releasing this information it placed their users in jeopardy, they wouldn't have done it. Call me naive if you want. I didn't pay much attention to the whole privacy controls thing. I assume that I am just like millions of other people who just clicked the "Close" button quickly so I could check my wall posts. With that said, I basically operate under the assumption that whatever information I put on that site, its going to be broadcast out to the world. Just like I know that whatever comments I post here on HN can be searched on Google and read by whomever. I think most people in my generation know this.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
kwamenum86 17y ago
It is only unethical if you assume that most people don't understand Facebook and privacy controls.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  which they've done a reasonable job of promoting. A larger and larger number of my non-techy friends are locking up their Facebook accounts. Whether this is just because the default settings have changed to be more restrictive I don't know (when they did the updates mine tried to get me to swap from "fully open" to "friends only" so I am not sure their algorithm for suggested settings is very good)
- physcab 17y ago
  Think about this from the perspective of the user though. When I go on Facebook, I expect that whatever information I put on the site is public, regardless of privacy controls (btw, I didn't change any privacy settings when they made a fuss about it because I didn't care/ didn't understand what the difference was from before). If people don't want this information broadcasted, why post it in the first place? As an example, consider the "relationship status" feature. I don't know about you, but for most of my friends it was a running joke that you weren't "official" until you listed your status on your profile. So I think most people understand that their information is public.
physcab 17y ago
What's the unethical component to this? To me, it all depends on what you do with this information. If you use the demographic info simply to understand your users and improve the service for them, then why is that bad? Perhaps you realize after looking at this demographic info that your assumptions about your userbase are wrong and you need to adjust your offerings or cater to a minority that you neglected. On the other hand, if you use that info to discriminate, then ya, that would be unethical. And if you think giving this list our to MTurkers is unethical, then I have to ask why as well? I think you have to ask yourself that by giving away this information, does it open up your users to vulnerability? Would you be enabling unethical behavior on the part of someone else, thereby making you guilty by association? For the record, I downvoted you because with a subject this sensitive, you should explain your position...not just make a quick, semi-accusatory statement. We need more comments with substance on HN.

Simple strategy .. but so borderline ethical.

by yannis 17y ago

Simple strategy .. but so borderline ethical.

I've been thinking about this since I discovered it - is it not facebook being unethical here? They give full access to the personal info of a person given their email address. Their new 'privacy' terms is basically about nobody having any privacy. Small and agile business like mine will capitalise quickly on this info, but sooner or later, big companies like coca-cola will also see nothing wrong with storing public information that a user has 'chosen' to make public.

yannis 17y ago
Max, I thought you would have given it a lot of thought and so did I, that is why I called it borderline. I am with you when you say that these persons have opted to allow their information to go public and that Facebook effectively has let its users down. Anyway running a business is tough and marketing at some point in time was compared with guerilla warfare:) (now is JavaScript!)
Semiapies 17y ago
If the question is "Am you being unethical?" and your response is, "But isn't the real wrong being done by someone else?", then the answer is "Yes, you are".
rsheridan6 17y ago
Is it really unethical? Everybody knows that part of their facebook is viewable to the world, and they can change it and make it private if they want. I don't this tactic makes spamming any more or less ethical.
- ahlatimer 17y ago
  I wouldn't go so far as to say everyone knows that part of their Facebook profile is viewable to the world, but one should still assume that any information posted online is public, even if said person has some quaint notion of privacy. Simple rule: if you don't want it made public, don't put it on the internet. As for ethics, I don't find anything wrong with using information gained using this method unethical if it's used in an aggregate. If, as the article suggests, you use it to find out that the majority of your users are gay, you might be able to fine tune your site to better serve their needs. Or it could reveal to you that your site is too niche and make you generalize it better. If you use it to cold contact random people using their personal information gained surreptitiously, then your ethics could certainly be questioned.
- mattmanser 17y ago
  This is where our hacker stupidity/blindness sets in. 'Everybody' in your sentence actually means 'computer programmers/tech savvy people/criminals'. And this is why Facebook's move is so distressing. My Mum and Dad don't know this. My 'normal' friends don't. It is a disaster waiting to happen.
  - sailormoon 17y ago
    'Everybody' in your sentence actually means 'computer programmers/tech savvy people/criminals'. Considering the overwhelming, and increasing, importance of information technology in basically every aspect of our lives, I feel less sympathy every year for people who are not "tech savvy". Now sure, cue calls of arrogant elitism from the privileged classes, etc. But tell me, where does it end? At what point do we say that people should learn the basics about the things they use every day, and that might harm them? We teach kids that electricity is something to be careful about. We require drivers to pass tests. And yet the internet is, or soon will be, the single most important thing on earth and yet I know people who could not tell you what HTTP or DNS stands for or where "internet" even comes from. We need to start teaching this shit in schools. It is becoming basic required knowledge to function in modern society and should form part of standardised education. Ignorance is not a defence in law, why should it be here?
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      But tell me, where does it end? At what point do we say that people should learn the basics about the things they use every day, and that might harm them? Agreed; but none of these sites tell you, in a clear, concise and understandable way what information is available and at what level. Facebook is fairly good - but you still have to go digging.
      - sailormoon 17y ago
        Good point, but people don't even seem to be thinking enough to look for such a document. They should be intuitively aware of the risks and possibilities associated with companies holding this kind of information. I didn't need to read Facebook's privacy agreements to know that there was no way in hell I was going to hand them my entire social graph on a platter just in exchange for a free blog and image hosting. Just the certain knowledge that law enforcement will have easy, reliable access to a list of all my friends, with contact information no less, is a total showstopper. Maybe I'm paranoid but I don't understand why more people aren't considering these things.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  Everybody knows that part of their facebook is viewable to the world No, that was a CHANGE in Facebook's policies after at least 200 million people had signed up. Some of those things can no longer be changed to be private.
  - foldr 17y ago
    >Some of those things can no longer be changed to be private. Which things?
    - maxklein 17y ago
      You cannot make your friends list private from your friends or friends friends anymore. If you had this turned on, it was switched off.
    - tokenadult 17y ago
      Someone else can check the ToS and privacy notice, but if I remember correctly sex and religion went to world-viewable by default if they are specified on the profile at all. After edit: "The Ugly: Information That You Used to Control Is Now Treated as 'Publicly Available,' and You Can't Opt Out of The 'Sharing' of Your Information with Facebook Apps" http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-c...
      - foldr 17y ago
        >Someone else can check the ToS and privacy notice, but if I remember correctly sex and religion went to world-viewable by default if they are specified on the profile at all. I know some of the defaults changed, but that's not what I asked.
physcab 17y ago
I don't believe Facebook made this decision lightly. I'd like to believe that if they found that by releasing this information it placed their users in jeopardy, they wouldn't have done it. Call me naive if you want. I didn't pay much attention to the whole privacy controls thing. I assume that I am just like millions of other people who just clicked the "Close" button quickly so I could check my wall posts. With that said, I basically operate under the assumption that whatever information I put on that site, its going to be broadcast out to the world. Just like I know that whatever comments I post here on HN can be searched on Google and read by whomever. I think most people in my generation know this.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

kwamenum86 17y ago

It is only unethical if you assume that most people don't understand Facebook and privacy controls.

ErrantX 17y ago
which they've done a reasonable job of promoting. A larger and larger number of my non-techy friends are locking up their Facebook accounts. Whether this is just because the default settings have changed to be more restrictive I don't know (when they did the updates mine tried to get me to swap from "fully open" to "friends only" so I am not sure their algorithm for suggested settings is very good)
physcab 17y ago
Think about this from the perspective of the user though. When I go on Facebook, I expect that whatever information I put on the site is public, regardless of privacy controls (btw, I didn't change any privacy settings when they made a fuss about it because I didn't care/ didn't understand what the difference was from before). If people don't want this information broadcasted, why post it in the first place? As an example, consider the "relationship status" feature. I don't know about you, but for most of my friends it was a running joke that you weren't "official" until you listed your status on your profile. So I think most people understand that their information is public.

physcab 17y ago

What's the unethical component to this? To me, it all depends on what you do with this information. If you use the demographic info simply to understand your users and improve the service for them, then why is that bad? Perhaps you realize after looking at this demographic info that your assumptions about your userbase are wrong and you need to adjust your offerings or cater to a minority that you neglected. On the other hand, if you use that info to discriminate, then ya, that would be unethical. And if you think giving this list our to MTurkers is unethical, then I have to ask why as well? I think you have to ask yourself that by giving away this information, does it open up your users to vulnerability? Would you be enabling unethical behavior on the part of someone else, thereby making you guilty by association? For the record, I downvoted you because with a subject this sensitive, you should explain your position...not just make a quick, semi-accusatory statement. We need more comments with substance on HN.