×

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!

'Dating' Site Imports 250k Facebook Profiles

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the privacy-is-so-2005 dept.

Facebook 140

mark72005 sends this snippet from Wired: "How does a unknown dating site, with the absurd intention of destroying Facebook, launch with 250,000 member profiles on the first day? Simple. You scrape data from Facebook. At least, that's the approach taken by two provocateurs who launched Lovely-Faces.com this week, with profiles — names, locations and photos — scraped from publicly accessible Facebook pages. The site categorizes these unwitting volunteers into personality types, using a facial recognition algorithm, so you can search for someone in your general area who is 'easy going,' 'smug' or 'sly.' ... [The creators] say they will take down a user’s profile if a person asks, and the site doesn’t have any indication they are actually trying to make any money. Instead, it’s part of a series of prank sites, the first two of which aimed at Google and Amazon, intended to make people think more about data in the age of internet behemoths. Moreover, it’s a bit funny hearing Facebook complain about scraping of personal data that is quasi-public."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

140 comments

More Please.... (1)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106174)

Sounds like a great idea, just waiting for the lawyers to get involved to make it official.

That's a lot of photos (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106218)

Aren't photos copyrighted? So wouldn't this be a trillion dollar copyright violation?
Oh wait, we learned that copyright vio gets cheaper in bulk.

Re:That's a lot of photos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106304)

If its all from public profiles why not just link to the profile pictures? After all why host them yourself when FB will do it for you.

Re:That's a lot of photos (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106844)

Aren't photos copyrighted?

Not necessarily. The pics you took of your family picnic and posted them - no, unless you specifically say they are or state that they cannot be used without permission. If they were taken by a professional photographer, you may need permission to post them - for example your wedding pictures - unless they are proofs...talk to your photographer to get their specific terms of use.

Now the funny part is did they scrape a business's profile where the logo/images are copyright - then yes, they will have copyright infringement issues!! On that note, can you image a dating profile for a retail outlet store??

Re:That's a lot of photos (5, Informative)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107018)

Aren't photos copyrighted?

Not necessarily.

Incorrect. All works which are copyrightable, ARE copyrighted the moment they are created, including photography. No exceptions. You do not need to register or claim copyright in any way; it is yours exclusively by default. You hold all rights unless you have explicitly granted those rights to others. You need do nothing to reserve all rights to yourself. Public display does not grant public license. (It never ceases to amaze me that people still claim "you put it on the Internet so it's public domain"... those people either also probably still believe the Earth is flat or are shooting off their mouths to try to justify illegal and unethical behavior.)

That being said, when you upload info or a photo to Facebook, you are granting Facebook many rights (it's part of the terms of service). Facebook doesn't outright own your photos, but you have granted them a perpetual nonexclusive license to use those photos.

However, that doesn't allow sites not affiliated with Facebook to use the photos on their own site (though deep linking kinda-sorta skirts that). You haven't given Facebook the right to sublicense your copyrighted materials to unaffiliated third parties. Additionally, if a third-party site implies that the "scraped" users are in any way voluntarily endorsing or participating in the third-party site, or are attaching false statements to the taken profiles (i.e. "I'm looking for a date"), that's a textbook case of fraud as defined by the law (a false statement of a material fact, knowledge on the part of the fraudster that the statement is untrue, intent on the part of the fraudster to deceive the alleged victim, justifiable reliance by the defrauded person on the statement, and injury to the alleged defrauded person as a result. Definition paraphrased from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud [thefreedictionary.com])

All that being said, it's funny as hell that Facebook, the number one mass purveyor of exploitative privacy-compromises, is suddenly up in arms about getting as good as it gives. Karma's a bitch, ain't it, Zucky ol' bean?

Re:That's a lot of photos (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107054)

Not true. In the US, all photos taken are automatically under copyright. It has been well established that there is no need for a work to be involved in a commercial venture to be under copyright. By the letter, copyright is unworkable though. Those family photos you put on facebook are being used in a commercial venture. Facebook uses them as media to draw viewers of advertisements. The people in most of those photos did not sign a model's release. Thus, the use of those photos would technically be an IP violation. Of course regular people don't get protection under copyright, so nothing will be done.

Re:That's a lot of photos (2)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106888)

Oh wait, we learned that copyright vio gets cheaper in bulk.

Depends on your level of citizenship. The bottom rung of citizenship is actually the opposite since the cost of infringement is a geometric progression with the cr being the size of largest penis on the music labels payroll. Which does explain why some NBA members have titles like "director of creative stuff".

Of course the premium level of citizenship, or the C-Corp level, gets fantastic discounts on such violations and in some cases gets a saving throw based on the number of Senators under their influence and can have zero liability in most cases.

Re:More Please.... (3, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106288)

Gee, what are the chances that the Facebook Terms of Service explicitly forbids scraping all the profile data and using it on another website? These two guys are probably going to have their Facebook accounts canceled! Other than that, I'm not sure what recourse Facebook has.

Re:More Please.... (2)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106366)

>Other than that, I'm not sure what recourse Facebook has.

If they agreed to those TOS and then violated them, possibly quite a lot.

Not that I'm even slightly a fan of 88 page long TOS "by clicking here I agree I've read and accept all of the above" agreements, they are often enforceable.

Re:More Please.... (1)

Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106480)

Uh...if you breach the terms of service, then you can no longer use the service. Wow, no facebook?? sounds AWFUL

Re:More Please.... (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106588)

agreeing to TOS forms a contract. it tens to be disputable, but you're agreeing to something in exchange for using the service.

In such a contract, if you then receive the benefit of their service, and they do not in exchange receive the benefit of your honoring the terms, that's grounds for damages. It doesn't merely entitle them to dump you, they can sue for breach of contract and damages. If your dishonoring of the terms causes provable harm, (for example but not limited to monetary or reputation/brand) the damages can be quite high.

Re:More Please.... (1)

Katsury (1714110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106540)

Not that I'm even slightly a fan of 88 page long TOS "by clicking here I agree I've read and accept all of the above" agreements, they are often enforceable.

I have to wonder how much their lawyers get paid to take apart an 88 page book and find loopholes/defenses in it to use against the other party.

Re:More Please.... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106548)

It possibly depends on whether they had to accept it to view the profiles or not. I can view this guy [facebook.com]'s name, photo, some fiends and 'likes' without having to explicitly agree to any ToS.

Re:More Please.... (1)

Arccot (1115809) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107538)

It possibly depends on whether they had to accept it to view the profiles or not. I can view this guy [facebook.com]'s name, photo, some fiends and 'likes' without having to explicitly agree to any ToS.

That's a bit different, though. You haven't agreed to the TOS, and as such Facebook hasn't agreed to provide you a license to copy the photo. I would think its either a copyright violation if they never agreed to the TOS, or a contract violation if they did.

Re:More Please.... (2)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107068)

I'm going to go rob your house. But don't worry, it's just a prank to teach you about alarm systems.

Re:More Please.... (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107286)

Is it really stealing if you put all your stuff out in the street for others to browse through?

Re:More Please.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107346)

Sounds like a great idea, just waiting for the lawyers to get involved to make it official.

Yup with things like this in their site popping up they are pretty much fucked. Typo is theirs.

Errore :
1146: Table 'facefacebknew.searched_keys' doesn't exist

MGC: Many sites have done this before including Facebook its nothing new, yet Facebook has historically won it's fights in courts in this type of regard - when it wants to.

Maybe it is a dumb question.. (1)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106178)

Why not just make it a facebook app? Is there any rule that you have to use facebook's APIs to gather data for your app?

Re:Maybe it is a dumb question.. (4, Insightful)

nlawalker (804108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106226)

itâ(TM)s part of a series of prank sites, the first two of which aimed at Google and Amazon, intended to make people think more about data in the age of internet behemoths

Making it a Facebook app would have largely defeated the point. The impact is made greater by removing the data from the context of Facebook entirely and putting it up somewhere else in another context.

Re:Maybe it is a dumb question.. (1)

memnock (466995) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106352)

I know /. has more than 250,000 accounts, but wouldn't it be great if they could do a Mashup of the Facebook accounts and random /.ers? Commander Sarah Palin Taco.

Of course, /. might lose some traffic if some of their members actually start getting out of the basement and dating.

Re:Maybe it is a dumb question.. (2)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106598)

One step at a time here. I am working on the basement part.

Re:Maybe it is a dumb question.. (1)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106756)

I tried that, once. Got a nosebleed.

Re:Maybe it is a dumb question.. (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107074)

Try little balls of toilet paper stuck up your nose, and bring gum. They both help with the altitude difference.

Re:Maybe it is a dumb question.. (1)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107292)

Aha. I will have to give that a shot next time. Need to find the stairs again, though. It has been quite some time since my last attempt.

Re:Maybe it is a dumb question.. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106670)

I know /. has more than 250,000 accounts, but wouldn't it be great if they could do a Mashup of the Facebook accounts and random /.ers? Commander Sarah Palin Taco.

Of course, /. might lose some traffic if some of their members actually start getting out of the basement and dating.

If Commander Taco was really Sarah Palin, I'd date her, except she's married.

Re:Maybe it is a dumb question.. (5, Insightful)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107100)

If Commander Taco was really Sarah Palin, I'd date her, except she's married.

Let's go over your fantasy:

(a) Commander Taco is really Sarah Palin. <-- Check!
(b) Taco/Palin would date you. <-- Check!
(c) You would date a married woman. <-- No Way!

That's an interesting place to inject reality...

Re:Maybe it is a dumb question.. (1)

the_one_wesp (1785252) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106246)

Honestly, I don't know why they didn't. I half expected the article to say that some game that 95% of my friends have been playing for 2 years was actually a front for gathering data for this dating site.

Great story! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106208)

lovely-faces.com no longer exists. Brillant!

Re:Great story! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106318)

It exists, but it's getting DDoSed by curious Slashdotters.

Re:Great story! (1)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106918)

I wonder how often the slashdot effect is caused, not by truly overwhelmed servers, but by hosting services automatically cutting off service because the site went over its bandwidth allocation.

Not a problem for the slashdot crowd (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106210)

But if someones wife happens along and sees their spouse on a new dating site there's gonna be hell to pay for this particular " joke"

Re:Not a problem for the slashdot crowd (4, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106604)

If your wife trusts a random website over you, then your relationship has more serious problems than this.

Re:Not a problem for the slashdot crowd (2)

Phaedrus420 (860578) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106640)

Not to mention the fact that wife is going to need to explain what she was doing on new dating site in the first place. Of course, maybe it will all be for the better, like that song about liking piña colada.

Re:Not a problem for the slashdot crowd (1)

6ULDV8 (226100) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106704)

Or, "if your wife is cruising date sites and sees you, maybe you should take the hint that she's already done with you."

Re:Not a problem for the slashdot crowd (1)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106798)

If my wife gets on my case, I'll just ask her why she is on the site, too!

Actually, my wife's profile info is more likely than mine to show up on such a site, because of our respective privacy settings.

Re:Not a problem for the slashdot crowd (1)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107478)

My wife would be amused if she found that, because the only public picture on my Facebook profile includes BOTH of us.

What comes around... (0)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106222)

Isn't this how facebook got its initial data too? By scraping the websites of Universities for student profiles.

Re:What comes around... (2)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106320)

Isn't this how facebook got its initial data too? By scraping the websites of Universities for student profiles.

No. It started by only allowing university students with specific .edu addresses to join, starting with only Harvard and then expanding to more and more colleges before they finally opened it up to High School students and then anyone. It was limited to universities because Zuckerburg's own social network was a university and they are a good target demographic, not because they had pages to pre-scrape user data from. To my knowledge no college would post such user data on a public website anyways as it'd be an extreme breach of that student's privacy.

Re:What comes around... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106400)

Once you're on Facebook you have accepted that you don't care about privacy. I don't really see a problem with this new web site..

Re:What comes around... (4, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106468)

No, this is how it started:

According to The Harvard Crimson, the site was comparable to Hot or Not, and "used photos compiled from the online facebooks of nine houses, placing two next to each other at a time and asking users to choose the 'hotter' person".

Mark Zuckerberg co-created Facebook in his Harvard dorm room.
To accomplish this, Zuckerberg hacked into the protected areas of Harvard's computer network, and copied the houses' private dormitory ID images. Harvard at that time did not have a student "facebook" (a directory with photos and basic information). Facemash attracted 450 visitors and 22,000 photo-views in its first four hours online.

From Wiki, with sources linked on it.

/ And seriously slashdot, still no italics? WTF.

Re:What comes around... (1)

SockPuppetOfTheWeek (1910282) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106574)

The <i> tag has been deprecated for quite a while now. Use the <em> tag instead.

Slashdot apparently felt like enforcing the switch... although the old D1 comment posting page still says that <i> is an allowed HTML tag. (Granted, I don't think they maintain the D1 pages much.)

Re:What comes around... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106586)

Facemash is not the same as Thefacebook (later, Facebook), whose initial database was populated differently.

hrmmm (2)

sabrex15 (746201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106232)

Already /.ed... jeeze. With 250,000 "users" they should be able to handle a small slashdotting, right?

How can I update my Lovely-Faces.com profile? (3, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106244)

It's seems their "facial recognition algorithm" has categorized me as a "stalker" and "potential date-rapist"!

Date-rapist? So what? (0)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106630)

It's seems their "facial recognition algorithm" has categorized me as a "stalker" and "potential date-rapist"!

Oh, just date rapist, not a forcible rapist [gawker.com]? Don't worry, half the chicks out there (the ones who vote Republican) won't see that as red flag.

Re:How can I update my Lovely-Faces.com profile? (1)

uncanny (954868) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106764)

It's seems their "facial recognition algorithm" has categorized me as a "stalker" and "potential date-rapist"!

or they were using your criminal record

Re:How can I update my Lovely-Faces.com profile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107348)

Julian, is that you?

No profit for you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106248)

1. Start "dating" site.
2. Copy competitor's profiles.
3. ???
4. NO PROFIT FOR YOU!

Thinking more... (5, Funny)

shia84 (1985626) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106250)

Those people running the site behind the "make people think more about data" link should be made to think more about server capacity

I believe (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106310)

This is illegal in pretty much every country on earth who has laws, it's called identity theft, making false profiles on behalf of someone is without doubt the stupidest idea I've ever heard of when trying to make a point. And on top of that state that "you can contact us if you want your profile removed". No scrubs, it should say "you can contact us if you want us to have your picture and profile on the lamest site of the century".

Re:I believe (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106492)

once in a while i get friend invites from people all over the world i've never met. i ignore them. i guess that's how they got access to people's facebook profiles.

annoying thing about gmail is that it will add people to your contact list only if you were on a receive list for a big email. one time as a joke i sent invites to everyone who i had an email address for in my gmail. most people i've never met. a lot of people accepted blindly

Re:I believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106672)

> on a receive list for a big email.

receiving list

> i sent invites to everyone

invitations

Back to NOUN SCHOOL for you!

Re:I believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107114)

Back to NOUN SCHOOL for you!

Ah a pedantic asshole.. Here taste your own medicine.
"NOUN SCHOOL" is not the correct way to capitalize words.

sounds like Zucky's "FaceMash" program (5, Informative)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106314)

The Social Network movie captured the original Zuckerberg hack described [thecrimson.com] in the Harvard Crimson. They just did it on a larger scale.

Re:sounds like Zucky's "FaceMash" program (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106462)

Yeah, this is exactly what I thought.

Re:sounds like Zucky's "FaceMash" program (2)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106624)

What's wrong zucky-poo? Mad that somebody is making a FREE site using easier and more public techniques, but essentially doing the same thing you did to get rich? Don't play dirty unless you fully expect others to do it right back to you.

Re:sounds like Zucky's "FaceMash" program (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106876)

More like Facebook itself.

Zuckerberg scraped all the photos from the Harvard directories when he first launched facebook... without consent of course.

Re:sounds like Zucky's "FaceMash" program (1)

HarvardAce (771954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107060)

More like Facebook itself.

Zuckerberg scraped all the photos from the Harvard directories when he first launched facebook... without consent of course.

You are confusing FaceMash, which did do this, with "TheFacebook" (later just "Facebook"), which did not. The two, aside from both being created by Zuckerberg and both including the word "Face" in the name, are not related. Everything that was on the site when facebook launched was provided by the actual students.

503 Service Temporarily Unavailable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106358)

lovely-faces.com:

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

Apache Server at lovely-faces.com Port 80

Too bad.

Unethical but totally expected (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106374)

A dating site's value is directly correlated with how many other members sign up. Ergo a new competitor trying to get into the big-picture marketplace either needs to create fictional people to attract members, or they need to pull in people who didn't intend to sign up to get things going.

Mark Zuckerberg, for all his many faults, started the right way - serve a tiny market that generally is looking for other people in that market.

Re:Unethical but totally expected (2)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106720)

You're missing the point - the creators are doing this as a prank. They intended it to feel weird because they think people need to realize how much information they're giving away to the entire world on Facebook and other public pages.

Re:Unethical but totally expected (0)

neoform (551705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106894)

Mark Zuckerberg, for all his many faults, started the right way...

.... by taking the photos of every student at Harvard (without permission or consent) and adding them to facebook.

Re:Unethical but totally expected (2)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107094)

i know this has been corrected before, but you are thinking of facemash, not thefacebook.

Re:Unethical but totally expected (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107104)

Pretty sure this is the fourth post of yours accusing Zuckerberg of taking photos for Facebook without permission. As you have been corrected in all the other posts, he did not do this with Facebook at all, but instead did this with "FaceMash."

even in thier database (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106438)

Error message on the site that it could not access the table 'facefacebknew.searched_keys'

Re:even in thier database (1)

drpimp (900837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106622)

They seem to have deleted a table (or someone did it for them???)

Re:even in thier database (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106788)

Yikes, that would be terrible... they'd have to re-scrape all that publicly available data all over again...

(Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time...)

Lovely What? (2)

Suffering Bastard (194752) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106528)

At first I thought the summary said "Lovely-Feces.com" and I got nervous wondering if I remembered to lock down my Poo Pix Daily Journal. I don't think you wanna scrape that.

Re:Lovely What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106770)

There is a Poo Pix Daily Journal?

It's the ultimate electronic hookup (2)

buckeyeguy (525140) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106596)

The quarter-million fake accounts here can reply to the presumably equal number of fakes on match.com. Pardon me while I go register DNS names for virtual wedding sites; they're sure to be a hit!

Search (1)

bhebing (741840) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106634)

Funny that. If you go their homepage, the statistics search has an error, which reads: Last keywords searched: Errore : 1146: Table 'facefacebknew.searched_keys' doesn't exist They're not even trying!

Big minimum damages (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106736)

Let's see, statutory minimum $500 damages in California for commercial use of your image without permission, times number of women in California on Facebook...

Re:Big minimum damages (1)

diskofish (1037768) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106880)

It hardly could be considered commercial because it was done as a joke and no money is changing hands.

Re:Big minimum damages (2)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107316)

It's not a commercial site though. They don't collect any money, so not even a not-for-profit.

Lovely-Faces.com /.'d or... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35106758)

Maybe little bobby tables got added in the mix.

http://xkcd.com/327/

Why would anyone want to use Lovely-faces.com anyw (1)

kabloom (755503) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106902)

Why would anyone want to use Lovely-faces.com anyway? The response rate for people sending out messages to these 250,000 members has got to be zero. I'm not really interested in dating someone who doesn't respond to messages and won't talk to me, so the site's totally useless.

Re:Why would anyone want to use Lovely-faces.com a (1)

PhreakOfTime (588141) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106974)

The response rate for people sending out messages to these 250,000 members has got to be zero

Not really. It doesn't take a genius to craft up some boilerplate emails to send out to people for an initial contact. An automated script could easily handle that.

And you have to keep in mind the human factor, that even with a few nibbles, someone on a dating site is more than likely going to have the mindset of 'Im sure the NEXT one will be it'... There's always a 'next one' after all. People tend to have a hard time realizing when they are being 'duped', and will usually not admit to themselves, therefore continuing their previous actions that landed them there in the first place.

Whoa... (1)

cyberfr0g (2812) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107240)

You mean data that i put on a website that other people can view is actually viewable by other people?! holy crap!!

lol

great idea indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107266)

privacy is dead once you give away all your datas! somebody needs to teach the sheep.

I can hear it now.... (1)

bdrees (1015815) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107350)

Woman: Why in the hell are all these women calling you.
Man: Honey, it’s just cause someone hacked my face off of face book and put it on a dating website

Unethical? (3, Interesting)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#35107408)

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but why exactly is this unethical? The data is publicly available and TFA's screenshot (the real site is apparently /.'d) only says "[Lovely Faces] lists real people, sincerely positing their real data and picture" which is not a lie (modulo marketing exaggeration that everyone seems to be happy glossing over) as these people posted their data to Facebook. Suppose for a moment there was no implication whatsoever that the people listed on Lovely Faces intentionally signed up. In that case, what's wrong with collecting publicly available data and putting it into one site? Is the issue entirely that people expect dating site profiles to have been created by that person, and Lovely Faces doesn't smash that expectation?

Scraping data violates Facebook's Automated Data Collection Terms [facebook.com], though in what way are those binding? I don't have to explicitly agree to anything to view some information, like certain profile's pictures.

I agree it is unethical to take someone's picture, point at it, and say "this person endorses this site" when they actually don't. It doesn't seem unethical to take someone's picture and put it on "the online database of pictures of people". Most people seem to be saying the scraping itself was unethical, while I disagree. I think it's just the implied endorsement.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...