Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook's Zuckerberg Says Forget Privacy

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the speak-for-yourself-not-your-users dept.

Privacy 415

judgecorp writes "Privacy is no longer a social norm, according to the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg. Speaking at the Crunchie awards in San Francisco, the entrepreneur said that expectations had changed, and people now default to sharing online, not privacy. It's all right for him, but does he mean it's ok for bodies like the UK government to monitor all citizens' Internet use?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30729728)

This is a great post!

Eat my goatse'd penis! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30729734)

he needs to think (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30729736)

just because people do it doesn't mean it's right.

Better ads (5, Insightful)

psy (88244) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729742)

What he's saying is it is his customers (advertisers not users) want less privacy, so they can target ads more profitably.

Re:Better ads (5, Insightful)

aafiske (243836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729808)

It's also a lot easier to say 'You don't actually want privacy' than fix the security and sharing model of facebook. If you don't expect privacy, all the various holes and dirty tricks no longer matter.

Re:Better ads (5, Insightful)

Omegium (576650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730064)

It's also a lot more profitable to say 'You don't actually want privacy' than fix the security and sharing model of facebook. If you don't expect privacy, all the various holes and dirty tricks no longer matter.

There, fixed that for you. Advertisers do not like privacy (of their viewers).

Re:Better ads (3, Interesting)

sh00z (206503) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729858)

Countdown to Zuckerberg's SSN being posted here in 3....2....

Re:Better ads (3, Insightful)

The FBI (1717712) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730044)

Countdown to Zuckerberg's SSN being posted here in 3....2....


Re:Better ads (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30729894)

Exactly. His true customers are the advertisers, the developers who make the games. People who have FB accounts are visitors. They are not the ones shelling the dollars over to FB.

Of course, this is just in FB's interests to have zero privacy so they get the maximum ad revenue. FB apps already ask for way more permissions than they ever really need.

Long term, this is not a good attitude to take. MySpace made this mistake, and when something new came along, they were abandoned just like Orkut and many other networks. The FB end users are the guys that will keep the site running.

Re:Better ads (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730376)

Advertisers and the CIA.

Re:Better ads (4, Insightful)

u38cg (607297) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730162)

WHat he's saying is, it's one rule for me, and another for you. Or have you changed your mind and set your profile to open, zuck?

Zuckerberg (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30729748)

Zuck this!

The look at me era (3, Insightful)

BurzumNazgul (1163509) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729754)

It does seem like people are willing to sacrifice much more privacy for the sake of convincing everyone how cool they are. It's a long way from those scary bar-codes everyone was worried about 30 years ago.

Re:The look at me era (0)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729900)

FYI man, alright. You could sit at home, and do like absolutely nothing, and your name goes through like 17 computers a day. 1984? Yeah right, man. That's a typo. Orwell is here now. He's livin' large. We have no names, man. No names. We are nameless!

Re:The look at me era (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30730214)

FYI man, alright. You could sit at home, and do like absolutely nothing, and your name goes through like 17 computers a day. 1984? Yeah right, man. That's a typo. Orwell is here now. He's livin' large. We have no names, man. No names. We are nameless!

Er, I'm curious, Mr. Nameless, what, er "name" is going through "like 17 computers a day" then?

I'm not too worried about my name. I'm like freakin' everywhere.

Re:The look at me era (4, Insightful)

quangdog (1002624) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729934)

I think it's less that people are willing to sacrifice privacy for self-aggrandizement, but rather that they do not stop to analyze the implications to their privacy of what they are about to post.

Joe sixpack does not wonder about how posting pictures of naked portions of his anatomy may affect his ability to find a job in 5 years time.

The 'Everyone can see THAT?' era (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729964)

Zuckerberg is trying to cover his ass. His site can't or won't provide proper access controls. His customers, the advertisers, don't want you to have privacy from them. So Mr. Zuckerberg, calling himself a 'prophet,' no less, tells you that you don't want privacy. But of course, Mr. Zuckerberg still wants his own privacy, and this 'no more privacy' world does not include corporations or governments, only individuals. Is there some easy way to find out who is advertising on facebook? No, and you can't find out what deals have been made regarding your information. So, privacy still exists, for those who can afford it. But not for us. Thank you Prophet Zuckerberg.

Re:The 'Everyone can see THAT?' era (3, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730304)


Zuck is saying "Facebooks's craptacular handling of privacy is not a bug, it's a feature. A very progressive, forward-leaning feature, for the inevitable time that the sheeples are appropriately brainwashed."

The sad part is, I can't make myself believe he's wrong.

Re:The look at me era (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30730034)

Right now I've got a GPS device in my pocket capable of broadcasting a huge amount of data about me, tracking where Im going, who I speak to. The guys who sold me it also provide the Internet to my house, which accounts for a huge amount of my economic activity. When I'm not driving in my GPS tracked car I'm using public transport with my MiFare smart card which not only tracks loads of information about what my travel patterns are. Aside from government systems all my vital statistics are stored in an instantly retrievable way by at least 20 different companies, that I know about. My entire credit history can be checked for next to nothing in an instant. A profile of my genome has been created, and several medical institutions literally hold enough of my most personal information to technologically create a 'me 2.0'. Who the hell needs barcodes. My point? Life is a whole heap better for most young people in the developed world than for their parents at a similar age. Life is better, and privacy is diminished. Considering the pattern recognition that humans are so famed for, it is any wonder that they are starting to have trouble seeing the value of making information private by default.

Life is better? How so? (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730200)

Do people have more opportunities than their parents did? I don't think so. They have more gadgets. Do more gadgets make people happier? I don't think so. Look at rates of depression, people nowadays are FAR more likely to suffer from depression than their parents or grandparents. Young people are the most likely to suffer from our current economic problems, unemployment is rampant amongst the under 25 crowd. People have less opportunity, less privacy, less control over their lives, fewer real life friends and more online acquaintances. So how, exactly, is life better?

Re:Life is better? How so? (4, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730326)

Young people are the most likely to suffer from our current economic problems, unemployment is rampant amongst the under 25 crowd. People have less opportunity, less privacy, less control over their lives, fewer real life friends and more online acquaintances. So how, exactly, is life better?

Mostly free internet Pr0n

Re:The look at me era (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730078)

There's a difference between volnteering to give up some small amount of privacy (talking crap on facebook) and being put under surveillance by the government or corporations.

Very, very different.

Bollocks (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729756)

That's bollocks, policy is in no way determined by a croporate honcho...

Re:Bollocks (3, Insightful)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729946)

No, but policy will expand to fit the tolerances of social norm, and he's right: Social norms have changed to have little expectations of privacy. People just don't see the importance in it anymore, which is, in and of itself, terrifying. I am somewhat troubled when I think of what the near future holds.

facebook is not exempt from Data Protection laws (1)

txwikinger-slashdot (1664887) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729758)

Well.. He can put it like he wants, however, there are data protection laws in lots of countries. If you does not want to abide by them, maybe he wants to pay the penalties that such behaviour will incur

Re:facebook is not exempt from Data Protection law (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730018)

However, data protection laws cannot reasonably cover situations where people voluntarily abandon their right to privacy, which is exactly the situation we are in now. Much as I hate to admit it, this guy is right: people are demonstrating less and less concern for their own privacy, and seem to think that the 4th amendment is for the protection of criminals. I once told a few friends that Facebook keeps track of every single mouse click they make on the website, beginning with their registration, and the response was telling: they shrugged, said that was fine and that since they were busy spying on each other anyway, it was reasonable for Facebook to do the same to them.

Re:facebook is not exempt from Data Protection law (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730282)

Canada's privacy commissioner said otherwise, and with good reason. Even if people abandon their rights, with/without cause or by/without fault on their own that doesn't give a company the right to do whatever they want with the information.

Rubbish. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30729764)

Utter rubbish. The fact that he chooses to give up his privacy does not mean that I'm interested in giving up my privacy, or have any expectation to give up my privacy.

Re:Rubbish. (1)

eihab (823648) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729930)

Utter rubbish. The fact that he chooses to give up his privacy does not mean that I'm interested in giving up my privacy, or have any expectation to give up my privacy.

Not just you though, but from the article (my emphasis):

"A lot of companies would be trapped by the conventions and their legacies of what they've built," he said. "Doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the kind of thing that a lot of companies would do.

"But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner's mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it."

To me that sounds like they just couldn't care less about their "customers'" (read: products') privacy. A very arrogant attitude that I hope will take them down someday.

Changing a setting for 350 million users is not something that I would take lightly, especially when it's something as big as privacy. But then again I guess those 350 million users can't/don't care to begin with.

I've always avoided "social networking" sites, this quote is just another perfect example of why people should run like hell.

I will be using it in my "Why are you not on Facebook?" conversations.

Not to different (1)

Ceiynt (993620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729768)

From posting on a town board "These people are my friends, this is what I enjoy, here are pics of me throwing up in the neighbors garden." If you set your policy to EVERYBODY, then EVERYBODY can look at it, including big bro.

The problem (4, Insightful)

tempest69 (572798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730190)

You can set it to where friends can see it, but the friends can share it, or comment on it, then the security model blows so much that anyone who can see that pic can see the whole album . They dont let the genie back in the bottle. It's bad form. The applications allow all sorts of horrible holes in security. Unveil the users number, and you can go trouncing through all sorts of FB apps that dont protect security.

The problem is that they pretend to be securing you, when the reality is that it's a bathroom door level of security. A reasonably nerdy middle school kid can burn through facebook security.
facebook didnt build a good security foundation, now they're paying for it.


Re:The problem (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730432)

correction: now they are getting payed for it.

Do as I say not as I do (1)

asamad (658115) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729786)

Is what he is really trying to say

Yes, there are new norms ... (4, Insightful)

Kiliani (816330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729794)

"Privacy is no longer a social norm ...". I suppose that's correct. Stupidity and ignorance have replaced it, among other things. But that's ok with me as long as I continue to have a choice. Besides, those new "norms" can make for good entertainment.

The new social contract (5, Insightful)

dyfet (154716) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729796)

Whatever you have ever said or done will continue to be used against you for the rest of your life. That is the world this kind of thinking creates. It creates fear to think or act. Privacy is ultimately about liberty.

Re:The new social contract (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729968)

not only online when you know (and everyone knows) its fully public.

but point-to-point phone calls, letters, packages you mail and even things you carry with you on flights; all those are now NOT private anymore. we lost our privacy due to the fear of people, overall. governments love to lock-down on rights and people seem quite willing to surrender their rights, if done at frog-boiling speeds.

I don't mind *so much* that our public comms are being used against us. I do mind that even our private communications (obvious: phone calls) are being tapped at will. you may have many of your future options limited and you'll never even know why. (wonderful future we have here, huh? orwell was way off in that his view was not harsh *enough* for what is in store for our kids' generation.)

Re:The new social contract (1)

zmaragdus (1686342) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730226)

Another point of how the social contract affects us is privacy laws. Many of the laws regarding a person's privacy are based upon a "reasonable expectation of privacy." With the popularity of social networking and other web-based activities, I believe that the amount of "expected privacy" is going down over time. How soon before it's expected that you have no privacy (and the laws change in the government's favor to reflect that)?

Re:The new social contract (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30730414)

The future is pretty clear here....

We give our rights away fairly easy, under the guise of alternate meanings. Privacy is no longer an accepted norm, as information exchange, and 'status online' thoroughly placate every instance of what we hear and see. Over a few decades, what was known as the Bill of Rights, is finally quashed and no longer exists in spirit or applicable physical form. ...the the fight back...

The fight to get back what we so willingly gave up, liberties, 'normal' everyday freedoms, becomes physical, and ultimately violent. Rebellion from the constant 'information barrage' is considered anti-nationalist, and the social divide take ranks, with the strong arm of the Government put into action to quickly quell the sounds of dissent and change. Power, and money are still the motivators, yet despite the technological progress, the citizens still look around looking for the 'better life' promised so many times at election after election. It was not found in 'informational freedom', and now the elected see the plight of their long-winded promises, as the body politic quickly turns against them.

yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30729802)

Technology advances faster than our ability to cope with it.

Film at 11.

what's he's really saying is... (1)

nycguy (892403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729806) can't expect your privacy to get in the way of me making a fat wad of cash in a future IPO.

Privacy: Good for me, bad for you (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729830)

If privacy is such an outdated concept, Mr. Zuckerberg, why can't I see your friends list, your photos, or just about anything else on your Facebook page? Set everything to public on your own page, show everyone how silly privacy concerns are.

Re:Privacy: Good for me, bad for you (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729918)

As a matter of fact, wasn't there an incident with "leak" of few hundred photos from his personal Facebook profile? Why can't I access them?

Better yet, he should spearhead new glorious times without any privacy! What are the addresses of webcams streaming his every moment? Can I have read-only access to his mailboxes/IM & SMS archive?

Re:Privacy: Good for me, bad for you (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729950)

Didn't he make a show of releasing this facebook page showing him doing a bunch of stupid but innocuous things? I just assumed it was put together to help him make this case.

People still expect privacy (4, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729840)

People still expect privacy, even Facebook/MySpace/whatever users. They just suffer from two things, an assumption that the Social Media outlets act in a responsible way keeping the information they submit confidential and a general misunderstanding that putting information on the Internet without any controls now makes that private information very public.

People friend their friends on Facebook and blab about whatever as they would if they were talking to this person directly in a private context. They don't see that they have submitted the information where it is viewable and searchable by everyone and is being recorded and analyzed by the company for later sale as statistics. This is an indication of technology moving faster then the average person keeps up with, not that everyone is suddenly ok with being monitored.

Re:People still expect privacy (1)

korean.ian (1264578) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730038)

My kingdom for some mod points. Well said!

Facebook Shoots Self in Foot... (4, Interesting)

happy_place (632005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729844)

All this CEO is admitting is that he's unable to come up with a way to monetize his services without compromising people's privacy. The whole appeal of facebook, originally, was that it preserved privacy and kept the spammers to a minimum, when compared with MySpace. Now that Facebook is leaving one of its basic reasons for existing in the dust, someone else will come along and will replace it, and there'll be a mass migration to the latest thing. Just takes the next smart guy to create it. Perhaps it'll be based upon personal DRM. (Har har!) --Ray

He's wrong (4, Insightful)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729848)

People do have an expectation of privacy that is at odds with what has been happening on the Internet. *Specifically* social networking sites like Facebook where there are real names attached to accounts and visible out in the open.

I feel privileged to live in Canada where we've enshrined some of our expected privacy into law [] to fight assholes like this. I hope the United States follows suit someday.

Re:He's wrong (1)

jofas (1081977) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730370)

You are mistaking our Canadian government's technical incompetence for a staunch upholding of privacy and of individual freedoms and rights.


1. They are unable to force the provincial governments to synchronize their H1N1 vaccine policies, which accounted for an enormous lack of faith in the Canadian public in what could have been an excellent show of organized social response.
2. They are unable to control the flow of information out of parliamentary offices or to spin this information, resulting in embarrassing Yes Men stunts.
3. They are unable to keep untrained and disorganized Green Peace activists off their roof.

Do you *really* think the Canadian government stands firm on the high moral ground of solidarity in the matter of privacy?

I expect privacy (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729860)

I expect privacy first and foremost. I expect the ability to share what I want with whom I want. I do not expect some social site to determine what's private in my life. This man is totally bonkers.

Your computer and other data maintained by you is an extension of your home. It almost sounds like he's being influenced by Microsoft which would rather have the ability to look at you and everything you do with impunity. NO. I decide all things private and no one violates that because they are tired of trying to ensure my privacy with their online system.

Re:I expect privacy (4, Insightful)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730108)

Here's the problem - they are attempting to change society's "reasonable expectation of privacy." Many laws are based on this social expectation. For example, the police have the ability to execute warrantless searches if they see something "in plain sight." That "plain sight" element is coupled to your expectation of privacy - you put said item into plain sight, thus you have no expectation of privacy regarding it. If you go to a public park, your expectation of privacy is reduced because of the venue. Facebook is attempting to alter the rules regarding what "normal" expectations are. They will do this without your consent, and rip your privacy out from under you.

Like your freedom, privacy is something you have to earn ... and sometimes fight for.

Ummm. Nooo (3, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729862)

YOU* Defaulted US to share, not that we CHOSE to. I'm sure had you prompted each individual how private they want their settings when they first signed up, a lot of people would have chosen Friends, or friends of friends, or at least to a specific network (Like the local university).

In fact, You** semi tried doing so not too long ago, and as I recall, A LOT of people then locked their photos and status updates to friends only. I know I did, and about 99% of my friends list did, and when I facebook search someone I met at a party, I have to grab a friend invite before I see anything besides their name and profile pic.

You can't just set it up so that sharing is the norm, and when people use your product, then claim that its what is expected.

*If not You Mark, then whoever is running Facebook Right now.
**Subjective as above

No, it's not OK for government to snoop (1)

aaandre (526056) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729864)

Yes, people default to sharing, that's human nature. Collecting all that private personal data is very easy, true. In a similar way all house locks are easily pickable, and all phone calls are easily tapped into.

Facebook could accommodate curious governments easily by providing "Yes, I want to share all my posts with government bodies and make them admissable in court as evidence." checkbox.

If that checkbox is left unchecked, no government representative has the right to read anything by the user, and nothing would be permissible in court as evidence, and, if proven to have used this evidence, the government would be liable.

Restricting our legal activities because of fear from our own public servants is not the way to go. Taking control over the activities of our public servants is.

Governments naturally grow, get corrupted and continuously demand more power. Running scared from them is not a solution.

Maybe, rather than privacy, it's time to forget... (5, Insightful)

the_rajah (749499) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729868)


Re:Maybe, rather than privacy, it's time to forget (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30729906)

it's time to forget you, you fucking fucktard.

Re:Maybe, rather than privacy, it's time to forget (2, Interesting)

bit9 (1702770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730276)

I've actually been considering deleting my Facebook account for some time now, even though Facebook will undoubtedly point to some weasel words in their TOS to claim that they still own my personal data, including (but, of course, "not limited to") the right to use my name, email address, birth date, photos, and all my posts as they please for eternity.

So, even though in all likelihood, I will be unable to completely wrest my personal data away from them, I figure it's better to quit now than to keep adding more personal data to the pile. I was already seriously considering deleting my account because Facebook seemed to not give a damn about my privacy. Now that they are openly hostile to my privacy, I see no reason at all to continue having an account there.

Despite what Zuckerberg claims, for me, Facebook was never about sharing my personal info with the world. Facebook was a way to re-connect with old friends. Period. Not to allow my info to be broadcast to the whole world, or used for marketing purposes. Zuckerberg can go fuck himself. I'm cancelling my account TODAY!

Re:Maybe, rather than privacy, it's time to forget (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730364)

Facebook will undoubtedly point to some weasel words in their TOS to claim that they still own my personal data

Luckily they allow me to change my personal data.

Cool, they'll own a completely fabricated and falsified set of my personal data.

"people now default to sharing online" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30729872)

Yeah of course they default to it when you shove a thing in front of their face that most people don't understand at all and just click "proceed" unknowingly opening up all of their information. Did anyone else see that? Sure, you could choose to keep your "old settings" but it was something you had to specifically mark, and we all know how great people are at carefully checking forms before getting on to look at their sister's new baby or whatever. That change was outright duplicity on Facebook's part. Breaking news: Everyone defaults to IE so that means its objectively the best browser! Right? Right?

Creator of facebook... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30729884)

Creator of internet application designed around sharing personal information believes people are fine with sharing personal information.

News at 11.

Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway. (5, Insightful)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729886)

Facebook is designed from the ground up to be nonprivate. Since it doesn't allow you to distinguish between "work friends" and "party friends" and "closet friends", anyone with a brain will only post lowest-common-denominator acceptable comments to FB. If everyone is treating Facebook that way, there's no benefit to be gained by adding privacy to interactions that are already self-sanitized.

But there are *plenty* of social interactions that *do* require an expectation of privacy, ranging from private sexual lives to the mere fact that I don't want my work colleagues to know about my Warcraft friends, or vice versa. But Zuckerberg doesn't see these sides of people, because they're not on Facebook.

Jumping from "Facebook interactions don't need privacy" to "our society doesn't need privacy" is a fallacy of composition.

Re:Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway. (5, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730062)

Since it doesn't allow you to distinguish between "work friends" and "party friends" and "closet friends"

It does if you set it. You can assign your friends to various lists, and then hide content from certain lists, making it visible only to those you wish to show it to. It's the most intuitive and flexible system sometimes, but it can still be used to ensure privacy. The problem is that people simply don't use these tools are much as you think. While corporate greed is an issue here, there's much truth to the idea that people nowadays are just natural attention whores, even when it's against their own best interest.

Re:Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway. (2, Interesting)

nlawalker (804108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730348)

The problem is that it can't really get that much more intuitive or flexible. It's just a pain in the ass, plain and simple.

Part of the problem is the attention-whore factor. I think the bigger factor is that people don't use the privacy controls because they're a chore. No one wants to take the time to segment their 1000+ lists of friends and set privacy controls for each group, so they just don't. Plus, Facebook is going to continue to find ways to mine data and make it available, which means new options (including privacy options) are going to be added all the time. The defaults for these new features will always be the most permissive options, because if users have to go find the right switches to flip to enable new features, no one will use those features, and the perception will be that the site is not keeping pace with other social networking applications.

Facebook became popular by eschewing complexity, and now it's become so large, it can't avoid it if it wants to continue to cater to people who want to maintain some aspect of privacy without turning their social network into a full time job. The GP is wrong about not being able to partition your friends list, but he is right that it's designed from the ground up to be nonprivate. The larger your network is, the more interesting the application is.

Eventually a new, lesser-known social network application will arrive whose mission statement is to connect you with your "real friends" so you can feel safe in sharing your pictures and information. Just like Facebook, the company that owns it will drive to get larger and larger, and will encourage their users to grow their networks and share more information with more people, until they arrive where Facebook is today, and the cycle starts again.

Re:Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway. (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730106)

Can you not create friend lists within Facebook, assign friends to those lists, and then configure granular privacy options for those lists? [] []

Re:Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway. (1)

moderators_are_w*nke (571920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730112)

Spot on.

Re:Forget privacy ... on Facebook anyway. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30730136)

Well said. It's not that FB users no longer expect privacy, it's that they're coming to the realization that they can't expect privacy from Facebook.

A useful tool nonetheless (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729910)

Facebook ensures that I know exactly what people I know think they know about me. If I want to keep something private, it doesn't get posted. This doesn't seem like a difficult concept...

Re:A useful tool nonetheless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30730076)

And you control the mobile phone pictures uploaded by anyone who can identify and tag you how exactly? sure you can remove tags but it's often too late, and they can only be put back on again.

Re:A useful tool nonetheless (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730300)

Of course, reading between the lines, there's a lot one could interpret about you. You seem to think you're totally in control, but don't forget that any of your friends (real of facebook-only) who has a picture of you could post it, tag it and publish it to the world.

default to sharing? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729914)

I'm not interpreting that the same way, I guess.

I still choose which photos (etc) to upload and what I comment on, in text. there is no 'default'. no camera is always-on; no microphone always on-capture. nothing auto-creating content from my daily life.

wtf do you mean 'by default', then?

fwiw, I do not participate in FB or MS. I severely limit which forums and blogs I contribute to. I'm always aware of the decision whether to publish something and under what level of exposure it will get. there is no 'default'.

A very self-serving claim. (4, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729922)

But false to fact.

The young generally have little experience with privacy and why it's important. Until they get bit by the consequences of excessive disclosure. Then they learn to value it.

(It's not just Gen-Y-ers. It happened to me, and I'm a boomer - which means I predate the Internet by a bunch. B-b)

Zuckerberg's business consists of making a lot of money by catering to those who have yet to learn the lesson. And management positions attract those for whom telling the truth when a lie is more convenient is also not a social norm. Of COURSE he'll make such claims. And they're sheer self-serving puffery.

Re:A very self-serving claim. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30730132)

As a Gen-Y-er, I was always vaguely concerned about Facebook's seemingly "share all" policy. After their more recent privacy options change - and all the problems I heard with it - I decided to delete my account to help protect not just myself from strangers, but also my friends from me ("guilty by association" and all that).

After reading this, I'm REALLY glad I did, too!

Re:A very self-serving claim. (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730228)

(mod parent up)

I'm also of the older gen (cough...) and I can see this trainwreck from a mile away. as you get older, you DO have more and more 'stuff' about you that you'd rather not be searchable and public. trust me as your elder, on this (OB:GOML).

privacy will come back - MAYBE - in another generation or two. once this one has grown up and found out the hard way, society might start to veer back a little bit. but it WILL take being burned for the kids to day to really find out. it will take at least a full generation before mankind is even partially used to this technology wave. its just moving TOO fast for us and our social fabric is not developed or ready for this kind of personal flood of info being broadcast into the never-deleted-from ether.

be really careful with this 'show myself to the world' attitude. the whole idea could be a really bad idea and we may have to learn that lesson the hard way.

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30729932)

It is always right for a government to do anything reasonable to protect even a single child.

Go ahead, Zuckerberg. (5, Insightful)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729936)

Keep fucking with my privacy settings. Keep on assuming that I want to share everything with every jerkoff on Facebook. I'll just keep locking my shit down. And if you want to make that impossible, know that I lived happily without Facebook once. I can easily remember how to do so again. Remember your place while you still have one.

Re:Go ahead, Zuckerberg. (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730184)

those who are partaking of the social networking scene; perhaps its time to exit from it (see if you can) for a month or two and see how 'needed' it was afterall.

Re:Go ahead, Zuckerberg. (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730254)

I was never really part of the scene; my friends list on Facebook consists of my wife, my brother, and my wife's friends and family (I added them to be polite). I only got on Facebook because I was job hunting and suspected that prospective employers might think it weird that a programmer wouldn't have any appreciable internet presence.

Re:Go ahead, Zuckerberg. (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730312)

I've been thinking of backing out of FB for a while. This might be a good excuse. Of course, Google still knows everything about me...

Privacy Smivacy (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729942)

Someone grab the wheel please. The driver has fallen asleep.

I think people are becoming more aware about privacy and facebook is slow to change. How many facebook "issues" lately are over privacy? Yet they seem to discount those criticisms and continue making changes that expose their users data to people that simply do not know them.

Now sure all of this comes with a "caveat emptor" clause and these people share it all without thinking. But come on, at least make a good attempt at being responsible with your user's data.

Simple fact is Facebook makes money by sharing data with 3rd parties and they want this to continue and grow. They can ignore the writing on the wall if they want but I just got a one word to say to that: Geocities

Here today gone tomorrow.

Sharing is the opposite of concealing. (5, Insightful) (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729948)

Because I use my Facebook account to share events in my life, does not mean I am not concealing events in my life.

I have an expectation of privacy. Especially in real life. I do not have the same expectations of privacy in public, or with information I post via internet servers which I do not own or control. There seems to be a lot of attempts to indoctrinate the youth with the concept that their lives are subject to peer review at all times. I disagree with these motives and find them totalitarian in nature.

Re:Sharing is the opposite of concealing. (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730148)

I don't use facebook, or myspace, or livejournal, etc. The only information I have on linked is professional and educational explicitly for the purpose of managing my place in the job market and I did that only because I needed a job and to stay in touch with previous co workers. I damn well expect my privacy. A lot of things are not social norms, like hunting for or growing your own food, being an atheist, valuing knowledge and understanding, being polygamous, respecting legitimate authority, disrespecting illegitimate authority, etc. That doesn't mean that they should not be expected. And it definitely does not mean that they should be any less protected by the law because the tyranny of the majority or those who manipulate them don't like the idea.

There is a difference between... (2, Interesting)

davecrusoe (861547) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729978)

There is a difference between something that is not a social norm, and something that is not a primary consideration OR an option - until it's too late!

Website and web service users seem very much open to trying new systems; and even letting people, typically friends, view their information. That's no big surprise, and predates websites like Facebook.

On the other hand, websites like Facebook are increasingly opening users' data to the world - reacting to the data on their systems! - and providing users with limited opportunities to change that fact. Isn't it the case that Facebook recently added new "features", such as extended friend network update viewing, and then responded to privacy outcries by building-in limited mechanisms to control the privacy of information?

Furthermore, users are keen to try services without really understanding the possibility that their information ISN'T private -- until it's too late. For example, the user who is rejected from a job application because of his/her photos and/or writing on Facebook is likely to restrict access in the future, as a response to the openness of their personal life.

So: I reject Zuckerburg's notion that privacy is changing, and instead suggest that the nature in which private information is treated as private information, by companies that offer users services, is changing! Changing for the better of their wallets, without a doubt.


A little privacy 101 lesson for Zuckerberg (3, Insightful)

krou (1027572) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729992)

Why Privacy Is Important

  • psychologically, people need private space. This applies in public as well as behind closed doors and drawn curtains. We need to be able to glance around, judge whether the people in the vicinity are a threat, and then perform actions that are potentially embarrassing, such as breaking wind, and jumping for joy;
  • sociologically, people need to be free to behave, and to associate with others, subject to broad social mores, but without the continual threat of being observed. Otherwise we reduce ourselves to the appalling, unhuman, constrained context that was imposed on people in countries behind the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain;
  • economically, people need to be free to innovate. International competition is fierce, so countries with high labour-costs need to be clever if they want to sustain their standard-of-living. And cleverness has to be continually reinvented;
  • politically, people need to be free to think, and argue, and act. Surveillance chills behaviour and speech, and threatens democracy.

-- Roger Clarke []

Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that’s why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.
- Bruce Schneir

!true, people want their privacy ON THEIR TERMS (3, Insightful)

yakumo.unr (833476) | more than 4 years ago | (#30729994)

Absolutely not true, he set up his site to default to no privacy, that is a COMPLETELY different matter, there are numerous huge groups and countless chain messages in protest of the badly chosen default privacy settings on facebook.

And this from the man who openly admitted to pushing malware in some interview not so long ago to get his company off the ground.

Education (1)

TheWizardTim (599546) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730012)

I think that it comes down to education. When you ask a college age person, "Do you think that you would be hired at a job if your future employer knew you got passed out drunk on weekends?" I would assume that most people would answer, "no." I think that if people were educated more on what is good and not so good to post online, things would be different. I saw an public service add on MTV about sexting, reminding kids that once you send out the naked picture of yourself, you lose control of it. You might just want it for your boyfriend/girlfriend, but nothing stops them from passing it on, to everyone you know.

Like any new technology, we are experiencing growing pains. The same thing happened when the telephone was wide spread use. You had to teach kids not to say they were home alone when a stranger called. We need to teach kids and people that posting misadventures on Facebook is not a good idea.

As a general rule, "Never say anything on a cell phone, or post anything on the internet that you would not want to see in a court room."

With this technology... (3, Funny)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730054)

we have finally defeated privacy!

-Better Off Ted

On the internet. (3, Interesting)

hyperion2010 (1587241) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730058)

Thats all well and good Mark, but see there is this little problem, which is that 99% of all governments in the world (and probably 90% of all users on the internet) cant distinguish Internet from IRL and in fact are actively pushing them together in ways which should be quite alarming to long time net users. Lack of privacy would be fine if the government couldnt punish you for it, but they can. Every single legal system extant today has not sufficiently dealt with the realities of cheap and fast information, they were all constructed over hundreds (some times thousands for those of you living in countries following in the tradition of Roman law and Cannon law) of years where the basic assumption was the certain physical facts about the universe protected individuals from each other and from their government. That is no longer the case, and until it is we should all be very very cautious.

Put your money where your mouth is, bitch (5, Informative)

coolgeek (140561) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730066)

Re:Put your money where your mouth is, bitch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30730374)

This may be one of the best comments I've ever read here. Simple and to the point, and it perfectly illustrates the fallacy in Zuckerberg's reasoning.

Blue Coat spokeswoman? (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730086)

Isn't she Alton Brown's equipment connection?

Mark Zuckerberg.... (5, Insightful)

j_f_chamblee (253315) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730124) 25 years old. One of the sentences in TFA begins "When I was in my dorm room at Harvard."

So, a rich, successful, right-place-at-place-at-the-right-time twentysomething makes a self-serving comment born out of the hubris and inexperience of youth. This is like Paris Hilton saying "It doesn't matter what you do, as long as its *hot*" and it is only newsworthy because Paris Hilton isn't in a position to take a great deal of the intellectual capital I've invested in Facebook and simply passing it to whomever suits her fancy. Perhaps some of Zuckerberg's older business partners could recommend that he shut up.

Selection bias (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730140)

The people who want to live on Big Brother, but aren't trashy enough to get in on the show, feel free. And that's what this dude sees, he sees everything people do share. Hint: Lots and lots of people do lots and lots of things they don't put on Facebook. I'm on it, it's basically a contact page, I answer some event invites and that's pretty much it. send me another lame game invite and I'll gladly ignore it. My real life is far, far away from Facebook.

Not in general though (2, Insightful)

jbb999 (758019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730168)

There is a huge difference between a website that you go to for the purpose of communicating widely with people and life in general. Just because you might choose on facebook to share your thoughts with anyone who cares does not in any way imply that's what you want elsewhere.

Okay, let's talk about... (1)

Subm (79417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730180)

"Privacy is no longer a social norm ..."

Okay, let's talk about Zuckerberg.

Can anyone comment on the rumors that he has syphilis? Or why he might have a prescription for viagra?

You guys are missing the point (1)

gearloos (816828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730202)

What is being conveyed is that you can expect what is normal. Privacy used to be normal so you were entitled to a reasonable amount of privacy. Now that is no longer the case because so many are willing to sacrifice their privacy it means you have no reason to expect them to hold your data private. Blame the clowns that tweet or update thier pages everytime they walk into another room or sneeze for this.

In a sense, he's right. (2, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730234)

Information wants to be free. Once something is out there, on the internet, you can't put it back in the bottle. We cannot stop this, so we might as well adapt.

WTF is going on in San Francisco? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730250)

Uh...."Crunchie Awards?" What the hell is up with the names these days? Do I really want to know what they're awarding deep in the bowels of San Francisco with this one?

Mark Zuckerberg should shut his mouth (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730258)

Facebook would be better off.

Zuckerberg can f*ck off - !!!STREAMING LIVE NOW!!! (4, Insightful)

BlackSabbath (118110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730266)

If this twat thinks that privacy is no longer a social norm, where's the video's of him masturbating to pictures of George Orwell? The blog describing his plushy fantasies. The tweets giving everyone blow-by-blow updates to the size of his bank balance.

The reality is that even the unthinking morons that post pics/vids/words of themselves doing cringeworthy, career-limiting, dumb shit, STILL make a choice about what to post. There's still plenty of stuff that they don't want ANYONE knowing. The line may have moved over the last 20 years, but it hasn't disappeared.

Mark Zuckerberg is an idiot. (1)

http (589131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730270)

Because we choose to share some information does not mean we want all information shared, or that we expect that any information about us should be available to anyone.

Isn't that what you get? (1)

adosch (1397357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30730302)

Why sit there and tromp on Mark Zuckerberg? Isn't that the point of social networking is to give up a bit of the normal privacy for a bit of the networking aspect? For that point, you're the grind in your own engine over time; you're allowed to share "as much as you want to" on these social networking sites (a la Facebook). What you give up on your own free will is your own gain (or demise) in the world of privacy. To expect anything else would be contradictory.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?