9 ms·

There is no such thing as permanently delete Facebook or Google account :)

by alvil 9y ago

topmonk 9y ago
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
- solatic 9y ago
  The architectures replicate the data across globally-distributed data centers. You're going to need a lot of nukes... ;)
  - ComodoHacker 9y ago
    And be in a hurry, before they become planetary-distributed. With quantum entanglement-powered replication.
- juiyout 9y ago
  Let's say, ALL facebook resources are wiped out from the planet. I suspect that users' data still partly exists external to facebook due to facebook having used users' data for advertising with our consent to their TOS.
dang 9y ago
OK, we've removed "permanently" from the title above.
pasta 9y ago
I also believe there is no such thing as not having an Facebook or Google account. They create it for you by creating your tracked profile. The only thing that happens when you create an account is that they can give the profile a name.
- frik 9y ago
  Yes. It's called shadow profile, they know your name from your friends address book.
- InternetUser 9y ago
  I'd be interested to hear your response to the point I made in my above comment in this thread. The fact that younger people increasingly view Facebook as uncool is a big problem facing the company; yes, Facebook Inc. still has Instagram, but Zuckerberg himself saw the rise of Snapchat, and tried to buy them out. The stock may be crap right now, but in terms of where people are sharing their minds and their lives (i.e. personal data), Snapchat is very relevant these days. In that way, it definitely does resemble Twitter; it's a very important part of the daily lives of tens of millions of people. I was about to say "daily online lives," but everyone is online for at least half the waking hours of their day now. (And for the record, virtually every B2C Internet stock stays below its IPO price in its first several months.)
  - Fnoord 9y ago
    Snapchat's stock is low because the hype has passed and the bubble has bursted. Their service is lackluster as the core principle of the company (sending media which can only be temporarily accessed) isn't a way to protect data since the sender and receiver have different interests because of their lack of a relationship based on trust and longevity. In that regard it makes sense the service is popular with youth as they don't fully grasp trusting relations, they take higher risks, all because their brains have not yet fully developed. You don't see adults using Snapchat for anything serious. They might just as well use more common, equally secure platforms e.g. WhatsApp, or face to face. Snapchat would've been very cute in the '90s before people had e.g. cameras on their phones, and when phone screens were lower quality (although it'd be problematic to make a picture in the first place then). Nowadays, its painfully obvious how irrelevant the service is. The only relevance Snapchat has is their userbase, mainly consisting of youth; personal data, the databank as a whole (pretty much the same but worth mentioning), and the potential to start a new service under the Snapchat flag.
- ComodoHacker 9y ago
  Does Google also build shadow profiles? Any evidence?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Previously, we only offered Personalized Search for signed-in users, and only when they had Web History enabled on their Google Accounts. What we're doing today is expanding Personalized Search so that we can provide it to signed-out users as well. https://googleblog.blogspot.be/2009/12/personalized-search-for-everyone.html https://googleblog.blogspot.be/2009/12/personalized-search-f...
- blubb-fish 9y ago
  True - but deleting FB is not just about data safety. For me the primary interest was simply removing myself from an unhealthy, superficial, hedonistic and materialistic part of reality and society.
Cursuviam 9y ago
I mean, if you work there you can just delete some rows
InternetUser 9y ago
Well, if you have made your account impossible for you, or anyone aside from certain employees of those companies, to access, the account is deleted. I mean, the social network MySpace, which still exists today (and is currently ranked #1,343 in the US by Alexa [0]), can have tons of data about you from 2006 to 2008, just as Yahoo Search can have tons of data about you from 1995 to 1998, but if you have completely stopped using both of those websites altogether, what's the value there? Better yet, a girl you dated for the past 3 years but then broke up with could have tons of knowledge about you, and photos, and videos, but unless you're a politician, celebrity, or high-level business executive, where's the risk there? I'm not saying it's risk-free for everyone, but for the majority of people, it effectively is. Even just consider how Snapchat became so popular among teenagers over the last few years; new generations use new technologies, including, in this case, computer programs, which are now called apps, and even Windows 10 retrofitted that word from smartphones to desktop computers. [0] https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/myspace.com https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/myspace.com
- Fnoord 9y ago
  > Well, if you have made your account impossible for you, or anyone aside from certain employees of those companies, to access, the account is deleted. Eh, no, that isn't the same at all. There's 2 clear cases where this is proven: 1) In the case the company still uses profiling on your personal data in order to profit from you. (Or, if they still contact you in relation to your supposedly deleted account as pointed out by people throughout this thread.) 2) In the case of a security breach the data used for profiling (which was supposedly deleted) can be breached, shared, etc (a good way to figure out where spam comes from is using catch-all e-mail addresses something which ironically works great with Gmail). For people in the EU, if they ask a company to delete their account, that company has to comply which includes any and all of their data. I don't know how it is for US but as a general statement I do wish our friends overseas including in the land of the free have solid laws to protect the individual citizens since I find that an integral part of a free nation. Even from a moral PoV it makes sense (not that publicly owned companies have any sense of moral). Because in the end with a profiling service company you are the product, gaining access to a gratis service. When you decide to stop using the service, you are no longer benefiting from them; why should they benefit from you in the years to come? With security risks attached? > Better yet, a girl you dated for the past 3 years but then broke up with could have tons of knowledge about you, and photos, and videos, but unless you're a politician, celebrity, or high-level business executive, where's the risk there? No offence, this is very ignorant. Everyone has something to hide. Moreover, revenge porn is an example which perfectly fits your scenario. But that was done with consent at that moment; there's other complex scenarios where the cat is out of the bag like bullying videos on the school yard. > Even just consider how Snapchat became so popular among teenagers over the last few years And there are many ways to record the data received via Snapchat. As long as the space between device and eyes is analog, there's always going to exist one loophole there. A loophole you won't hear Snapchat about as it doesn't serve their investors/shareholders.

There is no such thing as permanently delete Facebook or Google account :)

by alvil 9y ago

There is no such thing as permanently delete Facebook or Google account :)

topmonk 9y ago

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...

solatic 9y ago
The architectures replicate the data across globally-distributed data centers. You're going to need a lot of nukes... ;)
- ComodoHacker 9y ago
  And be in a hurry, before they become planetary-distributed. With quantum entanglement-powered replication.
juiyout 9y ago
Let's say, ALL facebook resources are wiped out from the planet. I suspect that users' data still partly exists external to facebook due to facebook having used users' data for advertising with our consent to their TOS.

dang 9y ago

OK, we've removed "permanently" from the title above.

pasta 9y ago

I also believe there is no such thing as not having an Facebook or Google account. They create it for you by creating your tracked profile. The only thing that happens when you create an account is that they can give the profile a name.

frik 9y ago
Yes. It's called shadow profile, they know your name from your friends address book.
InternetUser 9y ago
I'd be interested to hear your response to the point I made in my above comment in this thread. The fact that younger people increasingly view Facebook as uncool is a big problem facing the company; yes, Facebook Inc. still has Instagram, but Zuckerberg himself saw the rise of Snapchat, and tried to buy them out. The stock may be crap right now, but in terms of where people are sharing their minds and their lives (i.e. personal data), Snapchat is very relevant these days. In that way, it definitely does resemble Twitter; it's a very important part of the daily lives of tens of millions of people. I was about to say "daily online lives," but everyone is online for at least half the waking hours of their day now. (And for the record, virtually every B2C Internet stock stays below its IPO price in its first several months.)
- Fnoord 9y ago
  Snapchat's stock is low because the hype has passed and the bubble has bursted. Their service is lackluster as the core principle of the company (sending media which can only be temporarily accessed) isn't a way to protect data since the sender and receiver have different interests because of their lack of a relationship based on trust and longevity. In that regard it makes sense the service is popular with youth as they don't fully grasp trusting relations, they take higher risks, all because their brains have not yet fully developed. You don't see adults using Snapchat for anything serious. They might just as well use more common, equally secure platforms e.g. WhatsApp, or face to face. Snapchat would've been very cute in the '90s before people had e.g. cameras on their phones, and when phone screens were lower quality (although it'd be problematic to make a picture in the first place then). Nowadays, its painfully obvious how irrelevant the service is. The only relevance Snapchat has is their userbase, mainly consisting of youth; personal data, the databank as a whole (pretty much the same but worth mentioning), and the potential to start a new service under the Snapchat flag.
ComodoHacker 9y ago
Does Google also build shadow profiles? Any evidence?
- icebraining 9y ago
  Previously, we only offered Personalized Search for signed-in users, and only when they had Web History enabled on their Google Accounts. What we're doing today is expanding Personalized Search so that we can provide it to signed-out users as well. https://googleblog.blogspot.be/2009/12/personalized-search-for-everyone.html https://googleblog.blogspot.be/2009/12/personalized-search-f...
blubb-fish 9y ago
True - but deleting FB is not just about data safety. For me the primary interest was simply removing myself from an unhealthy, superficial, hedonistic and materialistic part of reality and society.

Cursuviam 9y ago

I mean, if you work there you can just delete some rows

InternetUser 9y ago

Well, if you have made your account impossible for you, or anyone aside from certain employees of those companies, to access, the account is deleted. I mean, the social network MySpace, which still exists today (and is currently ranked #1,343 in the US by Alexa [0]), can have tons of data about you from 2006 to 2008, just as Yahoo Search can have tons of data about you from 1995 to 1998, but if you have completely stopped using both of those websites altogether, what's the value there? Better yet, a girl you dated for the past 3 years but then broke up with could have tons of knowledge about you, and photos, and videos, but unless you're a politician, celebrity, or high-level business executive, where's the risk there? I'm not saying it's risk-free for everyone, but for the majority of people, it effectively is. Even just consider how Snapchat became so popular among teenagers over the last few years; new generations use new technologies, including, in this case, computer programs, which are now called apps, and even Windows 10 retrofitted that word from smartphones to desktop computers. [0] https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/myspace.com https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/myspace.com

Fnoord 9y ago
> Well, if you have made your account impossible for you, or anyone aside from certain employees of those companies, to access, the account is deleted. Eh, no, that isn't the same at all. There's 2 clear cases where this is proven: 1) In the case the company still uses profiling on your personal data in order to profit from you. (Or, if they still contact you in relation to your supposedly deleted account as pointed out by people throughout this thread.) 2) In the case of a security breach the data used for profiling (which was supposedly deleted) can be breached, shared, etc (a good way to figure out where spam comes from is using catch-all e-mail addresses something which ironically works great with Gmail). For people in the EU, if they ask a company to delete their account, that company has to comply which includes any and all of their data. I don't know how it is for US but as a general statement I do wish our friends overseas including in the land of the free have solid laws to protect the individual citizens since I find that an integral part of a free nation. Even from a moral PoV it makes sense (not that publicly owned companies have any sense of moral). Because in the end with a profiling service company you are the product, gaining access to a gratis service. When you decide to stop using the service, you are no longer benefiting from them; why should they benefit from you in the years to come? With security risks attached? > Better yet, a girl you dated for the past 3 years but then broke up with could have tons of knowledge about you, and photos, and videos, but unless you're a politician, celebrity, or high-level business executive, where's the risk there? No offence, this is very ignorant. Everyone has something to hide. Moreover, revenge porn is an example which perfectly fits your scenario. But that was done with consent at that moment; there's other complex scenarios where the cat is out of the bag like bullying videos on the school yard. > Even just consider how Snapchat became so popular among teenagers over the last few years And there are many ways to record the data received via Snapchat. As long as the space between device and eyes is analog, there's always going to exist one loophole there. A loophole you won't hear Snapchat about as it doesn't serve their investors/shareholders.