6 ms·

Unbelievable: http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Data_Pool/data_pool.html http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Data_Pool/data_pool.html They delete sh*t, if you delete

by sek 15y ago

Unbelievable: http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Data_Pool/data_pool.html http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Data_Pool/data_pool.html They delete sh*t, if you delete your posts they don't remove them from their databases. This makes me really angry, there is a reason why i delete this stuff. I can't believe this, they have a responsibility. Edit: WTF http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Data_Pool/data_pool.html#Machines http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Data_Pool/data_pool.html#Mac... This is maybe the most frightening: http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Data_Pool/data_pool.html#Messages http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Data_Pool/data_pool.html#Mes...

nak3d 15y ago
Best advice I ever heard (and it came from an ex-Facebook employee), "treat communication ("private" & "public") on all services, including Gmail, Facebook, and Tumblr, like a million people are listening."
- X-Istence 15y ago
  Or better yet start using OTR on these services and verify the "key" on each end before continuing to talk about private matters.
  - incongruity 15y ago
    That doesn't account for the times the receiver decrypts your communication and then intentionally makes it public. There's a deep wisdom to the idea that one ought not put into words that which they wouldn't want the world to see... Once it's out of your head, your ability to control it diminishes if not outright vanishes... Just say'n is all..
- WettowelReactor 15y ago
  That does not really cover it as all FUTURE people are listening as well. Time has a funny way of obliterating context.
- parallel 15y ago
  Similar advice that was given to me during a messy legal fight'; Assume that anything you put in an email might one day be read out to you in court.
- robrenaud 15y ago
  I think my life would be considerably worse if I had been treating all e-communication with my girlfriend as though it was public. It has yet to hurt me.
- jojopotato 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure that in Gmail, delete actually means delete.
FuzzyDunlop 15y ago
You may be surprised that many (at a guess, maybe most?) companies/websites actually consider a delete function to be changing a 'deleted' flag to 1 in a database. The data persists, but is no longer shown. I would also make a very big assumption that the only companies who wouldn't do this are those run by developers or other people who have had experience implementing that sort of system. There's nothing bosses love more than storing whatever data they can get their hands on, no matter how relevant it is, and how reluctant they are to actually delete it. Or secure it properly. Hell, it's just data, who gives a shit right?
- jakejake 15y ago
  unless I was dealing with a security based application where data needed to be wiped - I would never delete, but just flag as deleted. I don't see it as evil from a development perspective. Losing data is about the worst thing that can happen - all other errors can be fixed. I have many times ran into a situation where having that deleted data either saved us from losing a customer or was used to show that our app was not mysteriously "deleting" their data.
- mattm 15y ago
  This is how I usually implement delete. Deleting a record can have many cascading effects and there is no possibility for undoing it if it was an error. I think this is a pretty standard way of doing it.
  - FuzzyDunlop 15y ago
    I agree with the fact a hard delete may have unintended effects, even in the best design, but in my ideal world I'd rather make allowances for that than simply offer my users the illusion I'm deleting their data. I think that may be a view shared between developers who care about ethical practices, where our personal ideals and how we think we should respect the user takes precedence over the data collection and profit motive. I think it's important to remember websites are dealing with actual people, who aren't a new commodity to be exploited for capital gain. Who aren't little mines full of precious data ready to extract at any cost. Of course, none of this really matters. Whether you delete something or not, it will be routinely stored, over and over again, on some backup server. It's there forever.
gus_massa 15y ago
There are also some technical problems with deletion. For example: What to do if the post has subposts from other user? What happens is someone steals your account and erases all your posts? And, when you click on the delete, should they erase the information: * From the cache * From the database (not only mark it for deletion) * From the weekly/monthly/yearly backup * From the old backup system that is not longer in use, and was connected to the old backend that is not longer in use. And remember the man that gets his Flirk account erased by mistake. Luckily they got a secret mode to restore it. http://bindermichi.posterous.com/how-to-subdue-a-major-internet-corporation http://bindermichi.posterous.com/how-to-subdue-a-major-inter...
- sek 15y ago
  Well i don't expect them to do it instantly, but just "never" deleting anything is what bugs me. There is no necessity to change backups, just to remove it from the current database and when the last backup is outdated it is gone. You can't come up with a realistic example that cannot be solved by 6 months old backups.
  - ma2rten 15y ago
    The main reason why facebook and many other websites do this is risk minimalization. What if some spam filter goes wild and deletes half of all profiles? EDIT: That was just meant to be an example. I believe it's generally a good practice to use a delete flag as the default option (unless there are legal or serious privacy concerns), because it makes you sleep better at night. I don't know if it justified in this case, but I just wanted to point out that they did not do it just out of pure evilness.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      It would hardly be a great programming feat to create 3 states: 'good', 'marked as spam, hidden', and 'deleted, remove from the DB at earliest convienence'. Hell, my mail client has been doing that as long as I can remember.
- bgarbiak 15y ago
nextparadigms 15y ago
"Note: According to facebook’s privacy policy, messages on facebook can not be deleted anymore. If you click on ‘delete’ the messages will only be invisible to you. US law enforcement agencies can access this information at there own liking, without judicial review." That last one is scary indeed. People were arguing a while ago whether these companies should keep data only for 6 months, or for a year, or 18 months - but Facebook is simply keeping it forever. Even 10 years from now law enforcement could verify your Facebook data. Facebook Timeline should give them a nice UI, too, in case you don't delete anything. But they would still want to dig deep. I wonder if Facebook built a special Timeline product for law enforcement to see everything about everyone. Remember when they admitted a while ago that they provide law enforcement a special software for the data? I wonder if the idea of Timeline for users comes from that. Julian Assange was dead-on that Facebook is the biggest spying machine.
- _delirium 15y ago
  It also seems to indicate a deliberate quasi-law-enforcement role being played by Facebook. If Facebook handed over data when presented with warrants, the "without judicial review" wouldn't be true. That can only be true if they're purposely partnering with law enforcement, to voluntarily offer them data that courts haven't requested. Reduces any qualms I might have about calls for Facebook to be regulated as a public utility, if it's actively choosing to act as an arm of the government anyway. Public utilities are actually, despite being much more entangled with the state in some ways, more separated from the state when it comes to law-enforcement. For example, the phone company can't just choose to record all your calls and give them to the police without a warrant.
  - sneak 15y ago
    It's not Facebook's call. The USA PATRIOT Act allows for National Security Letters, or NSLs, that legally function like warrants but require no judicial review. The US government uses them over 60,000 times per year. The law allowing them turns ten years old next month.
    - 15y ago
nak3d 15y ago
Heads up: Google does this with Gmail, too. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1047_3-6050295.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1047_3-6050295.html - "Judge grants subpoena and orders that all e-mail messages, including deleted ones, be divulged."
- jonknee 15y ago
  You can be asked for anything, that doesn't mean you have it. As the article you linked states, Google's privacy policy notes deleted information may live on in backups. This is common sense, otherwise they would have to touch every backup on a delete, which besides being very risky (one bug away from disaster), would mean having to go through offline tape archives of everyone's mail. If that were the case it would be prohibitively expensive to allow anyone to delete. The question is if they have the ability/requirement to go sifting through the old backups for requested data. http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/gmail-back-soon-for-everyone.html http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/gmail-back-soon-for-ev...

by sek 15y ago

nak3d 15y ago

Best advice I ever heard (and it came from an ex-Facebook employee), "treat communication ("private" & "public") on all services, including Gmail, Facebook, and Tumblr, like a million people are listening."

X-Istence 15y ago
Or better yet start using OTR on these services and verify the "key" on each end before continuing to talk about private matters.
- incongruity 15y ago
  That doesn't account for the times the receiver decrypts your communication and then intentionally makes it public. There's a deep wisdom to the idea that one ought not put into words that which they wouldn't want the world to see... Once it's out of your head, your ability to control it diminishes if not outright vanishes... Just say'n is all..
WettowelReactor 15y ago
That does not really cover it as all FUTURE people are listening as well. Time has a funny way of obliterating context.
parallel 15y ago
Similar advice that was given to me during a messy legal fight'; Assume that anything you put in an email might one day be read out to you in court.
robrenaud 15y ago
I think my life would be considerably worse if I had been treating all e-communication with my girlfriend as though it was public. It has yet to hurt me.
jojopotato 15y ago
I'm pretty sure that in Gmail, delete actually means delete.

FuzzyDunlop 15y ago

You may be surprised that many (at a guess, maybe most?) companies/websites actually consider a delete function to be changing a 'deleted' flag to 1 in a database. The data persists, but is no longer shown. I would also make a very big assumption that the only companies who wouldn't do this are those run by developers or other people who have had experience implementing that sort of system. There's nothing bosses love more than storing whatever data they can get their hands on, no matter how relevant it is, and how reluctant they are to actually delete it. Or secure it properly. Hell, it's just data, who gives a shit right?

jakejake 15y ago
unless I was dealing with a security based application where data needed to be wiped - I would never delete, but just flag as deleted. I don't see it as evil from a development perspective. Losing data is about the worst thing that can happen - all other errors can be fixed. I have many times ran into a situation where having that deleted data either saved us from losing a customer or was used to show that our app was not mysteriously "deleting" their data.
mattm 15y ago
This is how I usually implement delete. Deleting a record can have many cascading effects and there is no possibility for undoing it if it was an error. I think this is a pretty standard way of doing it.
- FuzzyDunlop 15y ago
  I agree with the fact a hard delete may have unintended effects, even in the best design, but in my ideal world I'd rather make allowances for that than simply offer my users the illusion I'm deleting their data. I think that may be a view shared between developers who care about ethical practices, where our personal ideals and how we think we should respect the user takes precedence over the data collection and profit motive. I think it's important to remember websites are dealing with actual people, who aren't a new commodity to be exploited for capital gain. Who aren't little mines full of precious data ready to extract at any cost. Of course, none of this really matters. Whether you delete something or not, it will be routinely stored, over and over again, on some backup server. It's there forever.

gus_massa 15y ago

There are also some technical problems with deletion. For example: What to do if the post has subposts from other user? What happens is someone steals your account and erases all your posts? And, when you click on the delete, should they erase the information: * From the cache * From the database (not only mark it for deletion) * From the weekly/monthly/yearly backup * From the old backup system that is not longer in use, and was connected to the old backend that is not longer in use. And remember the man that gets his Flirk account erased by mistake. Luckily they got a secret mode to restore it. http://bindermichi.posterous.com/how-to-subdue-a-major-internet-corporation http://bindermichi.posterous.com/how-to-subdue-a-major-inter...

sek 15y ago
Well i don't expect them to do it instantly, but just "never" deleting anything is what bugs me. There is no necessity to change backups, just to remove it from the current database and when the last backup is outdated it is gone. You can't come up with a realistic example that cannot be solved by 6 months old backups.
- ma2rten 15y ago
  The main reason why facebook and many other websites do this is risk minimalization. What if some spam filter goes wild and deletes half of all profiles? EDIT: That was just meant to be an example. I believe it's generally a good practice to use a delete flag as the default option (unless there are legal or serious privacy concerns), because it makes you sleep better at night. I don't know if it justified in this case, but I just wanted to point out that they did not do it just out of pure evilness.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    It would hardly be a great programming feat to create 3 states: 'good', 'marked as spam, hidden', and 'deleted, remove from the DB at earliest convienence'. Hell, my mail client has been doing that as long as I can remember.
bgarbiak 15y ago

nextparadigms 15y ago

"Note: According to facebook’s privacy policy, messages on facebook can not be deleted anymore. If you click on ‘delete’ the messages will only be invisible to you. US law enforcement agencies can access this information at there own liking, without judicial review." That last one is scary indeed. People were arguing a while ago whether these companies should keep data only for 6 months, or for a year, or 18 months - but Facebook is simply keeping it forever. Even 10 years from now law enforcement could verify your Facebook data. Facebook Timeline should give them a nice UI, too, in case you don't delete anything. But they would still want to dig deep. I wonder if Facebook built a special Timeline product for law enforcement to see everything about everyone. Remember when they admitted a while ago that they provide law enforcement a special software for the data? I wonder if the idea of Timeline for users comes from that. Julian Assange was dead-on that Facebook is the biggest spying machine.

_delirium 15y ago
It also seems to indicate a deliberate quasi-law-enforcement role being played by Facebook. If Facebook handed over data when presented with warrants, the "without judicial review" wouldn't be true. That can only be true if they're purposely partnering with law enforcement, to voluntarily offer them data that courts haven't requested. Reduces any qualms I might have about calls for Facebook to be regulated as a public utility, if it's actively choosing to act as an arm of the government anyway. Public utilities are actually, despite being much more entangled with the state in some ways, more separated from the state when it comes to law-enforcement. For example, the phone company can't just choose to record all your calls and give them to the police without a warrant.
- sneak 15y ago
  It's not Facebook's call. The USA PATRIOT Act allows for National Security Letters, or NSLs, that legally function like warrants but require no judicial review. The US government uses them over 60,000 times per year. The law allowing them turns ten years old next month.
  - 15y ago

nak3d 15y ago

Heads up: Google does this with Gmail, too. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1047_3-6050295.html http://news.cnet.com/2100-1047_3-6050295.html - "Judge grants subpoena and orders that all e-mail messages, including deleted ones, be divulged."

jonknee 15y ago
You can be asked for anything, that doesn't mean you have it. As the article you linked states, Google's privacy policy notes deleted information may live on in backups. This is common sense, otherwise they would have to touch every backup on a delete, which besides being very risky (one bug away from disaster), would mean having to go through offline tape archives of everyone's mail. If that were the case it would be prohibitively expensive to allow anyone to delete. The question is if they have the ability/requirement to go sifting through the old backups for requested data. http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/gmail-back-soon-for-everyone.html http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/gmail-back-soon-for-ev...