13 ms·

I remember reading a book on Facebook in 2010 or so. I remember distinctly quote from Mark Zuckerberg that "privacy is the concept from the past". Then, a coupl

I remember reading a book on Facebook in 2010 or so. I remember distinctly quote from Mark Zuckerberg that "privacy is the concept from the past". Then, a couple years later I read he bought houses surrounding his house to ensure his own privacy. Lost any respect I had for the guy in that moment. I really hope FTC will force FB to stop most of their unfair practices.

speps 9y ago
> I really hope FTC will force FB to stop most of their unfair practices. Which ones do you want to keep?
- d3ckard 9y ago
  None of course, but I don't believe they will get them all.
tyfon 9y ago
Do as I say, not as I do. I'm getting more and more happy that I don't have an account there. However I'm not that confident that my plugins block all their affiliates and data gathering to my shadow profile.
- bencollier49 9y ago
  GDPR ought to kill off shadow profiles..
  - monocasa 9y ago
    I mean, only the ones that are GeoIped in Europe, no?
    - TheLoneTechNerd 9y ago
      So that's going to be a really interesting thing to watch. Technically, the answer to your question is no - GDPR has nothing to do with being in the EU, it has to do with being a citizen of the EU. So if you're an American who travels to the EU, your shadow profile might get tagged with being in the EU, but you're still not eligible for GDPR protections. On the other hand, if you're an EU citizen living in the United States for the last 20 years (meaning, before the advent of Facebook), you technically have the right to request that all your data be deleted from Facebook's servers. Now, how will you know if they have data on you? Can you just assume that they do and make the request anyway? Will tech companies begin verifying your citizenship to tell if GDPR really applies to you? We'll soon see.
      - politician 9y ago
        If you're an American, then you can gain (indirect) access to GDPR protections by transferring ownership of your Facebook account to a citizen of an EU member state. They can then withdraw consent to track personal data from Facebook for that account and/or send a subject access request. Taking this action violates the Facebook ToS and will result in your account being closed. Checkmate?
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        kazen44 9y ago
        I wonder if someone could make a legitamite bussiness out of this? pay someone 5$ to get your account trasferred to a EU citizen, and consequently removed by the GDPR guidelines. Your still taking a huge risk by giving your profile to someone unknown though.
        politician 9y ago
        You might be able to structure the sale so that the European was the data subject for GDPR reasons, but did not have the passwords. That seems reasonable because under the GDPR, a company like Equifax would be obligated to purge your data if you withdrew consent even though you don't have access to the account they have on you.
      - drkrab 9y ago
        GDPR applies to anyone processing personal data about a subject who is in the EU. His or her citizenship does not matter. So you can just go to Europe and make your claim from there. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/
        TheLoneTechNerd 9y ago
        It may be - but that would just allow Facebook to say "if the login is from an EU IP, don't save this record" - but the rest of your profile, generated in the United States, can still remain. As long as no collection happens while you're within the EU, they may be fine. The whole thing will have to play itself out in court, it seems.
    - letsgetphysITal 9y ago
      Nope. If you are an EU citizen, you have a right to be forgotten under the GDPR. I fully intend to automate a request every 40 days (the response time for a Subject Access Request) to have myself pulled from their data.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Will it? or is this wishful thinking? How would it kill shadow profiles?
    - aetherson 9y ago
      You would have the right (if you were an EU citizen) to ask for your shadow profile to be deleted, and I believe that they would have to collect an opt-in before they started to store a shadow profile about you.
      - TheLoneTechNerd 9y ago
        This is technically true, but there are a lot of really weird implementation details. Since GDPR only applies to EU citizens, and those citizens could physically be anywhere in the world, how Facebook implements this will be super interesting. Think about how a shadow profile gets created, for example - they notice that a group of three people keep getting tagged in photos, but there's a fourth person in the pictures who doesn't have a Facebook profile. The three people keep logging in from the same physical place (say, in the U.S.), and that same place is where the pictures are geolocated. You can assume this fourth person was in the U.S. So, Facebook starts a shadow profile on him - pictures he could have been tagged in, locations he probably was in, interests he probably has based on the intersection of his friends' interests. But this guy is actually an EU citizen who showed up in the U.S. for a vacation. Uh oh. When would Facebook have found that out? When would they have asked this guy to opt-in? Can they assume everyone in the U.S. is not an EU citizen until told otherwise?
        TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        GDPR applies to people located in the EU. Citizenship does not matter.
        TheLoneTechNerd 9y ago
        I wrote this in another comment, but this is only partially true. The GDPR protections can potentially extend to non-EU citizens who travel to the EU, but the letter of the law seems to state that that's only true if data is actually collected while the person is in the EU. In other words, Facebook and others could potentially say "if this data is geotagged in the EU, don't record it. Wait until they're back in the US." Then, since no data collection happened in the EU, they wouldn't have the right to get it deleted. Edit: rereading https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/, it specifically mentions the "processing of data", not just storing. In other words, Facebook could potentially stop an American from logging in when in Europe. Would they? Likely not, it would hurt their business. But what if I (an American) sign on via a British VPN? It also doesn't answer what would happen to the data of EU citizens who are never geotagged in the EU (due to living outside of it), but also have shadow profiles created without their consent anyway. The first GDPR lawsuit will be fascinating.
  - tyfon 9y ago
    Or maybe GDPR will kill off Facebook.
strict9 9y ago
And there it is, now feels like the fable of the boiling frog. Can't remember wanting a company to crash and burn like this. >The rise of social networking online means that people no longer have an expectation of privacy, according to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. >Talking at the Crunchie awards in San Francisco this weekend, the 25-year-old chief executive of the world's most popular social network said that privacy was no longer a "social norm". https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-privacy https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-...
vog 9y ago
> Lost any respect I had for the guy in that moment Um ... why only then? His statement "privacy is the concept from the past" was dishonest even back then - because if you have a lot of money, you can always buy more privacy than everybody else - and are generally much less exposed to the issues of, let's say, "average people".
- d3ckard 9y ago
  Because even if I didn't like it, I could accept it as an opinion on future human interactions. Once he made it obviously clear that he himself considers it bullshit, while still selling the vision to the masses, I realised the man has no integrity whatsoever.
  - vog 9y ago
    > Because even if I didn't like it, I could accept it as an opinion on future human interactions But why could you accept it, from a person who is not affected by this vision anyway? Did he provide some intimate look into his sphere of privacy back then? Or, did he offer any transparency intiative regarding the Facebook company?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
code_duck 9y ago
There are also photos out there with Zuckerberg with a covered device camera, but Instagram requires you to turn on the camera and microphone to post even pre-recorded content to Stories.
rmc 9y ago
In May the GDPR comes into force in the EU.
- sigzero 9y ago
  I'm confused. Facebook is a service. As a service it's terms are "your data is ours, if you use our service". If you agree to that and you then use their service that should be the end of it. You are the product for Facebook.
  - jonathanyc 9y ago
    It so happens that we live in a world where terms of service can be restricted by law through established processes. If a country passed a law most of its citizens didn’t like, would you tell them to grin and bear it because “if you don’t like it you can just move?”
  - rjtavares 9y ago
    And GDPR puts limits on those terms. Just like labour laws put limits on contracts between a company and its workers. You can agree to an illegal contract, but that contract is still void... That's how society is supposed to work.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rmc 9y ago
    That is not the position of EU law. In EU law, the person owns the data. There are limitations to what you can sign away.
_jal 9y ago
Any time the incredibly wealthy tell your things have changed, get over it, grab a pitchfork.
m3kw9 9y ago
You lost respect for him over that? Should he put a cam in his bathroom for the world to see to be in sync with his business ambitions?
reaperducer 9y ago
I'm not trying to make this political, but I've always found it ironic that people in Southwest cities who talk big about border walls not keeping people out very often live in communities or cities where every house being surrounded by a wall is the norm. And the richer they are, the taller and more elaborate the walls get. Again, this isn't about politics. It's about irony and how rich people in California often seem to say one thing and do another.
- tyleraldrich 9y ago
  There's a huge difference between having a wall around your home so your neighbors/peeping toms can't look at you and having a wall on the border to keep immigrants out. These things aren't even comparable, I have no idea where you think the irony lies.
  - golergka 9y ago
    These things are very similar. In one case, your defend your personal property (a house), in another, you defend your collective property (a country). In both cases, you rightly feel that you have the privilege of using that property that you want to be in control of, personally or collectively.
    - tyleraldrich 9y ago
      I think you completely misunderstand why people build fences or walls around their homes. House wall: - keep pesky neighborhood kids from running through it and ruining your grass - keep your neighbors from being able to see you while youre swimming in your pool Border wall: - attempt to keep Mexicans from immigrating into the country illegally I fail to see how these use cases are at all similar. Please, if I missed a use case for a house or if your home is constantly being attacked by barbarians let me know, but I don't think anybody in California builds a wall to "defend" themselves.
      - reaperducer 9y ago
        >House wall: - keep pesky neighborhood kids from running through it and ruining your grass - keep your neighbors from being able to see you while youre swimming in your pool Not according to what I read on Nextdoor. The people talking about making their walls taller, better, covered in more cameras don't care about the neighbors. It's about keeping strangers out.
joezydeco 9y ago
I really hope FTC will force FB to stop most of their unfair practices. Yeah, Facebook said they would....in 2011. Ron Wyden (US Senator from Oregon) asks the following: "In 2011, Facebook entered into a consent agreement with Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Under the terms of that agreement, Facebook is required to maintain "a comprehensive privacy program that is reasonably designed to (1) address privacy risks related to the development and management of new and existing products and services for consumers, and (2) protect the privacy and confidentiality of covered information." "a. Please describe how, three years after Facebook entered into the consent order with FTC, Spectre and his company were able to download sufficiently detailed data on 50 million Facebook users without their affirmative knowledge or consent." https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden-cambridge-analytica-to-facebook.pdf https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden-cambridge-a... Hopefully once Zuck is done getting raked over the coals in the UK, he's dragged back to the USA to answer to Congress as well.
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  What will determine Zuckerberg and FB's fate in the US is the extent and number of politicians that received contributions. If FB donated to many politicians' election campaigns, they may be able to walk away with a slap on the wrist. Maybe tech companies should take a page from Boeing's playbook and set up offices in all 50 states
- mtgx 9y ago
  And that agreement means absolutely nothing unless the FTC is also willing to enforce it - hard - against Facebook now.
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    Which they won't. Very few people of significance from the 2008 financial collapse are in jail. The justice system in America doesn't apply to the 1%. There was a movement that tried to make people aware of that by camping out for weeks. They were marginalized, by the news and media agencies owned by that same 1%. As the previous post stated, this type of stuff was know in 2011 and 2014. There is a good chance the only reason this is making such strong headwind now is because it's in someone's interest to have the media run with these stories.
foobaw 9y ago
To be fair, privacy and security are two different things
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

speps 9y ago

> I really hope FTC will force FB to stop most of their unfair practices. Which ones do you want to keep?

d3ckard 9y ago
None of course, but I don't believe they will get them all.

tyfon 9y ago

Do as I say, not as I do. I'm getting more and more happy that I don't have an account there. However I'm not that confident that my plugins block all their affiliates and data gathering to my shadow profile.

bencollier49 9y ago
GDPR ought to kill off shadow profiles..
- monocasa 9y ago
  I mean, only the ones that are GeoIped in Europe, no?
  - TheLoneTechNerd 9y ago
    So that's going to be a really interesting thing to watch. Technically, the answer to your question is no - GDPR has nothing to do with being in the EU, it has to do with being a citizen of the EU. So if you're an American who travels to the EU, your shadow profile might get tagged with being in the EU, but you're still not eligible for GDPR protections. On the other hand, if you're an EU citizen living in the United States for the last 20 years (meaning, before the advent of Facebook), you technically have the right to request that all your data be deleted from Facebook's servers. Now, how will you know if they have data on you? Can you just assume that they do and make the request anyway? Will tech companies begin verifying your citizenship to tell if GDPR really applies to you? We'll soon see.
    - politician 9y ago
      If you're an American, then you can gain (indirect) access to GDPR protections by transferring ownership of your Facebook account to a citizen of an EU member state. They can then withdraw consent to track personal data from Facebook for that account and/or send a subject access request. Taking this action violates the Facebook ToS and will result in your account being closed. Checkmate?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - kazen44 9y ago
        I wonder if someone could make a legitamite bussiness out of this? pay someone 5$ to get your account trasferred to a EU citizen, and consequently removed by the GDPR guidelines. Your still taking a huge risk by giving your profile to someone unknown though.
        politician 9y ago
        You might be able to structure the sale so that the European was the data subject for GDPR reasons, but did not have the passwords. That seems reasonable because under the GDPR, a company like Equifax would be obligated to purge your data if you withdrew consent even though you don't have access to the account they have on you.
    - drkrab 9y ago
      GDPR applies to anyone processing personal data about a subject who is in the EU. His or her citizenship does not matter. So you can just go to Europe and make your claim from there. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/
      - TheLoneTechNerd 9y ago
        It may be - but that would just allow Facebook to say "if the login is from an EU IP, don't save this record" - but the rest of your profile, generated in the United States, can still remain. As long as no collection happens while you're within the EU, they may be fine. The whole thing will have to play itself out in court, it seems.
  - letsgetphysITal 9y ago
    Nope. If you are an EU citizen, you have a right to be forgotten under the GDPR. I fully intend to automate a request every 40 days (the response time for a Subject Access Request) to have myself pulled from their data.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Will it? or is this wishful thinking? How would it kill shadow profiles?
  - aetherson 9y ago
    You would have the right (if you were an EU citizen) to ask for your shadow profile to be deleted, and I believe that they would have to collect an opt-in before they started to store a shadow profile about you.
    - TheLoneTechNerd 9y ago
      This is technically true, but there are a lot of really weird implementation details. Since GDPR only applies to EU citizens, and those citizens could physically be anywhere in the world, how Facebook implements this will be super interesting. Think about how a shadow profile gets created, for example - they notice that a group of three people keep getting tagged in photos, but there's a fourth person in the pictures who doesn't have a Facebook profile. The three people keep logging in from the same physical place (say, in the U.S.), and that same place is where the pictures are geolocated. You can assume this fourth person was in the U.S. So, Facebook starts a shadow profile on him - pictures he could have been tagged in, locations he probably was in, interests he probably has based on the intersection of his friends' interests. But this guy is actually an EU citizen who showed up in the U.S. for a vacation. Uh oh. When would Facebook have found that out? When would they have asked this guy to opt-in? Can they assume everyone in the U.S. is not an EU citizen until told otherwise?
      - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        GDPR applies to people located in the EU. Citizenship does not matter.
        TheLoneTechNerd 9y ago
        I wrote this in another comment, but this is only partially true. The GDPR protections can potentially extend to non-EU citizens who travel to the EU, but the letter of the law seems to state that that's only true if data is actually collected while the person is in the EU. In other words, Facebook and others could potentially say "if this data is geotagged in the EU, don't record it. Wait until they're back in the US." Then, since no data collection happened in the EU, they wouldn't have the right to get it deleted. Edit: rereading https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/, it specifically mentions the "processing of data", not just storing. In other words, Facebook could potentially stop an American from logging in when in Europe. Would they? Likely not, it would hurt their business. But what if I (an American) sign on via a British VPN? It also doesn't answer what would happen to the data of EU citizens who are never geotagged in the EU (due to living outside of it), but also have shadow profiles created without their consent anyway. The first GDPR lawsuit will be fascinating.
- tyfon 9y ago
  Or maybe GDPR will kill off Facebook.

strict9 9y ago

And there it is, now feels like the fable of the boiling frog. Can't remember wanting a company to crash and burn like this. >The rise of social networking online means that people no longer have an expectation of privacy, according to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. >Talking at the Crunchie awards in San Francisco this weekend, the 25-year-old chief executive of the world's most popular social network said that privacy was no longer a "social norm". https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-privacy https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/11/facebook-...

vog 9y ago

> Lost any respect I had for the guy in that moment Um ... why only then? His statement "privacy is the concept from the past" was dishonest even back then - because if you have a lot of money, you can always buy more privacy than everybody else - and are generally much less exposed to the issues of, let's say, "average people".

d3ckard 9y ago
Because even if I didn't like it, I could accept it as an opinion on future human interactions. Once he made it obviously clear that he himself considers it bullshit, while still selling the vision to the masses, I realised the man has no integrity whatsoever.
- vog 9y ago
  > Because even if I didn't like it, I could accept it as an opinion on future human interactions But why could you accept it, from a person who is not affected by this vision anyway? Did he provide some intimate look into his sphere of privacy back then? Or, did he offer any transparency intiative regarding the Facebook company?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

code_duck 9y ago

There are also photos out there with Zuckerberg with a covered device camera, but Instagram requires you to turn on the camera and microphone to post even pre-recorded content to Stories.

rmc 9y ago

In May the GDPR comes into force in the EU.

sigzero 9y ago
I'm confused. Facebook is a service. As a service it's terms are "your data is ours, if you use our service". If you agree to that and you then use their service that should be the end of it. You are the product for Facebook.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  It so happens that we live in a world where terms of service can be restricted by law through established processes. If a country passed a law most of its citizens didn’t like, would you tell them to grin and bear it because “if you don’t like it you can just move?”
- rjtavares 9y ago
  And GDPR puts limits on those terms. Just like labour laws put limits on contracts between a company and its workers. You can agree to an illegal contract, but that contract is still void... That's how society is supposed to work.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rmc 9y ago
  That is not the position of EU law. In EU law, the person owns the data. There are limitations to what you can sign away.

_jal 9y ago

Any time the incredibly wealthy tell your things have changed, get over it, grab a pitchfork.

m3kw9 9y ago

You lost respect for him over that? Should he put a cam in his bathroom for the world to see to be in sync with his business ambitions?

reaperducer 9y ago

I'm not trying to make this political, but I've always found it ironic that people in Southwest cities who talk big about border walls not keeping people out very often live in communities or cities where every house being surrounded by a wall is the norm. And the richer they are, the taller and more elaborate the walls get. Again, this isn't about politics. It's about irony and how rich people in California often seem to say one thing and do another.

tyleraldrich 9y ago
There's a huge difference between having a wall around your home so your neighbors/peeping toms can't look at you and having a wall on the border to keep immigrants out. These things aren't even comparable, I have no idea where you think the irony lies.
- golergka 9y ago
  These things are very similar. In one case, your defend your personal property (a house), in another, you defend your collective property (a country). In both cases, you rightly feel that you have the privilege of using that property that you want to be in control of, personally or collectively.
  - tyleraldrich 9y ago
    I think you completely misunderstand why people build fences or walls around their homes. House wall: - keep pesky neighborhood kids from running through it and ruining your grass - keep your neighbors from being able to see you while youre swimming in your pool Border wall: - attempt to keep Mexicans from immigrating into the country illegally I fail to see how these use cases are at all similar. Please, if I missed a use case for a house or if your home is constantly being attacked by barbarians let me know, but I don't think anybody in California builds a wall to "defend" themselves.
    - reaperducer 9y ago
      >House wall: - keep pesky neighborhood kids from running through it and ruining your grass - keep your neighbors from being able to see you while youre swimming in your pool Not according to what I read on Nextdoor. The people talking about making their walls taller, better, covered in more cameras don't care about the neighbors. It's about keeping strangers out.

joezydeco 9y ago

I really hope FTC will force FB to stop most of their unfair practices. Yeah, Facebook said they would....in 2011. Ron Wyden (US Senator from Oregon) asks the following: "In 2011, Facebook entered into a consent agreement with Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Under the terms of that agreement, Facebook is required to maintain "a comprehensive privacy program that is reasonably designed to (1) address privacy risks related to the development and management of new and existing products and services for consumers, and (2) protect the privacy and confidentiality of covered information." "a. Please describe how, three years after Facebook entered into the consent order with FTC, Spectre and his company were able to download sufficiently detailed data on 50 million Facebook users without their affirmative knowledge or consent." https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden-cambridge-analytica-to-facebook.pdf https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden-cambridge-a... Hopefully once Zuck is done getting raked over the coals in the UK, he's dragged back to the USA to answer to Congress as well.

TAForObvReasons 9y ago
What will determine Zuckerberg and FB's fate in the US is the extent and number of politicians that received contributions. If FB donated to many politicians' election campaigns, they may be able to walk away with a slap on the wrist. Maybe tech companies should take a page from Boeing's playbook and set up offices in all 50 states
mtgx 9y ago
And that agreement means absolutely nothing unless the FTC is also willing to enforce it - hard - against Facebook now.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  Which they won't. Very few people of significance from the 2008 financial collapse are in jail. The justice system in America doesn't apply to the 1%. There was a movement that tried to make people aware of that by camping out for weeks. They were marginalized, by the news and media agencies owned by that same 1%. As the previous post stated, this type of stuff was know in 2011 and 2014. There is a good chance the only reason this is making such strong headwind now is because it's in someone's interest to have the media run with these stories.

foobaw 9y ago

To be fair, privacy and security are two different things

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]