5 ms·

When I see posts like these, they creep me out. Another reminder that Facebook and all other online services, ad companies know way too much about their users a

When I see posts like these, they creep me out. Another reminder that Facebook and all other online services, ad companies know way too much about their users and can deduce more information about you (in truly creative ways) than you imagined would be possible. When I show these posts to people who resemble the average internet user, they just don't care. This is something that is saddening and baffling for me. I think it's just that most people don't understand why this is an issue to begin with and people need to be made aware of what is going on. The easiest way to start would be to discuss privacy issues with your closest family and friends. Worth mentioning RMS' blog post: https://stallman.org/facebook.html https://stallman.org/facebook.html

skarap 10y ago
"When someone wants to do X they start showing pattern A" is bad enough, but "when you show someone pattern A, they will be 30% more likely to want to do X" is the true disaster. And it is going to happen [more often].
- bryanrasmussen 10y ago
  When you show somebody how much Facebook knows about them they will be 30% more likely to quit Facebook.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    source?
    - bryanrasmussen 10y ago
      Well the source is really me being snarky, but there is this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2423713/Facebook-users-committing-virtual-identity-suicide-quitting-site-droves-privacy-addiction-fears.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2423713/Faceb... which as the source of any authoritative figure would be laughable given the small sample size, but maybe something to build on.
lmm 10y ago
Why should I care? For most of human history, most people lived in villages. Everyone they met would know this kind of information about them ("it's obvious to everyone except the couple themselves that x and y are into each other" is a literary trope for a reason). People survived, thrived even - in fact there's a strong argument our psychological welfare was much better in those conditions than it is in anonymous cities.
- ghostDancer 10y ago
  And they were making money of it and selling the information to to everyone that wants to pay for it. Exactly like in a small village /s .
- ap22213 10y ago
  People wouldn't mind as much if they had the same kinds and amounts of data on the their observers as their observers have on them. I kind of work in this field, and it's easy to know a lot more about a stranger than they know about themselves. Given the law of large numbers, I can make lots of accurate predictions of a person's future behavior, and I'm not amazingly smart. I'm also careful to not spy on people because that's just creepy. But, I'm certain that there are people out there using similar types of data who are 1) way smarter than me, 2) creepy, and 3) devious. (BTW, the data that I use has all PII removed, but it's trivial to identify individuals, if one is motivated)
  - xorfish 10y ago
    https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8034-build_your_own_nsa#video&t=2681 https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8034-build_your_own_nsa#video&t=... It is really easy to identify a majority of users of such a dataset.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > Everyone they met would know this kind of information about them Everyone in the village would have had detailed spending habits, knowledge of every website browsed, media preferences, political views, porn habits, location history and more all backed up in giant databases that are easily search-able?
Mahn 10y ago
I don't understand why Facebook always gets 100% of the blame in cases like these. Don't get me wrong, I get the concern, but what happened to the old adage of "if you don't want something on the internet, don't put it there"? Are people never responsible for what they voluntarily share on Facebook? Whenever we put the blame on Facebook for the data they collect, aren't we just saying people can't be trusted to protect their own privacy on the internet? And if yes, shouldn't we change the conversation to how to educate people better on the dangers of the internet, rather bashing Facebook?
- camiller 10y ago
  True, There was this from a few years ago: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targe... As far as facebook, I don't use their apps and when accessing through a browser don't let the browser share my location. I may have to consider accessing FB through an anonymous vpn service at some point...
- speeder 10y ago
  There is a problem though. What about people that had no choice? For example when a parent post a picture of their newborn baby and continues over the years, for example pictures of their sports events and training, movies of choir presentations and whatnot until the child is savy enough to use Facebook themselves. Don't those people deserve privacy too? What about significant others that maybe don't even have an account, but have their counterpart share their shared stories and media?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Jordrok 10y ago
  Because Facebook actively encourages people to post more than what is necessary, or even a good idea. It's to Facebook's advantage that most people don't understand the depth of data being collected or the possible consequences of oversharing, so they do everything in their power short of outright deception to get people to post more. Of course, not 100% of the blame lies directly with Facebook since they're not actively holding guns to people's heads forcing them to use the service, but I see it as more akin to predatory lending where the business profits by exploiting their customers.
vivekd 10y ago
The way I see it, it's kinda like a bank, yeah sure my bank has enormous control over me, and can on a whim ruin me with my financial, purchase info and control over my assets. But they have a very, very strong incentive not to do so, because doing so would cause them to lose lots and lots of money. Similarly facebook could abuse our information, but they stand to lose a lot if they do. Either way, this is the future and there really isn't much we can do about it. Businesses are going to track us, and save going off grid and living in the woods, I don't think there's any real escape.
- beagle3 10y ago
  The bank is regulated. Facebook isn't.
  - vivekd 10y ago
    True, but is it regulations that keep the bank from stealing your money and using your financial transactions against you - or is it the prospect of losing billions through loss of customer trust. I would guess it's the later because banking regulations are fairly toothless and bank lobbies are extremely strong.
    - beagle3 10y ago
      I would say both. The MERS[0] registry could not be set up because the banks thought it is sort-of-gray legally, and they would be able to work it. Then, it turned out that it is actually against black letter law, so we had the robosigning scandal, which they somehow managed to weather unscathed. Banks have foreclosed on wrong houses etc, and didn't suffer (enough) for it from either the hand of the law or the hands of customers, so they don't care (enough) to make sure they're doing it properly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_Electronic_Registration_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_Electronic_Registrati...
    - jwhitlark 10y ago
      I believe you're mistaken. Look into the "wildcat banking" era in the US for numerous examples of banks stealing or defrauding customers when there were no federal regulations on banks.

skarap 10y ago

"When someone wants to do X they start showing pattern A" is bad enough, but "when you show someone pattern A, they will be 30% more likely to want to do X" is the true disaster. And it is going to happen [more often].

bryanrasmussen 10y ago
When you show somebody how much Facebook knows about them they will be 30% more likely to quit Facebook.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  source?
  - bryanrasmussen 10y ago
    Well the source is really me being snarky, but there is this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2423713/Facebook-users-committing-virtual-identity-suicide-quitting-site-droves-privacy-addiction-fears.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2423713/Faceb... which as the source of any authoritative figure would be laughable given the small sample size, but maybe something to build on.

lmm 10y ago

Why should I care? For most of human history, most people lived in villages. Everyone they met would know this kind of information about them ("it's obvious to everyone except the couple themselves that x and y are into each other" is a literary trope for a reason). People survived, thrived even - in fact there's a strong argument our psychological welfare was much better in those conditions than it is in anonymous cities.

ghostDancer 10y ago
And they were making money of it and selling the information to to everyone that wants to pay for it. Exactly like in a small village /s .
ap22213 10y ago
People wouldn't mind as much if they had the same kinds and amounts of data on the their observers as their observers have on them. I kind of work in this field, and it's easy to know a lot more about a stranger than they know about themselves. Given the law of large numbers, I can make lots of accurate predictions of a person's future behavior, and I'm not amazingly smart. I'm also careful to not spy on people because that's just creepy. But, I'm certain that there are people out there using similar types of data who are 1) way smarter than me, 2) creepy, and 3) devious. (BTW, the data that I use has all PII removed, but it's trivial to identify individuals, if one is motivated)
- xorfish 10y ago
  https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8034-build_your_own_nsa#video&t=2681 https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8034-build_your_own_nsa#video&t=... It is really easy to identify a majority of users of such a dataset.
CaptSpify 10y ago
> Everyone they met would know this kind of information about them Everyone in the village would have had detailed spending habits, knowledge of every website browsed, media preferences, political views, porn habits, location history and more all backed up in giant databases that are easily search-able?

Mahn 10y ago

I don't understand why Facebook always gets 100% of the blame in cases like these. Don't get me wrong, I get the concern, but what happened to the old adage of "if you don't want something on the internet, don't put it there"? Are people never responsible for what they voluntarily share on Facebook? Whenever we put the blame on Facebook for the data they collect, aren't we just saying people can't be trusted to protect their own privacy on the internet? And if yes, shouldn't we change the conversation to how to educate people better on the dangers of the internet, rather bashing Facebook?

camiller 10y ago
True, There was this from a few years ago: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targe... As far as facebook, I don't use their apps and when accessing through a browser don't let the browser share my location. I may have to consider accessing FB through an anonymous vpn service at some point...
speeder 10y ago
There is a problem though. What about people that had no choice? For example when a parent post a picture of their newborn baby and continues over the years, for example pictures of their sports events and training, movies of choir presentations and whatnot until the child is savy enough to use Facebook themselves. Don't those people deserve privacy too? What about significant others that maybe don't even have an account, but have their counterpart share their shared stories and media?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Jordrok 10y ago
Because Facebook actively encourages people to post more than what is necessary, or even a good idea. It's to Facebook's advantage that most people don't understand the depth of data being collected or the possible consequences of oversharing, so they do everything in their power short of outright deception to get people to post more. Of course, not 100% of the blame lies directly with Facebook since they're not actively holding guns to people's heads forcing them to use the service, but I see it as more akin to predatory lending where the business profits by exploiting their customers.

vivekd 10y ago

The way I see it, it's kinda like a bank, yeah sure my bank has enormous control over me, and can on a whim ruin me with my financial, purchase info and control over my assets. But they have a very, very strong incentive not to do so, because doing so would cause them to lose lots and lots of money. Similarly facebook could abuse our information, but they stand to lose a lot if they do. Either way, this is the future and there really isn't much we can do about it. Businesses are going to track us, and save going off grid and living in the woods, I don't think there's any real escape.

beagle3 10y ago
The bank is regulated. Facebook isn't.
- vivekd 10y ago
  True, but is it regulations that keep the bank from stealing your money and using your financial transactions against you - or is it the prospect of losing billions through loss of customer trust. I would guess it's the later because banking regulations are fairly toothless and bank lobbies are extremely strong.
  - beagle3 10y ago
    I would say both. The MERS[0] registry could not be set up because the banks thought it is sort-of-gray legally, and they would be able to work it. Then, it turned out that it is actually against black letter law, so we had the robosigning scandal, which they somehow managed to weather unscathed. Banks have foreclosed on wrong houses etc, and didn't suffer (enough) for it from either the hand of the law or the hands of customers, so they don't care (enough) to make sure they're doing it properly. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_Electronic_Registration_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_Electronic_Registrati...
  - jwhitlark 10y ago
    I believe you're mistaken. Look into the "wildcat banking" era in the US for numerous examples of banks stealing or defrauding customers when there were no federal regulations on banks.