FakeBook Sign Off

[redduck]

You can make this work in your favor. Every morning (and several times during the day) I go to my bookmarked Victoria's Secret website,.

Is that why I keep seeing "articles" about younger women wanting to date older men?

Yeah, I forgot to mention that perk.

 

[Red Badger]

We need more like you Red Bager. The general apathy regarding privacy saddens me.

Very welcome. My adamant attitude (which occasionally get me in the doghouse) on this topic is that we should own our data. With strict exemptions (FICO collection of credit behavior comes to mind - as bad as that tastes) Individuals should be the owner of their data. Personal information (data is a misnomer) should have similar restrictions on how it can be released as with medical history, by consent of the owner.

Will I miss the sharing and collaboration with family and friends? Hell yeah. But to me, it's a worthwhile sacrifice. And yeah, I know almost every web site pimps my old ass, but some pimps are less abusive than others....

 

[gcgang]

Zuckerbergs testimony reminds me of Claude Rains in Casablanca, "I'm SHOCKED there's gambling going on here" as they hand him his winnings.

 

[Midpack]

Very welcome. My adamant attitude (which occasionally get me in the doghouse) on this topic is that we should own our data. With strict exemptions (FICO collection of credit behavior comes to mind - as bad as that tastes) Individuals should be the owner of their data. Personal information (data is a misnomer) should have similar restrictions on how it can be released as with medical history, by consent of the owner.

I know you realize why a company with 25,000 employees can’t offer a service completely free of charge without mining and selling your information and offering advertisers tailor made targets (users). Being just another source for untargeted blanket ads like the old days for newspapers, magazines, television wasn’t going to attract an (online) audience, but targeted ads have. If users were in control of their data, they’d have little info to work with. Brave new world?

If you object, don’t use free services. A legitimate choice for many, like you (and me WRT FB).

 

[CoolRich59]

Me neither. It's a good time to remind ourselves of the old adage "If you aren't paying for the product, then you probably are the product."

Love this quote. I have it saved on my drive alongside: "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu."

 

[scrabbler1]

I tried FB for a few days about 9 years ago. I thought it was a big waste of time, just like what Betty White said about it in 2010 during her SNL monolog.

 

[Hermit]

...
I still use FB ask Zuck and company got me. The alternative is to live like a hermit and out of the information loop with some friends and family.
....

So how did I get thrown under this bus??

- Hermit

BTW, I have a FB account and even get on it once or twice a month! I haven't posted on it for a long time.

 

[easysurfer]

So how did I get thrown under this bus??

- Hermit

BTW, I have a FB account and even get on it once or twice a month! I haven't posted on it for a long time.

Just an expression .

Unfortunately, I have too many contacts so can't live like a Hermit. Though many times wish I could.

 

[broadway]

Animal rescues depend on Facebook a lot to network for fosters and donations.
Unfortunately, their posts are not reaching as many people as possible because Facebook wants $ to make the posts seen on all the "likers" Facebook timelines.
Unfortunately, there is no alternative at the moment.

 

[marko]

I agree, Marko. Have discontinued FB and had a recent experience when goofing off on an astrology site. They wanted my DOB, city and state (to be sure I had the right sign); and email address. That info would make it easy to figure out my address, phone number and eventually make identity theft a bit easier. So, I’ll limit my social media interactions to this site since family and friends know how to call or email me.

“Just because you’re paranoid....”

Somewhere I read this: "So, one hour into our first date, I know your address, astrology sign, birthday, your mothers maiden name, where you were born, your dog's name, your best friends name, what street you grew up on, phone number....I think I have enough to be able to break into just about everything online now. Thanks for the drink!"

 

[marko]

Every morning (and several times during the day) I go to my bookmarked Victoria's Secret website, often spending a bit of time (two-three hours) clicking around their website. I find it's time well spent

redduck, Two or three hours on the VC website a day? Time well spent?
Is this something us guys should be looking into?

 

[redduck]

redduck, Two or three hours on the VC website a day? Time well spent?
Is this something us guys should be looking into?

OK, so I exaggerated a little. But, it would be time well-spent.

 

[ERD50]

We need more like you Red Bager. The general apathy regarding privacy saddens me.

Very welcome. My adamant attitude (which occasionally get me in the doghouse) on this topic is that we should own our data. With strict exemptions (FICO collection of credit behavior comes to mind - as bad as that tastes) Individuals should be the owner of their data. Personal information (data is a misnomer) should have similar restrictions on how it can be released as with medical history, by consent of the owner.

Will I miss the sharing and collaboration with family and friends? Hell yeah. But to me, it's a worthwhile sacrifice. And yeah, I know almost every web site pimps my old ass, but some pimps are less abusive than others....

I guess I still don't see what specifically has you two upset. Why, specifically, is it an issue for you that these services use information to serve up ads (which are easy to ignore, just like any other ad, as Gumby mentioned earlier - nothing new under the sun).

But if it does...

...If you object, don’t use free services. ....

Get your own domain with your own private email account. You can keep in contact with family and friends through email. What more do you need? If you want to use a collaborative, open-to-the-public site, that doesn't charge a fee (your friends and family would probably object to a fee), then you gotta play by their rules (or pay their fees?).

I suppose you could set up some collaborative software on your own domain, and white list your friends/family or something. But I bet they want to just use something that's open to their other friends.

Either accept those limitations, or try to fight a battle you can't win. It's like deciding to never buy a newspaper or magazine, or listen to the radio, because they have ads. And guess what - those are targeted ads. They don't know you personally (hmmm, they know where you live! - the Chicago Tribune even has my phone number and email address! Oh No!), but in some cases they know your zip code, and target your socio-economic level, they may know you own a home. I don't understand why having an algorithm know you did a Google search for lawnmowers and serving you lawnmower ads is any more of a concern than your local newspaper carrying ads for lawn mowers, knowing that X% of their subscribers are home owners.

What's the big deal?

ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50
I honestly don't know the specifics of the recent FaceBook flare up. I tried to research it, but I mostly got a bunch of excited "they sold my info! OMG!" stuff. So? What actually happened that is so bad?

I'll try, it's a complicated issue.

One of the things that happened was that a company (Cambridge Analytica) used Facebook information to influence opinions on political matters, without disclosing that to the users. They used a survey and their FB access to get the necessary intel. The survey was a backchannel: most people whose info get used didn't take the survey, but were connected to a user that was. ...

Thanks - I think I got about that far (but didn't double check or go deeper), and I guess I'm surprised that anyone who volunteered to take a survey, would be surprised that the information from that survey would be used/sold for profit. That seems naive (and to be less polite, it actually seems pretty stupid, or at least ignorant). They think time and effort goes into making a survey just for fun? Geez, just don't take surveys!

Which leads to another level, why care about privacy at all? Most people have trouble explaining this, but my answer relates to the Stasi period: control and liberty.

Yes, but I always figured any 'bad actors' have better ways to do bad things than scan my boring emails. Cracking my passwords for a financial site, sure, but I'm not posting that stuff on-line or in emails for anyone to see.

On a personal note: I don't use FB because I believe it adds negative value to my life (and society),

I don't use it either, but I think it does have some value. There's just more negative than positive for me, so I skip it.

-ERD50

 

[MichaelB]

The FB privacy issue is not limited to FB content. Many apps and some websites can be accessed using the FB access, and this allows FB to gather data there as well. If one signs into FB and does not sign out, subsequent browsing can also be tracked and data collected. From what I have read, it seems the valuable data is the “likes” and the “clicks” along with browsing.

It is simple to take basic measures that substantially reduce the amount of data FB can collect, but it appears most people are either unaware or careless. Allowing apps to link and communicate seems to me to be a particularly bad idea.

When it comes to data gathering, email providers are very intrusive, as they scan every item of mail and can use and sell that data. Here’s a snippet from Oath’s (goofy name, eh?) policy regarding what info they collect.

Analyze your content and other information (including emails, instant messages, posts photos, attachments, and other communications).

BTW, Oath is the new name for the Verizon subsidiary that owns all the digital content businesses, including Yahoo mail.

 

[CaptTom]

I guess I still don't see what specifically has you two upset. Why, specifically, is it an issue for you that these services use information to serve up ads (which are easy to ignore, just like any other ad, as Gumby mentioned earlier - nothing new under the sun).

I'm not upset, but I understand the concerns. For the record, I stay off FB because I'm not a big fan of drama. And advertising is not inherently evil.

Even harvesting personal details about all the contacts of someone who took a survey (as Cambridge Analytics did) is sort of benign. After all, they were only looking for gullible people whose votes could be easily swayed. The real issue is that they probably found a lot of them. That's society's fault, not theirs.

That said, the big difference in privacy today is scale. Sure, if everyone in your village or neighborhood knows everything about you, there's some sense of community. But you also know everything about them. Sort of a level playing field.

Today it's more asymmetrical. Big corporations are harvesting a staggering amount of very detailed information about every person on the planet. Their goals are essentially amoral, neither good nor bad. But selling data to bad actors could be good business.

When governments do it, that really becomes problematic. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Consider China's proposed Social Credit System. I can only imagine how something like that could be used to suppress all kinds of freedoms; freedom of thought, religion, association, you name it. Some are calling it "worse than an Orwellian nightmare."

It's highly improbable that systems like this WON'T be used by those in power, to stay in power.

 

[USA]

To each their own. I don’t utilize FB. I got a kick out of my Sisters reply when I asked about a relative. She said to find out I’d have to follow her on FB. I asked if she did. She said “No, I wouldn’t follow her across the street”.

 

[ERD50]

...

Today it's more asymmetrical. Big corporations are harvesting a staggering amount of very detailed information about every person on the planet. Their goals are essentially amoral, neither good nor bad. But selling data to bad actors could be good business. ...

But it is aggregated data, or anonymous. I don't see any evidence that anyone cares to pay specifically for my data. They're not serving up ads to "me", they are serving up ads to USER# 12xyhsgfe98348fg97625948y provided by some database/algorithm. I don't see any reason for them to want to know anything about me personally, so I'm not frightened by the prospect.

... When governments do it, that really becomes problematic. ...

It's highly improbable that systems like this WON'T be used by those in power, to stay in power.

Sure, but we can say that about anything. Anything can be misused, if we rejected it because of that, we'd have almost nothing. We'd be afraid to have the Post Office know our address, to have "Ma Bell" (a government mandated monopoly) know our phone number, and (gasp!) actually publish that information in a book with our names and addressees on it, and hand it out (with targeted advertising)! This actually happened, now that is personal, and somehow, we lived through it!

To the extent that the powers to be are corrupt, I don't think they need our social media postings to hurt us if they decide they want to do that. There are plenty of ways to do that. I've heard the stories from relatives of resistors in Communist countries who "disappeared". Yet, no social media involved. How did they do it? I have yet to hear any credible account that a family member was sent to a labor camp for posting something a politician in power didn't want to hear.

Far too much ado about far too little, IMO.

-ERD50

 

[aja8888]

If people think Facebook is handing out your personal data and is an issue (targeted ads?), how about my SS number being my Medicare ID number and having EVERY doctor, hospital, pharmacy, insurance company, and drug company I use (or have interacted with) having it, and all my other personal information? Hello....!

 

[redduck]

I have yet to hear any credible account that a family member was sent to a labor camp for posting something a politician in power didn't want to hear.
-ERD50

I guess my greatest concern would be being sent to a labor camp and then still get bombarded with ads for wheelbarrows.

 

[GrayHare]

It's relative. Generally a property thief will target the less secure of two properties, cars, etc. An identity thief will target the person about whom its easier to gather the necessary information. People who post their life details on FB and elsewhere are easier to convincingly impersonate than someone with less detail to be mined.

 

[Lurking]

An anecdote about the unintended consequences of Facebook data sharing: a relative put the phone number for his Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor into his cell phone so that he would have someone to call in a moment of weakness. Facebook scrapes your address book and can tie you to your cell phone number (if you use a mobile client) even if it isn’t public. Immediately, he was suggested that he may know his sponsor (by full name).

Of course, they were right. He did know this person. But that totally defeated the “Anonymous” part of AA. No one shares last names due to social stigma.

Not surprised, but clearly they are prioritizing revenue and network effects over such privacy impacts.

 

[Chuckanut]

If they get enough data so that somebody could steal one’s identity that would be a problem.

 

[Totoro]

I guess I'm surprised that anyone who volunteered to take a survey, would be surprised that the information from that survey would be used/sold for profit.

Only a few hundred thousand people took the survey. Millions of others got their information exposed as a consequence. This includes enough information to infer political affiliation, sensitive lifestyle choices (being gay) etc ..

Those millions of people did not opt-in.

Yes, but I always figured any 'bad actors' have better ways to do bad things than scan my boring emails. Cracking my passwords for a financial site, sure, but I'm not posting that stuff on-line or in emails for anyone to see.

One example: Egypt has used social media postings to arrest LGBTQ citizens. Yes, it is naive to think even secure channels are really secure, but like I said: many people are only now waking up.

If it was only ads, nobody cares. We've created a panopticon surveillance society, and people are only now waking up to that reality.

Even those that do not want to participate because they see the dangers are sucked in.

 

[marko]

I've heard the stories from relatives of resistors in Communist countries who "disappeared". Yet, no social media involved. How did they do it? I have yet to hear any credible account that a family member was sent to a labor camp for posting something a politician in power didn't want to hear.

When you say "yet to hear of....sent to a labor camp for posting something a politician in power didn't want to hear." I suspect you're talking about current times as a result of something posted on FB/Twitter etc. and not 75 years ago.
(sentence structure can sometimes be misread)

What we do see every day however are jobs lost, careers ruined and marriages strained as a result of social media getting into the wrong hands. "CBS News has obtained the private emails of....". A lot more difficult when people mailed letters.

Seems that every few weeks we hear of online trolls turning out to be some police chief, school principal or city official.

On the lighter side, during my work days I once received a VERY interesting email one night. My name was supposed to be in the "Subject" line but ended up in the "To" line by mistake. An entertaining morning followed.