|
The Facebook Privacy Thread
There have been random posts here and there about Facebook Privacy, but they have changed so much - and there's so much that needs to be changed in ones profile for it to be private, I figured we needed a dedicated thread.
This article is the best I've seen so far and I just did all 5 of the things it suggests. It is kind of a PITA, but worth it in the long run. |
Good idea for a thread
|
It's pointless, you're pissing into the wind. Whatever privacy rules you set today will be usurped and made public tomorrow. Facebook has committed to making everything public because they can make more money selling your personal information.
The only privacy setting worth a damn on Facebook is the YAGE. |
Great article NA. I love that it explains in fairly concise terms how the new settings work. The two new settings are the 'Like" and 'instant personalization'. The other ones have been around for awhile but it's a good reminder to lock down what you don't want seen.
With these changes I've gone through and deleted anyone whose pages I don't want to be associated with. Previously I removed all applications, locked down my photo albums and untagged myself in any photos I don't like. I'll keep doing that and making sure that my FB content isn't anything I wouldn't want my mom or grandma seeing. |
Hmm. I have yet to receive the pop up window that allows me to choose my "connections". Does that mean that feature hasn't been activated on my profile yet? Is there another way to get into those settings?
|
It's not so much "privacy" that I'm concerned about (everyone on earth can find out so much about me on the internet without the aid of facebook). Rather, it was the warnings that hackers would be enticed by the openness and sharing. I've already had my facebook account hacked once, and it was annoying to all my facebook friends. It is for their sake more than mine that I deleted all apps, pages, and personal information other than my name, date of birth and sad relationship status as "single."
|
We aren't the only ones talking about Facebook and Privacy
Quote:
|
I don't see the problem. Facebook is unparalled at what it offers - and for the price of removing your personal info is just as safe as anywhere on the net. (It's not the meet market that myspace was, so I don't bemoan the absence of my personal information as a hinderance to meeting mssrs. right or right now).
If you think a success like facebook is not going to fall victim to the money-bug to make dollars off that success, I have another planet to sell you. Meanwhile, twitter just gave all your tweets to the Library of Congress. Wake up - There Is No Privacy On the Internet. Deal.With.It. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
For example, I run my own private email server. Host my own media server for sharing photos, videos and such with family. I don't use sites that have murky privacy policy. Twitter for example. I have no problem with Twitter because from square one it's clearly public info. I know whatever I post there is going into the library of congress for all times. Facebook likes to pretend to give me privacy. I hate that. Plus I'm antisocial an introvert so I don't rely on any of this social media crap for anything I care about anyway. |
I only post benign stuff on there because if I post anything too risque or bitchy, who knows who is reading that stuff. I'll save that kind of stuff for here. :)
|
I am the same, but I did hide almost all of my personal info from my profile. Easy enough to find out elsewhere.
Thanks for the tips NA |
When did facebook "pretend" to be private?
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Twitter has a private setting, which only allows people who you've approved to see your tweets. That stuff isn't searchable and won't make it into the Library of Congress.
|
And I hope that eventually (even if it 100+ years from now that all of the private tweets also end up in a publicly searchable archive, just like I'm glad my university library had that damn fine collection of Civil War era private diaries.
I just assume everything is on the internet forever and unless I'm taking some very extreme steps to avoid it everything I currently think is private, is currently promised to be private is only private through the continued cooperation of third parties and that may change in the future. |
You didn't close your parenthesis. It's making me wonder of the thought was continued somewhere else.
|
Quote:
It's making me wonder why. |
Part of me likes the idea of becoming a part of history. I do wish that the LoC would keep records like that locked down for, say, 25-30 years until it is actually history.
|
Quote:
|
I understand that privacy is a myth in the internet, but it would be nice to be able to control the context in which your information is shared/used.
I like connecting with people on Facebook - sort of - there's a reason I haven't kept up with some of them. But I hate how it has made my "friends" spammers so that it puts me in the position of dropping a friend because they post their chances to win non-existent product. Or tagging links and videos I have no interest in but clog my news stream It's nice to keep up with people but I almost wish I could move some excessive posters into a "digest" format and get one daily update - I guess I could do that by blocking them and then just clicking on their pages when curiosity hits me. Anyway, its hard to provide context in 140 character status updates, or pictures of yourself in gold pants for that matter to anyone in the public who doesn't really know you. So it'd be nice to assert a little privacy there. if the Library of Congress want my twitter stream they can append it to my census data. |
I just don't worry about it all that much. I take people off my feed who annoy me. I don't post anything horribly interesting anyway. And if someone from high school wants to stalk me bring it on - I haven't been on a date since the 80's anyway.
|
The Hide option works quite nicely.
|
I just spent the last few weeks cleaning up my feed and wall. That was a neat trip down memory lane to 2007.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
The article doesn't mention Microsoft docs which is another partner website that you have to block (in addition to Pandora and Yelp).
|
What do you mean block websites? You just have to reject their access request.
|
So, last night, Chris' laptop settings for FB changed. It looks quite different. My Mac and his desktop remain the same. Curious.
|
Aside from the privacy (which is not a concern of mine), does anyone think the claims of being more susceptible to hackers holds any water? That's my concern. I don't expect much privacy on the 'net, but I don't want to paint a target on my facebook's back.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It makes it hard to give clear rules to the less savvy. I can tell my grandmother to never click a link to her bank in an email but that doesn't work so well in Facebook if you want to feel like your participating in all the fun. |
Even after hiding the annoying applications, there are still people who post way too boring updates way too often, so I've begun hiding them from my feed. Thing is, if someone you know responds to their update, you have to see it in your newsfeed. Laaaaaaame.
Somehow, unfriending in Facebook due to boringness seems harsh, while I did cut back in Twitter with no qualms. Perhaps because on Twitter, someone can follow me without me following them back? |
I've stopped using Facebook (same time I deleted by Twitter account, about two months ago) but I while I never unfriended anybody for boringness, about 95% of my friends were in a filter called "Don't Care - Don't Read." That same filter was blocked from seeing anything I did.
|
Perhaps some of you should start your own anti-social social networking site.
|
I'm sure one exists but the problem is I can't get any of my friends to join (as mentioned above LiveJournal was the perfect level of social networking for me but it is increasingly useless as fewer of my acquaintances are on it).
The problem for me with Facebook was the default assumption of using your real name (something that has declined as an assumption over time). This immediately meant I would never use it for communication of any real value. The fact that Facebook now seems to be primarily a tool for letting me know how good people are at Flash-based computer games was just bonus. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I have roughly a zillion facebook friends, and I have this amazing ability to scroll past stuff I'm not interested in. I certainly don't have any among the zillions who never posts anything I'm interested in.
Alex, I find it ironic you would shy away from a site where using your real name is customary, since you have always been known by your real name on message boards where it was customary to have a moniker. |
I too have a very good ability to scroll past the zillion things I'm not interested. But it is at the cost of scrolling past the many things I might actually be interested in.
On the name thing, I've only ever used my real name within the Disney community and that was only because there was a purpose in making sure people connected me to my role running MousePlanet. Everywhere else I have always used a set of names, varying depending on which sphere it's in. You'll recall that as soon as I was no longer in that position I changed the names here and at MousePad. I would have gone with complete fabrications but since within these communities I was already well known I decided to keep using Alex. |
I think the "hacker" vulnerability comes from 3rd party apps - such as the games and quizzes - but usually those involve getting past your privacy settings and getting ahold of your friends list so they can target spam to them that looks like you endorsed it. More an annoyance than anything else as long as you don't do things like use your date of birth, friend or pet names as passwords.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Facebook Privacy FAQ For those who can't access FB at work (spoilered due to length)
Spoiler:
|
Continued:
Spoiler:
|
After reading all that, it seems that if you log out of Facebook before going out to the web you can avoid having your data pulled. Your data is accessed via FB code on the other website (as GD explained earlier).
Before these changes Yelp and Pandora were already doing this type of data sharing. I think OpenTable was too. I get why the changes are raising questions and concerns but it seems to be a lot of uproar about the lack of privacy when your data isn't being broadcast to the rest of the internet. |
Quote:
I guess my problem isn't so much that a website I have chosen to log into looks at my info (if I don't opt/log out) but I have a big problem with a website I've never even visited pulling whatever info my FB friends are privy to (different from public, i.e. "everyone" info) whenever one of them goes to visit (without ever even pressing a "like" button.) I mean honestly, with all of the uproar about the "like" thing, how many people even know that there are 3 sites out there that require nothing more than a visit by a friend (and is FB going to say when they add more or do I need to go check everyday?)? And how big of a leap is it before it doesn't matter whether or not you're logged in or out...that you are IDed by FB by your IP? I don't mind having to opt in or out when I am informed of privacy changes but I resent having to go on a treasure hunt to find what the new policy really is. And frankly, has FB said how long they've been partners with Yelp, Pandora and MS docs? They could have been pulling info for months before anyone noticed. |
Quote:
|
That's why, when setting them up, you never accurately the security questions. I just have standard answers that have nothing to do with reality.
|
Quote:
|
Nope, oddly enough they're both numeric strings.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Here's some more info on the new features in an article about Mark Zuckerberg's non belief in privacy.
Quote:
The info on the 'like' button is some of the clearest I've seen. Solution - don't 'like' anything on FB. |
Quote:
I guess I'll need to change my security questions now! Thanks! |
Goddammit.
I going to have to start an email campaign to get the major Anti-Virus vendors to classify FaceBook as malicious software. It's not bad enough they share our data whether we like it not, now they are invading my happy place as well. FaceBook is coming to the Kindle. I'll be able to use facebook and see comments other people are making about the books I'm reading. All I can say is it better be an opt-in feature or the people walking near the six story parking garage next door better watch out cuz this thing is going sailing. |
|
|
From
Quote:
Quote:
|
Is the LoT important? Are smart phones important? Is the postal service important? (wait, don't answer that last one)
Facebook is used by a lot of people and a lot of people have become accustomed to using it as a primary means of communicating with friends and family. I mean, can you imagine if the postal service started sharing lists of what magazines you subscribe to? Even if they aren't opening your letters, something like that would seriously alter how I view mail service. That's basically what facebook has done. |
Well, the USPS may not sell the information that you subscribe to Hustler & Home Gardening but the magazines themselves are.
|
^ That is true.
I didn't mean, "Is what Facebook is doing important?" I was seriously questioning the statement in the article that stated that Facebook, itself, had become important. To me, it's just another social networking toy. One that I don't use because too many relatives would feel the need to share opinions I don't really care to hear. By my (strictly subjective) standards of importance: LoT is not. My friendships from LoT are. My smartphone is not. Access to a phone is. The postal service is. And, you're right, the post office would be out of line to start sharing my personal info in order to gain financial sponsorship. I don't disagree one bit. So, my question isn't about Facebook's policies, which I do think are important, in that it's sh!tty to take unfair advantage of your customers. (Much like the banks, but I digress.) My question is about whether Facebook has achieved some level of "importance." I always thought it was just another internet site full of the ramblings of people standing near you at the DMV. I would argue that Twitter has, in fact, achieved a level of importance, because of the usefulness it demonstrated during last week's tornadoes in the midwest, the recent earthquakes, and the Iranian protests. Which then makes my smartphone important again. ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It's not that any one particular aspect of Facebook is irreplaceable. Status updates are essentially twitter, photo posting can be accomplished with flickr or MMS or other photo sharing options, links can be emailed, etc. etc. But Facebook has gotten its users accustomed to having it all together in a single interface, and in a way that allows you to reach many people all at once with minimal effort. Once you are accustomed to it, I can't think of any other way I could communicate the things I do on Facebook, to the variety of people I'm able to, anywhere near as conveniently.
|
Quote:
In the past, I'd post a photo on a site like Photobucket, and then I'd email some friends and post it here for others. If you know people on different sites you need to visit all your haunts to get your stuff out to everyone. When almost everyone is in one place, it makes posting things infinitely easier. My posted photo on Facebook is seen by parents, cousins, in-laws, old high school buddies, college friends, many of you guys, and other myriad friends. I didn't even add circles like coworkers and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before my new mom group friends get on there too. Another example - I've gotten over 30 Happy Birthday posts on my wall so far today, from all the various groups I listed above. It's only 2pm and I'm sure I'll get plenty more. It's pretty neat. |
The 5 isn't hard to substitute. In fact, substitutes already exist, you can drive from Los Angeles to Seattle without ever using it (as I almost have). But it is still important for being essentially the easiest path connecting them and having been such a force that much of the surrounding infrastructure (except through the Central Valley) has adjusted to it rather than vice versa.
|
Quote:
|
Ok, starting to get it. However, my mom, and all those relatives, are still on Facebook, so I won't be. At least, not in the social way I am here.
|
Facebook has so taken over the birthday market, I often neglect to cross-post birthday wishes on twitter or here on the LoT. Facebook is the defacto for birthdays and so much more.
It's revolutionized the sympathy industry. I was truly moved and aided by the flood of sympathy posts I got when my mom died. I have so many facebook friends, I forgot there's not 100% overlap and was surprised when a few of my twitter pals and LoTmates didn't know my mother passed away. Regardless, I'm glad we don't have to rely on the mails for condolence cards. They arrive after they are most needed, imo. Facebook was perfect. In fact, the only bad thing about it is its too ubiquitous. I have to restrain myself sometimes because family members are on there, too. |
Quote:
Quote:
However, I really don't post there much except for "look at my bebe" so it's not a huge issue. I enjoy it first as a lurker, second as a way to swap links, and third for activist uses. |
Don't know if it was already posted but I found this visualization of the change in Facebook default privacy settings over time interesting (can't speak to accuracy)
http://mattmckeon.com/facebook-privacy/ |
That's what's cool about the Internet.
5 College punks can take on a multibillion dollar corporation and make them nervous. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
You know what else is cool about the internet? How easy it is to spread misinformation
Quote:
Quote:
:evil: |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I think LoT was sort of a diaspora.
|
|
They've caved. Kinda. Nothing functionally will be different but they're going to make the setting easier to find. And I think the stuff that's defaulting to public will no longer default to public (though that's not clear from the article).
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/social....ex.html?hpt=T2 |
Did they cave or just engage in the same pattern they've had? Push the envelope three steps, apologize for overstepping, back up a half step, then in a little while push forward another three steps?
|
I'm more concerned with their plans to put Facebook "LIKE" buttons on tons of other websites, most notably sites that sell things - in order to generate peer-pressure ads on people's facebook feeds with recommendations from their friends to buy certain goods or services.
Marketers have known for decades that people are prone to buy things they perceive their friends as liking. Companies are salivating over this opportunity to have friends sell stuff to their friends simply by exercising their learned facebook behavior. |
I think I got all my privacy settings sorted out but I'm still mad that Facebook obliterated my profile information. Why does everything have to be a page? I tried to put some text back in and I was able to click Save and nothing whatsoever was saved.
I'm a human being, not a bunch of links. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Oh, they are utterly insincere in their caving, and since the article doesn't explicitly say that any new privacy settings will be set to private by default I definitely leave open the option that they have indeed not promised to make things less private by default, but only to make it a little easier to change the settings. Could be just an omission, but it seemed like they were pointedly mentioning "default" without ever committing to saying anything changed.
It did come across as a little more grovelly than I recall prior retractions. |
CNET has an excellent walk through of exactly what changed. More than I realized, some good some bad.
http://cnettv.cnet.com/navigate-face...-50088174.html |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
