7 ms·

Why Facebook is never safe

123 points by bootload 15y ago

pron 15y ago
Oh those poor, poor sheep. It's funny how eagerly people are willing to give up their privacy and freedom for some marginal benefit. And Facebook's dangers will always vastly outweigh its meager benefits. A relative of mine was just denied residency at a prestigious hospital when the admissions committee found out through Facebook that she has children, and there are numerous other examples. And the root of the problem is more than Facebook's monopoly or terrifying business model; these will be somewhat mitigated when its services, which have proven so far to be essential, will be commoditized (just like e-mail) by the wonderful Diaspora* and others like it. The root of the problem is people's willingness to expose themselves. And maybe I'm wrong, and it's not a problem at all but a cultural shift, or maybe even a necessary outlet for a human desire that's always been there. What I am certain of is that Facebook's IPO comes at a time of peak-Facebook. The ridiculous valuations Facebook and other web companies, and the outlandish profit multipliers analysts bestow on them never cease to amaze me. When companies grow so quickly it's hard to know when something really mirrors a true market shift or is just a fad. And even if it's not a fad, competitors can disrupt the market just as easily. After all, if investors expect upcommers to succeed so quickly, it must surely mean that they expect "established" companies to fail just as quickly; you can't have it both ways. Who could have predicted five years ago that Facebook will pose such a threat to Google (search)? Search seemed like it will forever be the preferred method of finding things online. And so will Facebook be displaced (or squeezed) by something new that comes along, or its product commoditized and Facebook turned into AOL circa 1994. The whole web economy is built on black swans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory). But whenever Facebook's inevitable market decline arrives (and it will happen quite soon), the question remains whether people's extroversion or naivete will continue to be fodder for web corporations. I would like to hope that with time and with the proper lessons learned, this behavior, too, will decline. Good article, BTW.
- baha_man 15y ago
  "A relative of mine was just denied residency at a prestigious hospital when the admissions committee found out through Facebook that she has children..." Would you care to elaborate on that?
  - pron 15y ago
    Well, I don't want to give too much information because that's a very well known hospital in a major US city, but after the interview, a contact of hers on "the inside" told her that he'd heard the interview had not gone that well because the panel didn't like that she was too concerned with the work hours. She, of course, never mentioned or asked anything about the hours (she's too smart for that), but then remembered that one of the interviewers told her that he'd looked her up online. She appears in her Facebook profile picture with her two small children. And it's a well known fact among young doctors that that particular hospital, an many other like it, does not care to hire residents with young children, esp. female residents.
    - alexro 15y ago
      Didn't they know her family situation and how many children she has before looking up the facebook?
      - pron 15y ago
        No, and they're not allowed to ask either.
        loceng 15y ago
        "but then remembered that one of the interviewers told her that he'd looked her up online" Fine line relating to privacy there.. something perhaps to look into.
        gergles 15y ago
        This is incorrect - they are allowed to ask whatever they want... they just can't use the information as part of their decision making process if it reveals membership in a protected class. So, there's no point in asking, but it isn't illegal for them to ask it.
- joering2 15y ago
  Disclaimer: I dont work/like Facebook, I dont use Facebook other than for some API testing projects. I use fake name, have one blurry photo and have only hand of real life friends mixed with strangers 20/80 ratio. > What I am certain of is that Facebook's IPO comes at a time of peak-Facebook. you may be certain of that if you assume that Facebook monetary mission was to connect all humanbeings, or at least most of it. You cant make enough money off of it. But I think you wrong if you think that Facebook customers are users -- they are advertisers. Zuck said it himself years ago that stage 1 is to sign up everyone and thats only beginning of his idea. Now since he got everyone signed up its time to treat billion people like a test rabbits and see how to maximize revenues per user without pissing off too many of them at the same time. In this case, possibilities are almost endless and I think you will see five years of strong monetary grow until, of course, everyone will jump ship for something new, more exciting. Further, Facebook IPO comes in a perfect time. Zuck proved to investors that his idea is sustainable. Now its time to reward those who worked hard to achieve it and use stockpile of cash to accelerate and execute "milking cows" ideas. Brilliant! > The ridiculous valuations Facebook and other web companies, Facebook numbers came out. $1B profit. I think trading them 23x is reasonable. > When companies grow so quickly it's hard to know when something really mirrors a true market shift or is just a fad. 2004-2012 thats 8 years of a grow. I fail to recognize it as "fad" since all FB numbers grow users and revenue wise. Is Google a "fad" ? they grew similarly fast, and what? Still in business... > And even if it's not a fad, competitors can disrupt the market just as easily. Well, so far we dont have "another" Facebook, because Facebook based its success on a fact that humans, in general, are lazy. Nobody will be willing to switch unless you can benefit something out of it that outweigh reason to drop all your friends and start rebuilding your network all over again, somewhere else. Until then, Facebook is safe. > by the wonderful Diaspora* where is the asterix leading? you work at Diaspora? > Who could have predicted five years ago that Facebook will pose such a threat to Google (search)? I think majority still search with Google and socialize with friends over Facebook. If you want to point threat to Google, point at Pinterest. Instead of Googling "cool bathroom ideas" and clicking "images", I go to Pinterest and have more pictures of beautiful inspirations for bathroom than I could ever analyze. This is a serious threat to Google. > But whenever Facebook's inevitable market decline arrives (and it will happen quite soon), can you shed some light? What do you see that we dont? > I would like to hope that with time and with the proper lessons learned, this behavior, too, will decline. So basically you claim that everything related to Facebook is evil. I disagree and billion naive sheep can back me up. Look, I know most hackers here are programmers. Most of us could write Facebook overnite today, and as a weekend project in 2004. This didnt happen. Facebook happened and one guy is worth $25 billion. I get it. Money-wise it hurts me sometime too. But the bottom line is, that you are trying to go against trend and your bitching is not different when 80years old librarian claimed that internet is evil and will kill libraries. Would you like internet to never happen because eventually libraries would be closed? If you go even more back in history, think about horse versus cars. I am pretty sure when cars came out, people riding horses were saying something: "oh, look at that piece of metal! it uses oil, produces deadly fumes and look how fast it goes! But everyone loves them! What a clueless sheep! I am sure it will take some time until enough people will kill themselves for everyone to realize horse-riding is more safe and secure and eventually everyone will switch back from cars to horses". Well, as we know history, this never happened and cars are here to stay. You see my point?
tigerweeds 15y ago
Yeah, well I always tell people I know how FB use their data etc., and they reply "but how does FB actually affect me??!?! I'm not a public person, I'm nobody! So what if I share all my family pictures?! FU! don't tell me about privacy, you paranoid!" People need more awareness.
- StavrosK 15y ago
  That's a good question. How will sharing their data influence the average person?
mohene1 15y ago
The article is appealing. I think it can become better by using several arguments in case privacy does not resonate with a reader (e.g. financially exploiting personal information, building stronger social relations, how other countries use facebook alternatively), and listing viable middle-ground solutions (using aliases on facebook). Example Solutions 1.Dont use your real name In Mexico, many people do not use their real names on Facebook partially because names (Jorge, Paula, Arturo, Pancho, Gomez, Ramirez, Rodriguez) are so common and using an alias makes it easier to find people. 2.Dont use your real information I dont use my real info on facebook. My real friends should know my birthday and where I live. 3.Use privacy settings so strangers can not view your personal life. I say this because, I quit facebook, then realized how popular it is as a form of communication these days for some demographic groups. I like letters and postcards, but I realize that's my preference
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- spacemanaki 15y ago
  If you follow all 3 of those things, it would make it almost impossible for someone you just met to find you on FB. Unless you explain in person what your FB strategy is. Basically if you did all those things, at that point you might as well not use it at all. (I no longer have an account)
  - ajdecon 15y ago
    I follow a similar strategy; but for me, 98% of Facebook usage is keeping in touch with people I've known for years, but are geographically distant. They know my nickname, they know how to find me, and FB does in fact help us keep abreast of each others' lives pretty well. (Photos, life events, amusing anecdotes...) On the very rare occasion I add someone new to Facebook (1/month max) it is not difficult to say "I'm on Facebook as Nickname. My work e-mail address is not connected, use specialized-address." It requires about a minute's out-of-band explanation, but so what? I have no interest in being friended by random strangers.
janlukacs 15y ago
I just don't use it. The result? More time to do stuff that matters.
- lena 15y ago
  Me too, but I noticed the other day that you can only save your progress at Khan Academy if you sign it with either Google or Facebook. That stung. I don't want to sign up for a social network, just to save my progress on a math course.
  - julian25 15y ago
    I agree. I have always steered away from sites that require "facebook connect." I'm worried one day many more sites that I use daily require Facebook, which I don't use.
lignuist 15y ago
I wonder, if there are any known cases, where people did not get a particular job (or experienced any other disadvantage), because they had NO facebook account. Personally I don't own a facebook account and any request to facebook from my computer is blocked, since they introduced their like button. In my world it's very much like facebook doesn't exist at all. The only disadvantage I experience is, that I'm locked out of some websites, which require a facebook account for log-on (stupid, if you ask me).
- a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
  "Personally I don't own a facebook account" Neither does anyone else.
  - lignuist 15y ago
    Well, maybe Mark Zuckerberg does. :)
Alexx 15y ago
Just out of interest, as I've never come across many examples, can anyone give me some rock solid examples of what scary stuff facebook / a 3rd party could do with my data? I'm in the UK. I post an update roughly once ever 3 months, usually a photo from my phone. I have around 100 friends. I'm tagged in a handful of photos, some geotagged. None of any particular interest. My about me section has some basic information on my home city. I do however have chat history with a few people. My privacy settings are all on the maximum, so no one public can see anything without being my friend, nor am I in search results. I block facebook outside of facebook.com. I always feel like if a corrupt entity (lets say the government) wanted to 'take my freedom' then my email, skype, public paperwork (property ownership records etc) and bank statements etc would be of much greater benefit? Most of the 'facebook data is bad' stories at the moment seem to revolve around people with poor privacy settings and job interviews etc. If your of the mindset that if the current government collapses and you end up with an extremist regiem in place, then a list of people you met over the last few years might be useful. But I'm not really in that camp, and my email address book or skype logs would be more accurate anyway. I'm not saying facebook data isn't a bad thing; I'm just wondering what concrete things could happen?
- pron 15y ago
  Well, besides your data being sold to advertisers (which may give you a creepy feeling but not much more), the friend list for most (all? I'm not that familiar with Facebook) Facebook users is public, and a lot could be learned from that alone. By canvassing you friends list, and your friends' lists and the way different lists intersect, it's often very easy to know who are your, say, school friends, and who are your work friends. It is also quite easy to find out who your close friends are, and whom you only know in passing or have fallen out of touch with. Using that information, I could introduce myself (online or offline) as a friend of one of your not-so-close friends. Then, it would be quite easy to gain your confidence. I could use you trust to get something directly out of you, or I could gain your trust just enough to friend you on Facebook (under a false identity) and pass your information (which is no longer so private) to a third party that has hired me to follow you.
  - Alexx 15y ago
darksaga 15y ago
I found it interesting Appelbaum was so concerned about the government intrusion and collecting of personal data, yet spends several paragraphs about all the regulating the government should do to keep people safe. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. Either government is a part of it and you take your chances with the possibly they over-regulate and use the data for harmful purposes. Or, you just let free market economics handle it and keep the government out of it entirely.
- pron 15y ago
  No, you can, and often do have it both ways. I know Americans often treat their government as some kind of foreign entity, but in Europe and other places as well, people see the government as truly representing them. What you said sounds to me like, you can give parents control over their children and hope they don't abuse them, or you can let children retain control, but you can't have it both ways. Well, no. You can trust and demand the government to have the best interest of its citizens in mind, just like you can demand and trust that of parents. I realize that in some parts of the American political spectrum this sort of thing is hard to grasp, and I don't want to get into what is a peculiarly American political argument, but you should know that in most democratic countries people often view their own government very differently from Americans. They demand certain things of their government and can trust it to behave a certain way, and if it doesn't - they punish it. In short: there is such a thing as good government (which, sadly, the American democratic party doesn't stress enough).
  - edderly 15y ago
    (As a European) I think it's an exaggeration to say it's a common view that the government truly represents them. However, there also isn't a shared faith that corporations will do the right thing automatically, or there is more cynicism about the 'free market'.
- edderly 15y ago
  Sorry, how exactly do you keep the government out of it entirely? Whether there are regulations or not government agencies will still use the data, oh, unless you regulate it...
ddw 15y ago
People in this thread are asking for ways that Facebook is used by third parties. How about future credit checks based on your network of debt-ridden college friends? http://www.pcworld.com/article/246511/how_facebook_can_hurt_your_credit_rating.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/246511/how_facebook_can_hurt_... How about health insurance claims? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2009/11/19/quebec-facebook-sick-leave-benefits.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2009/11/19/queb... How about investigations? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_social_network_websites_in_investigations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_social_network_websites_... Skeptics will say "just don't do anything wrong and you'll be fine." But what about civil disobedience, like the Occupy movement? What about when the definition of "wrong" changes? What about when the information is used not to implicate you in something, but just learn more about your activities? I think eventually this will become a big enough issue with some event (maybe a popular crime case in which the defendant is perceived to be innocent but FB data is used to implicate him/her) that the general public is appalled and will try to delete their data. But by then it'll be too late.
GigabyteCoin 15y ago
I have something to add to the FUD statement "What’s the greatest database of Jews on the planet? Facebook." ... "Why could the holocaust never, ever happen again? Facebook." Try systematically killing 10 million+ people when their relatives can't poke them on facebook anymore. People would catch on pretty quickly I think.
- pron 15y ago
  Uhhh, I don't think the holocaust happened because people weren't noticing.
  - ImprovedSilence 15y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that at the time, most of the outside world wasn't noticing? (or at least pretending not to notice?)
    - joering2 15y ago
      i think you wrong. it wasnt about "noticing" and besides if you notice what you are going to do? you can notice Wall street movement but did you and EVERYONE else joined? during WW2 most countries were busy fighting or preparing to fight with aggressors. on the other note, if you dont live in US but in one of country where abortion is illegal and assumed a human killing, you can notice 50,000 abortion done in China every day. Thats 15 million abortions a year, more than holocaust claimed. Do you see everyone "noticing" and doing something about it?
      - ImprovedSilence 15y ago
        You have valid points with your abortion point in that it's very often about perception of right and wrong. But it looks like the U.S. at least didn't "know" until a year after they entered the war[1], but even when they did, it appears that they had reservations about acting on it[2] (ie, do you bomb Auschwitz and kill the current prisoners to prevent future prisoners from being gassed there?) [1] http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/details.php?lang=en&topic=01#06 http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/details.php?lang=e... [2] http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005182 http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005182
joejohnson 15y ago
What about the opposite: I need to use Facebook for my job, but I would prefer to not even have an account. I hate Facebook, but am forced to use it, or switch jobs :(
- rwallace 15y ago
  Surely you can then use it _only_ for your job, and post only work information, no personal information?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
dmoy 15y ago
Relevant comedic relief: http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-cut-agencys-cos,19753/ http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatic...
arguesalot 15y ago
People who use facebook are harmless sheep. Most have nothing dangerous to do and whatever they share is probably never gonna be used against them. On the other hand, not having a facebook account might at some point become suspicious in itself.
Karunamon 15y ago
FTA: (the govenrment) shouldn't endorse Adobe. Um.. is this guy aware that the spec for PDF has been open for a long time? Using PDF isn't endorsing Adobe any more than using MP4 is endorsing the motion picture experts group.
shareme 15y ago
If you really want to mess with those who choose to violate privacy and other laws whether its corporate idiot or your government..you will figure out that you can fake profiles and data attached to them.. You know how easy it is to fake meta data in a camera image? The possibilities to make the FBI or CIA or some corporate private investigator look very stupid are endless.. Shall we play a game or two with them and expose their own stupidity? Why not? It would be the perfect hack and best part non-one gets hurt but we do a great public service..
- Cadsby 15y ago
  "The possibilities to make the FBI or CIA or some corporate private investigator look very stupid are endless.." You can try to mess with the FBI, CIA or any other three letter agency if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it.
nn2 15y ago
facebook is for sheep

123 points by bootload 15y ago

pron 15y ago

Oh those poor, poor sheep. It's funny how eagerly people are willing to give up their privacy and freedom for some marginal benefit. And Facebook's dangers will always vastly outweigh its meager benefits. A relative of mine was just denied residency at a prestigious hospital when the admissions committee found out through Facebook that she has children, and there are numerous other examples. And the root of the problem is more than Facebook's monopoly or terrifying business model; these will be somewhat mitigated when its services, which have proven so far to be essential, will be commoditized (just like e-mail) by the wonderful Diaspora* and others like it. The root of the problem is people's willingness to expose themselves. And maybe I'm wrong, and it's not a problem at all but a cultural shift, or maybe even a necessary outlet for a human desire that's always been there. What I am certain of is that Facebook's IPO comes at a time of peak-Facebook. The ridiculous valuations Facebook and other web companies, and the outlandish profit multipliers analysts bestow on them never cease to amaze me. When companies grow so quickly it's hard to know when something really mirrors a true market shift or is just a fad. And even if it's not a fad, competitors can disrupt the market just as easily. After all, if investors expect upcommers to succeed so quickly, it must surely mean that they expect "established" companies to fail just as quickly; you can't have it both ways. Who could have predicted five years ago that Facebook will pose such a threat to Google (search)? Search seemed like it will forever be the preferred method of finding things online. And so will Facebook be displaced (or squeezed) by something new that comes along, or its product commoditized and Facebook turned into AOL circa 1994. The whole web economy is built on black swans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory). But whenever Facebook's inevitable market decline arrives (and it will happen quite soon), the question remains whether people's extroversion or naivete will continue to be fodder for web corporations. I would like to hope that with time and with the proper lessons learned, this behavior, too, will decline. Good article, BTW.

baha_man 15y ago
"A relative of mine was just denied residency at a prestigious hospital when the admissions committee found out through Facebook that she has children..." Would you care to elaborate on that?
- pron 15y ago
  Well, I don't want to give too much information because that's a very well known hospital in a major US city, but after the interview, a contact of hers on "the inside" told her that he'd heard the interview had not gone that well because the panel didn't like that she was too concerned with the work hours. She, of course, never mentioned or asked anything about the hours (she's too smart for that), but then remembered that one of the interviewers told her that he'd looked her up online. She appears in her Facebook profile picture with her two small children. And it's a well known fact among young doctors that that particular hospital, an many other like it, does not care to hire residents with young children, esp. female residents.
  - alexro 15y ago
    Didn't they know her family situation and how many children she has before looking up the facebook?
    - pron 15y ago
      No, and they're not allowed to ask either.
      - loceng 15y ago
        "but then remembered that one of the interviewers told her that he'd looked her up online" Fine line relating to privacy there.. something perhaps to look into.
      - gergles 15y ago
        This is incorrect - they are allowed to ask whatever they want... they just can't use the information as part of their decision making process if it reveals membership in a protected class. So, there's no point in asking, but it isn't illegal for them to ask it.
joering2 15y ago
Disclaimer: I dont work/like Facebook, I dont use Facebook other than for some API testing projects. I use fake name, have one blurry photo and have only hand of real life friends mixed with strangers 20/80 ratio. > What I am certain of is that Facebook's IPO comes at a time of peak-Facebook. you may be certain of that if you assume that Facebook monetary mission was to connect all humanbeings, or at least most of it. You cant make enough money off of it. But I think you wrong if you think that Facebook customers are users -- they are advertisers. Zuck said it himself years ago that stage 1 is to sign up everyone and thats only beginning of his idea. Now since he got everyone signed up its time to treat billion people like a test rabbits and see how to maximize revenues per user without pissing off too many of them at the same time. In this case, possibilities are almost endless and I think you will see five years of strong monetary grow until, of course, everyone will jump ship for something new, more exciting. Further, Facebook IPO comes in a perfect time. Zuck proved to investors that his idea is sustainable. Now its time to reward those who worked hard to achieve it and use stockpile of cash to accelerate and execute "milking cows" ideas. Brilliant! > The ridiculous valuations Facebook and other web companies, Facebook numbers came out. $1B profit. I think trading them 23x is reasonable. > When companies grow so quickly it's hard to know when something really mirrors a true market shift or is just a fad. 2004-2012 thats 8 years of a grow. I fail to recognize it as "fad" since all FB numbers grow users and revenue wise. Is Google a "fad" ? they grew similarly fast, and what? Still in business... > And even if it's not a fad, competitors can disrupt the market just as easily. Well, so far we dont have "another" Facebook, because Facebook based its success on a fact that humans, in general, are lazy. Nobody will be willing to switch unless you can benefit something out of it that outweigh reason to drop all your friends and start rebuilding your network all over again, somewhere else. Until then, Facebook is safe. > by the wonderful Diaspora* where is the asterix leading? you work at Diaspora? > Who could have predicted five years ago that Facebook will pose such a threat to Google (search)? I think majority still search with Google and socialize with friends over Facebook. If you want to point threat to Google, point at Pinterest. Instead of Googling "cool bathroom ideas" and clicking "images", I go to Pinterest and have more pictures of beautiful inspirations for bathroom than I could ever analyze. This is a serious threat to Google. > But whenever Facebook's inevitable market decline arrives (and it will happen quite soon), can you shed some light? What do you see that we dont? > I would like to hope that with time and with the proper lessons learned, this behavior, too, will decline. So basically you claim that everything related to Facebook is evil. I disagree and billion naive sheep can back me up. Look, I know most hackers here are programmers. Most of us could write Facebook overnite today, and as a weekend project in 2004. This didnt happen. Facebook happened and one guy is worth $25 billion. I get it. Money-wise it hurts me sometime too. But the bottom line is, that you are trying to go against trend and your bitching is not different when 80years old librarian claimed that internet is evil and will kill libraries. Would you like internet to never happen because eventually libraries would be closed? If you go even more back in history, think about horse versus cars. I am pretty sure when cars came out, people riding horses were saying something: "oh, look at that piece of metal! it uses oil, produces deadly fumes and look how fast it goes! But everyone loves them! What a clueless sheep! I am sure it will take some time until enough people will kill themselves for everyone to realize horse-riding is more safe and secure and eventually everyone will switch back from cars to horses". Well, as we know history, this never happened and cars are here to stay. You see my point?

tigerweeds 15y ago

Yeah, well I always tell people I know how FB use their data etc., and they reply "but how does FB actually affect me??!?! I'm not a public person, I'm nobody! So what if I share all my family pictures?! FU! don't tell me about privacy, you paranoid!" People need more awareness.

StavrosK 15y ago
That's a good question. How will sharing their data influence the average person?

mohene1 15y ago

The article is appealing. I think it can become better by using several arguments in case privacy does not resonate with a reader (e.g. financially exploiting personal information, building stronger social relations, how other countries use facebook alternatively), and listing viable middle-ground solutions (using aliases on facebook). Example Solutions 1.Dont use your real name In Mexico, many people do not use their real names on Facebook partially because names (Jorge, Paula, Arturo, Pancho, Gomez, Ramirez, Rodriguez) are so common and using an alias makes it easier to find people. 2.Dont use your real information I dont use my real info on facebook. My real friends should know my birthday and where I live. 3.Use privacy settings so strangers can not view your personal life. I say this because, I quit facebook, then realized how popular it is as a form of communication these days for some demographic groups. I like letters and postcards, but I realize that's my preference

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
spacemanaki 15y ago
If you follow all 3 of those things, it would make it almost impossible for someone you just met to find you on FB. Unless you explain in person what your FB strategy is. Basically if you did all those things, at that point you might as well not use it at all. (I no longer have an account)
- ajdecon 15y ago
  I follow a similar strategy; but for me, 98% of Facebook usage is keeping in touch with people I've known for years, but are geographically distant. They know my nickname, they know how to find me, and FB does in fact help us keep abreast of each others' lives pretty well. (Photos, life events, amusing anecdotes...) On the very rare occasion I add someone new to Facebook (1/month max) it is not difficult to say "I'm on Facebook as Nickname. My work e-mail address is not connected, use specialized-address." It requires about a minute's out-of-band explanation, but so what? I have no interest in being friended by random strangers.

janlukacs 15y ago

I just don't use it. The result? More time to do stuff that matters.

lena 15y ago
Me too, but I noticed the other day that you can only save your progress at Khan Academy if you sign it with either Google or Facebook. That stung. I don't want to sign up for a social network, just to save my progress on a math course.
- julian25 15y ago
  I agree. I have always steered away from sites that require "facebook connect." I'm worried one day many more sites that I use daily require Facebook, which I don't use.

lignuist 15y ago

I wonder, if there are any known cases, where people did not get a particular job (or experienced any other disadvantage), because they had NO facebook account. Personally I don't own a facebook account and any request to facebook from my computer is blocked, since they introduced their like button. In my world it's very much like facebook doesn't exist at all. The only disadvantage I experience is, that I'm locked out of some websites, which require a facebook account for log-on (stupid, if you ask me).

a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
"Personally I don't own a facebook account" Neither does anyone else.
- lignuist 15y ago
  Well, maybe Mark Zuckerberg does. :)

Alexx 15y ago

Just out of interest, as I've never come across many examples, can anyone give me some rock solid examples of what scary stuff facebook / a 3rd party could do with my data? I'm in the UK. I post an update roughly once ever 3 months, usually a photo from my phone. I have around 100 friends. I'm tagged in a handful of photos, some geotagged. None of any particular interest. My about me section has some basic information on my home city. I do however have chat history with a few people. My privacy settings are all on the maximum, so no one public can see anything without being my friend, nor am I in search results. I block facebook outside of facebook.com. I always feel like if a corrupt entity (lets say the government) wanted to 'take my freedom' then my email, skype, public paperwork (property ownership records etc) and bank statements etc would be of much greater benefit? Most of the 'facebook data is bad' stories at the moment seem to revolve around people with poor privacy settings and job interviews etc. If your of the mindset that if the current government collapses and you end up with an extremist regiem in place, then a list of people you met over the last few years might be useful. But I'm not really in that camp, and my email address book or skype logs would be more accurate anyway. I'm not saying facebook data isn't a bad thing; I'm just wondering what concrete things could happen?

pron 15y ago
Well, besides your data being sold to advertisers (which may give you a creepy feeling but not much more), the friend list for most (all? I'm not that familiar with Facebook) Facebook users is public, and a lot could be learned from that alone. By canvassing you friends list, and your friends' lists and the way different lists intersect, it's often very easy to know who are your, say, school friends, and who are your work friends. It is also quite easy to find out who your close friends are, and whom you only know in passing or have fallen out of touch with. Using that information, I could introduce myself (online or offline) as a friend of one of your not-so-close friends. Then, it would be quite easy to gain your confidence. I could use you trust to get something directly out of you, or I could gain your trust just enough to friend you on Facebook (under a false identity) and pass your information (which is no longer so private) to a third party that has hired me to follow you.
- Alexx 15y ago

darksaga 15y ago

I found it interesting Appelbaum was so concerned about the government intrusion and collecting of personal data, yet spends several paragraphs about all the regulating the government should do to keep people safe. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. Either government is a part of it and you take your chances with the possibly they over-regulate and use the data for harmful purposes. Or, you just let free market economics handle it and keep the government out of it entirely.

pron 15y ago
No, you can, and often do have it both ways. I know Americans often treat their government as some kind of foreign entity, but in Europe and other places as well, people see the government as truly representing them. What you said sounds to me like, you can give parents control over their children and hope they don't abuse them, or you can let children retain control, but you can't have it both ways. Well, no. You can trust and demand the government to have the best interest of its citizens in mind, just like you can demand and trust that of parents. I realize that in some parts of the American political spectrum this sort of thing is hard to grasp, and I don't want to get into what is a peculiarly American political argument, but you should know that in most democratic countries people often view their own government very differently from Americans. They demand certain things of their government and can trust it to behave a certain way, and if it doesn't - they punish it. In short: there is such a thing as good government (which, sadly, the American democratic party doesn't stress enough).
- edderly 15y ago
  (As a European) I think it's an exaggeration to say it's a common view that the government truly represents them. However, there also isn't a shared faith that corporations will do the right thing automatically, or there is more cynicism about the 'free market'.
edderly 15y ago
Sorry, how exactly do you keep the government out of it entirely? Whether there are regulations or not government agencies will still use the data, oh, unless you regulate it...

ddw 15y ago

People in this thread are asking for ways that Facebook is used by third parties. How about future credit checks based on your network of debt-ridden college friends? http://www.pcworld.com/article/246511/how_facebook_can_hurt_your_credit_rating.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/246511/how_facebook_can_hurt_... How about health insurance claims? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2009/11/19/quebec-facebook-sick-leave-benefits.html http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2009/11/19/queb... How about investigations? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_social_network_websites_in_investigations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_social_network_websites_... Skeptics will say "just don't do anything wrong and you'll be fine." But what about civil disobedience, like the Occupy movement? What about when the definition of "wrong" changes? What about when the information is used not to implicate you in something, but just learn more about your activities? I think eventually this will become a big enough issue with some event (maybe a popular crime case in which the defendant is perceived to be innocent but FB data is used to implicate him/her) that the general public is appalled and will try to delete their data. But by then it'll be too late.

GigabyteCoin 15y ago

I have something to add to the FUD statement "What’s the greatest database of Jews on the planet? Facebook." ... "Why could the holocaust never, ever happen again? Facebook." Try systematically killing 10 million+ people when their relatives can't poke them on facebook anymore. People would catch on pretty quickly I think.

pron 15y ago
Uhhh, I don't think the holocaust happened because people weren't noticing.
- ImprovedSilence 15y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that at the time, most of the outside world wasn't noticing? (or at least pretending not to notice?)
  - joering2 15y ago
    i think you wrong. it wasnt about "noticing" and besides if you notice what you are going to do? you can notice Wall street movement but did you and EVERYONE else joined? during WW2 most countries were busy fighting or preparing to fight with aggressors. on the other note, if you dont live in US but in one of country where abortion is illegal and assumed a human killing, you can notice 50,000 abortion done in China every day. Thats 15 million abortions a year, more than holocaust claimed. Do you see everyone "noticing" and doing something about it?
    - ImprovedSilence 15y ago
      You have valid points with your abortion point in that it's very often about perception of right and wrong. But it looks like the U.S. at least didn't "know" until a year after they entered the war[1], but even when they did, it appears that they had reservations about acting on it[2] (ie, do you bomb Auschwitz and kill the current prisoners to prevent future prisoners from being gassed there?) [1] http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/details.php?lang=en&topic=01#06 http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/details.php?lang=e... [2] http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005182 http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005182

joejohnson 15y ago

What about the opposite: I need to use Facebook for my job, but I would prefer to not even have an account. I hate Facebook, but am forced to use it, or switch jobs :(

rwallace 15y ago
Surely you can then use it _only_ for your job, and post only work information, no personal information?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

dmoy 15y ago

Relevant comedic relief: http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-cut-agencys-cos,19753/ http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatic...

arguesalot 15y ago

People who use facebook are harmless sheep. Most have nothing dangerous to do and whatever they share is probably never gonna be used against them. On the other hand, not having a facebook account might at some point become suspicious in itself.

Karunamon 15y ago

FTA: (the govenrment) shouldn't endorse Adobe. Um.. is this guy aware that the spec for PDF has been open for a long time? Using PDF isn't endorsing Adobe any more than using MP4 is endorsing the motion picture experts group.

shareme 15y ago

If you really want to mess with those who choose to violate privacy and other laws whether its corporate idiot or your government..you will figure out that you can fake profiles and data attached to them.. You know how easy it is to fake meta data in a camera image? The possibilities to make the FBI or CIA or some corporate private investigator look very stupid are endless.. Shall we play a game or two with them and expose their own stupidity? Why not? It would be the perfect hack and best part non-one gets hurt but we do a great public service..

Cadsby 15y ago
"The possibilities to make the FBI or CIA or some corporate private investigator look very stupid are endless.." You can try to mess with the FBI, CIA or any other three letter agency if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it.

nn2 15y ago

facebook is for sheep