3 ms·

> Facebook is addressing a strong desire for privacy by its users This is some serious horseshit by Arrington. Only a fool would believe this[1]. Facebook's en

> Facebook is addressing a strong desire for privacy by its users This is some serious horseshit by Arrington. Only a fool would believe this[1]. Facebook's entire history is anti-privacy from the very beginning (here's a nice list: http://pleasedeletefacebook.com http://pleasedeletefacebook.com) and they do their business a disservice by not collecting as much as possible. Facebook users don't care about privacy; it's the reason they still use the service even after every privacy violation. Trying to spin this into a Facebook vs Google match is absurd. Facebook wants all of your data just as much as Google. They're called Big Data for a reason and information is their currency. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7675962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7675962

yuhong 12y ago
I asked this for a reason: http://www.quora.com/What-has-happened-to-Mark-Zuckerbergs-opinion-on-privacy-since-the-early-days-of-Facebook?share=1 http://www.quora.com/What-has-happened-to-Mark-Zuckerbergs-o... I wonder if I should ask this on Secret.
javajosh 12y ago
>information is their currency Correction: our information is their (wholly owned) asset. Between the two companies they've managed to honeypot the entire human race - and managed to get us all to do the data-entry for them. It's an incredible story, one that will have repercussions for a very long time.
- brymaster 12y ago
  Perfect observation and you're right - the outcome of this social media explosion will be terrifying. Couldn't help but think of: "People resist a census, but give them a profile page and they'll spend all day telling you who they are." ― Max Barry, Lexicon
jamesaguilar 12y ago
For anyone who is too lazy to read, something like 80% of these links are opinion and conjecture, 10% are things that people did reacting to information that Facebook users made public, 5% are unsubstantiated, and 5% are genuine privacy issues.
- yuhong 12y ago
  There is still enough that are genuine issues that I thought there was a question that was worth asking.
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    ? I don't know anything about you or your question.
    - yuhong 12y ago
      I posted it on Quora, as I mentioned in another comment.
      - jamesaguilar 12y ago
        Still not clear why you're telling me about this, but ok.
- brymaster 12y ago
  Not even close. Even the EFF archives and acknowledges a lot of these cases. Not every link is weighted equally. Let's talk about: * Partnering with data brokers * Deliberately changing users privacy settings * Beacon (remember that?) * Shadow profiles * Everyone searchable via Graph * Charges from the FTC * "Deleted" information not actually deleted * Like buttons on websites tracking you * User profile data (photos and names) being used in advertisements ...it goes on and on. You're employed by Google who also deals primary in the data of users. Are any of these issues relevant or important to you?
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    There is literally only one intentional privacy issue in that list from the last year, out of ten or fifteen posts. There were several exploited vulns, and a compliance issue (prism), but the only privacy violation facebook intentionally made during that period, at least according to this list, is removing the ability to hide from name searches.
snowwrestler 12y ago
When you want companies to change their behavior, it's not fair to forever judge them by the same set if historical facts. Zuckerberg used to say "real name for eveything." Later he said he could see good reasons to remain anonymous online sometimes. And this "anonymous login" feature sounds great. Meanwhile Google is forcing everyone into creating Google Plus pages, real name usage on YouTube, lining all services into one, etc. Look at the arc of their actions--the trend. I think Arrington got this one right. Facebook is improving their treatment of privacy as Google is getting worse.
- yuhong 12y ago
  But what exactly has happened to Mark Zuckerberg's opinion on privacy since the early days of Facebook for example is still an important question, especially if trust is to be regained.
- plaguuuuuu 12y ago
  It's important to realise to whom you will be anonymous using that feature. You'd be anonymous to client sites, but Facebook will still know exactly which apps you've signed up for. eg Facebook knows that you use Grindr even if you signed in 'anonymously'
- brymaster 12y ago
  > it's not fair to forever judge them by the same set if historical facts Disagree. The spots on the leopard don't simply change and there's no such thing as "anonymous" to Facebook. That's antithesis to their business. This is purely a PR play. By the way, we learned from the AOL data breach in 2006 that "anonymous" doesn't actually exist on the internet[1]. So let's not pretend Facebook is trying to do us all a great favor. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?page... "A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749"
  - yuhong 12y ago
    I didn't think that it would change magically either, which is why I asked the question I mentioned in another comment.
harrygold 12y ago
I'm not a developer but is it true that while an App developer who enables Facebook Anonymous login wouldn't know their users--But FaceBook would? If so ouch.

yuhong 12y ago

I asked this for a reason: http://www.quora.com/What-has-happened-to-Mark-Zuckerbergs-opinion-on-privacy-since-the-early-days-of-Facebook?share=1 http://www.quora.com/What-has-happened-to-Mark-Zuckerbergs-o... I wonder if I should ask this on Secret.

javajosh 12y ago

>information is their currency Correction: our information is their (wholly owned) asset. Between the two companies they've managed to honeypot the entire human race - and managed to get us all to do the data-entry for them. It's an incredible story, one that will have repercussions for a very long time.

brymaster 12y ago
Perfect observation and you're right - the outcome of this social media explosion will be terrifying. Couldn't help but think of: "People resist a census, but give them a profile page and they'll spend all day telling you who they are." ― Max Barry, Lexicon

jamesaguilar 12y ago

For anyone who is too lazy to read, something like 80% of these links are opinion and conjecture, 10% are things that people did reacting to information that Facebook users made public, 5% are unsubstantiated, and 5% are genuine privacy issues.

yuhong 12y ago
There is still enough that are genuine issues that I thought there was a question that was worth asking.
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  ? I don't know anything about you or your question.
  - yuhong 12y ago
    I posted it on Quora, as I mentioned in another comment.
    - jamesaguilar 12y ago
      Still not clear why you're telling me about this, but ok.
brymaster 12y ago
Not even close. Even the EFF archives and acknowledges a lot of these cases. Not every link is weighted equally. Let's talk about: * Partnering with data brokers * Deliberately changing users privacy settings * Beacon (remember that?) * Shadow profiles * Everyone searchable via Graph * Charges from the FTC * "Deleted" information not actually deleted * Like buttons on websites tracking you * User profile data (photos and names) being used in advertisements ...it goes on and on. You're employed by Google who also deals primary in the data of users. Are any of these issues relevant or important to you?
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  There is literally only one intentional privacy issue in that list from the last year, out of ten or fifteen posts. There were several exploited vulns, and a compliance issue (prism), but the only privacy violation facebook intentionally made during that period, at least according to this list, is removing the ability to hide from name searches.

snowwrestler 12y ago

When you want companies to change their behavior, it's not fair to forever judge them by the same set if historical facts. Zuckerberg used to say "real name for eveything." Later he said he could see good reasons to remain anonymous online sometimes. And this "anonymous login" feature sounds great. Meanwhile Google is forcing everyone into creating Google Plus pages, real name usage on YouTube, lining all services into one, etc. Look at the arc of their actions--the trend. I think Arrington got this one right. Facebook is improving their treatment of privacy as Google is getting worse.

yuhong 12y ago
But what exactly has happened to Mark Zuckerberg's opinion on privacy since the early days of Facebook for example is still an important question, especially if trust is to be regained.
plaguuuuuu 12y ago
It's important to realise to whom you will be anonymous using that feature. You'd be anonymous to client sites, but Facebook will still know exactly which apps you've signed up for. eg Facebook knows that you use Grindr even if you signed in 'anonymously'
brymaster 12y ago
> it's not fair to forever judge them by the same set if historical facts Disagree. The spots on the leopard don't simply change and there's no such thing as "anonymous" to Facebook. That's antithesis to their business. This is purely a PR play. By the way, we learned from the AOL data breach in 2006 that "anonymous" doesn't actually exist on the internet[1]. So let's not pretend Facebook is trying to do us all a great favor. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?page... "A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749"
- yuhong 12y ago
  I didn't think that it would change magically either, which is why I asked the question I mentioned in another comment.

harrygold 12y ago

I'm not a developer but is it true that while an App developer who enables Facebook Anonymous login wouldn't know their users--But FaceBook would? If so ouch.