Beta
×

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!

41% of Facebook Users Willing To Divulge Personal Info

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the do-you-need-my-social-security-number? dept.

Facebook 157

plastick writes "In an experiment, 41% of Facebook users were willing to divulge highly personal information to a complete stranger. This according to IT security firm Sophos, which invited 200 randomly selected Facebookers to befriend a bogus Facebook user named 'Freddi Staur' (an anagram of 'ID Fraudster'). Of those queried, 87 responded to the invitation, among them 82 people whose profiles included personal information such as their email address, date of birth, address or phone number."

cancel ×

157 comments

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

Again? (5, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476070)

Yet ANOTHER story about how many Facebook users are not particularly interested in hiding personal information. I mean. come on! This is some sort of News Flash? Is anyone unaware that Facebook is primarily a platform for sharing personal information?

Re:Again? (0)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476148)

Agreed. I don't particularly like Facebook, but I use it with full knowledge that it is a public forum.

This isn't a Facebook issue - it's an issue of users not valuing the things that nerds - as a rule - value.

Re:Again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476178)

It's not like Facebook users occupy only Facebook. I believe many of the people complaining about privacy on /. would eventually divulge the same info voluntarily after being 'corrupted' by years of Facebook presence. Me included; though I don't yet use Facebook.

Re:Again? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35477158)

++

"72% of respondents divulged one or more email address"

== You can contact me privately if you want

"84% listed their full date of birth"

I've often wanted to do this to put myself in context with other people.

"87% provided details about their education or workplace"

== This is to show to others that you're not an unemployed leech

"78% listed their current address or location"

You'd want to show others where you live to potentially start meeting. Many people are lonely.

"23% listed their current phone number"

I do that too. Because... If someone wants to call me, do it!

"26% provided their instant-messaging screen name"

Great, if you add me, maybe you're an interesting person. Not all people on the net are little girls that should be hiding this.

Saying that users are total idiots for sharing all these infos is far too harsh for a nerdy little brain to grasp.

Re:Again? (5, Informative)

One Louder (595430) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476614)

Apparently, it *was* a News Flash back in 2007 when this article was written.

Re:Again? (2)

underqualified (1318035) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476770)

samzenpus might have forgotten the "new" in "news for nerds"

good catch, sir.

Re:Again? (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476680)

Yet ANOTHER story about how many Facebook users are not particularly interested in hiding personal information. I mean. come on! This is some sort of News Flash? Is anyone unaware that Facebook is primarily a platform for sharing personal information?

Huh? I thought it was a farming simulator!

Re:Again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476768)

Yet ANOTHER story about how many Facebook users are not particularly interested in hiding personal information. I mean. come on! This is some sort of News Flash? Is anyone unaware that Facebook is primarily a platform for sharing personal information?

Huh? I thought it was a farming simulator!

yo mama's vagina is a sperm stimulator

Re:Again? (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35477340)

I'm so sorry, but you can't use that meme. It's a registered trademark of involuntary speriminator inc.

Re:Again? (2)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#35477256)

My name is 100% unique in this country (and likely the world), anybody who has my name has that info. I hardly feel concern.

There was a time almost every phone number and address was public (white pages), a birthday is hardly secret knowledge too, and really who the fuck cares about an e-mail address.

None of these things are meaningful.

Cute name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476090)

Freddie Saurus. Sounds like the name of kiddie dino character.

Was it real (3, Insightful)

slashqwerty (1099091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476092)

"82 people whose profiles included personal information such as their email address, date of birth, address or phone number."

How much of that personal information was real and how much was made up?

Re:Was it real (1, Informative)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476212)

Email: president@whitehouse.gov
Date of birth: 01/01/01
Address: 123 Fake St., Fakesville, ZZ
Phone: 666-HELL

Re:Was it real (2)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476260)

I knew he wasn't born in the US. He's not even a resident!

Re:Was it real (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476860)

he's just a p!

Re:Was it real (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476884)

Email: president@whitehouse.gov
Date of birth: 01/01/01
Address: 123 Fake St., Fakesville, ZZ
Phone: 666-HELL

Thanks, Mr. President, sir.
Now we can all run identity fraud!!11!

Re:Was it real (1)

whitesea (1811570) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476312)

According to my Facebook information, I am 97 years old. Luckily, my employer did not check it out when making me an offer.

Re:Was it real (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476554)

I guess I'll be staying off your lawn then.

Re:Was it real (4, Funny)

Zemran (3101) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476556)

I always use 1-1-1980, the date that BIOS used to reset to when the battery went flat on a motherboard.

Re:Was it real (1)

ieatcookies (1490517) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476904)

No wonder your relationship status is single....

You too? (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476568)

Is your birthday also Jan 1, or did you pick a random date?

Re:You too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476980)

January first is a random date.

Re:Was it real (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476462)

Personal information like an email address? Heaven forbid someone find out about that! You might get (more) spam!

Re:Was it real (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476592)

Don't worry, if you have account with TD Ameritrade, they'll take care of that for you.

Privacy would be a lot more meaningful if companies that lost personal information got more than a slap on the wrist. I made more or less all the right decisions, then my brokerage is bought out by those guys and all of a sudden I'm receiving personalized emails only requiring a credit card number to get generic v1@g4ra.

Re:Was it real (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476642)

e-mail addresses aren't as useful for the bad guys for actually using, but they are incredibly useful as unique identifiers. Behind most e-mail accounts (except for sales@ and similar), there is usually exactly one person, whether it's used to send mail to or from. Googling (plus a couple of other tools) the e-mail address found at Facebook can often give a surprising amount of information, often quite different from the untruths on the Facebook page.

I remember one guy who claimed 5+ years expertise with a certain technology in his CV. Yet, I found him on Facebook, and a scan of his e-mail address there (which was different from the one he gave on his CV) revealed that he had asked simple absolute beginner's questions as little of two years ago.

Similar with Tineye against the images found on Facebook, although there isn't such a strong 1:1 connection there - several people can have the same pictures, either because they use someone else's picture, or because they are group pictures. But seldom do you see someone using someone else's e-mail address - it's either unique to the person, or a fake address that's still unique.

Re:Was it real (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476792)

Strange thing is that I created an address on my server just for slashdot, but it started getting spam shortly after I configured my account to use it. I might have made a mistake and sent it to somebody but I am pretty sure I didn't.

Misleading Title (4, Informative)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476100)

"Willing to Divulge to" makes it sound like some complete stranger went on facebook and asked "Hey, give me your email address, blood type and shoe size" and got an answer.

What it really is, is that people add friends pretty randomly and openly, and many don't secure their personal information very well. In the ideal case you would have various 'grades' of friends which determine permissions but

a) Nobody would bother using it
b) Facebook doesn't particularly care about privacy.

Anyhoo, we knew all of this earlier - so non-story.

Re:Misleading Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476204)

No. I think most normal people just do not give a damn about sharing their email, birth date, and address -- they only worry about the latter when concerned about stalking. Phone number is different but only because of spam calls.

Re:Misleading Title (2)

formfeed (703859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476238)

"Willing to Divulge to" makes it sound like some complete stranger went on facebook and asked "Hey, give me your email address, blood type and shoe size" and got an answer.

Isn't that how it pretty much is? Or are you friends with Zuckerberg?

Re:Misleading Title (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476394)

It also wrongly supposes that all of that information is necessarily private. My full name, address, phone number, e-mail address are already public whether I like it or not as part of working for the government and the information it makes available, as it does the government portion of my income.

I'm not 100% sure on my date of birth, so I wouldn't include that necessarily, but I'm pretty sure it's public too.

And I'm in ontario and make 22k a year as a grad student. People who make 100k a year have their salary published in a giant list and have since 1996, which, along with their work profiles (including phone numbers and e-mail addresses), and your actual address in the phone book.

So why is any of that public? Well name, work e-mail, work phone, we all are supposed to have webpages with that info on them.. Salary, well that can be reconstructed because our contracts are public, and you know when I was hired, under what contract. So give or take 500 bucks you know my salary pretty trivially. Address, date of birth are all public, if somewhat buried, in records about enrollment (ages of entering students, ages of leaving students, geographic distribution of applicants etc.), and if you make over 100k a year that's pretty much plastered out there by the government on it's sunshine list anyway.

So if someone actually knows my name, it's not all that hard to figure out any of that information. Facebook may put it in one place, but for a lot of us, especially if our facebook profile is intentionally set to public, there's nothing there that cannot be gleamed from our corporate webpages too.

Re:Misleading Title (1)

cloudmaster (10662) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476458)

Facebook does have the capability to do grades. You can create groups, and set up permissions based on group membership. I do it with a couple of groups - mostly to segregate some information from friends I'm not that close to or who I know are computer illiterate and will get every possible virus.

Re:Misleading Title (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476920)

makes it sound like some complete stranger went on facebook and asked "Hey, give me your email address, blood type and shoe size" and got an answer

There was a convincing scam for a great deal on some kickass bionic feet, so...

Re:Misleading Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35477084)

What it really is, is that people add friends pretty randomly and openly, and many don't secure their personal information very well.

It would be more accurate to say that 4 years ago when this was written people behaved like that. I've noticed in the past year or two a LOT more people have their profiles secured, and are a lot less willing to friend random people. Keep in mind that 4 years ago was when FB really started gaining a lot of users, many of them not familiar with social networking.

Well.. (2)

meowris (1988866) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476104)

200 people can only represent so much.

Re:Well.. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476598)

Yes, but if those 200 people happen to be most of the Senate and the swing vote in the house, things can get real ugly, real quick.

This information isn't private (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476122)

personal information such as their email address, date of birth, address or phone number

I also have that information on my Facebook profile. It is available for ANYONE to see, including nonfriends.

I don't have a problem here - the problem lies with any bank who would consider that information to be "secret", and would allow someone to get a loan in my name with only that information.

Re:This information isn't private (1)

izomiac (815208) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476864)

Personally, I use Facebook as a phonebook and resume service, so I'd be fine with divulging that information (it's likely public record anyway). OTOH, "highly personal information" stays off of Facebook as I trust Mark Zuckerberg less than my least trusted "friend". It's somewhat interesting that 59% of Facebook users accept random friend requests, but I see no real privacy issue here.

Re:This information isn't private (2)

Ndkchk (893797) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476896)

The mistake would lie with the bank, but if they were to give a loan in your name to anyone with that information, you would indeed have a problem.

Anyway... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476124)

Reading TFA I also conclude that

1. No indication how many of the 200 were active accounts or how they were chosen (there's a screenshot which to me suggests a clustering? 6 friends in london? What are the chances given the huge population of facebook users?)

2. They used a cartoon picture as a display image. If there was an uncertainty of whether you know this person, then the generic image wouldn't help either. If it was someone's real face you might get less people agreeing to friendship, probably.

Re:Anyway... (2)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476576)

Maybe the 41% were all ID Fraudsters too, and they welcome anyone who befriends them?

Re:Anyway... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35477110)

According to my back of the envelope calculations 1-2% of Facebook users live in London. So getting 6 hits in 200 is not that weird, especially considering that London was probably the highest of all "concentrations" as it was shown on top.

Highly personal? (3, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476132)

Maybe they just don't consider things like that to be "highly personal". By default, most of that information is available by doing such mundane things as registering a domain name. I don't consider contact information to be "highly personal". Somebody younger than me who grew up with social networking is even less likely to.

Re:Highly personal? (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476164)

I've long ago given up the concept of keeping my anonymous online. I know how to *go* anonymous, and protect myself where appropriate, but I do not do so in my day-to-day browser.

Being in Internet marketing, my name is my brand. It's just part of it.

Re:Highly personal? (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476340)

Exactly! and those of us who are proud of who we are and what we do have absolutely nothing to fear.

Re:Highly personal? (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476800)

Exactly! and those of us who are proud of who we are and what we do have absolutely nothing to fear.

Except pride.

Re:Highly personal? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476382)

Yeah, I'd agree. I wonder what the percentage of people are who divulge "highly personal" info to everyone in the country (and on the web) by allowing their phone number, name and postal address to be listed in the White Pages? Shocking isn't it?

Re:Highly personal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476424)

Your point is well-taken, but "registering a domain name" is hardly "mundane" for the average person.

Re:Highly personal? (1)

Paco103 (758133) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476666)

Phone number and address? Public information in the phone book. Personally I don't have my address shared and my phone number is Google Voice that directs unknown numbers to voice mail, but that's just a preference really.

Date of birth? We hold parties, show our ID containing it to every bar tender that has some alcohol to offer, and for many people even if they don't list it, friends will still post happy birthday.

Email? Since when is that private? I trust facebook and my "friends" with it a lot more than most companies that require it to register an account.

I think the only real news worth noting here is that 41% of users will accept ANY friend request, and that's not really that much of a surprise. The real problem is any system that considers this information (or knowledge of mothers Maiden name or location of birth) to be proof of identity.

exploding babys; corepirate nazis to be caged (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476142)

there are plans to put them, (the genetically, surgically & chemically
altered coreprate nazi mutant fear/death mongerers (aka47; eugenatics,
weapons peddlers, kings/minions, adrians, freemasons etc...)) on display
in glass cages, around the world, so that we can remember not to forget...
again, what can happen, based on greed/fear/ego stoking deception.

viewing/feeding will be rationed based on how many more of the creators'
innocents are damaged, or have to be brought home (& they DO have another
one) prematurely.

so, we'll then expect to see you at any one of the million babys+
play-dates, conscience arisings, georgia stone editing(s), & a host of
other life promoting/loving events. guaranteed to activate all of our
sense(s) at once. perhaps you have seen our list of pure intentions for
you /us?

still looking tenuous for meltdown?

i think.... (1)

Ruede (824831) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476144)

the issue is not the privacy.... it that i think that lots of users think that facebook was made for them. blame that on the "you are so special" parents...

misleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476158)

Just because they accepted a friend request does not mean that they are willing to divulge personal information. They may not want to, but are simply uninformed about their privacy restriction settings. The data does not tell you anything about their willingness to divulge information. They may also have thought that they new the person. Lots of people exchange enough information to find someone of facebook when they're out partying and drunk, that they might accept just about any new requests the next day thinking it was someone they met the night before.

Re:misleading headline (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476612)

I don't use facebook, the but implications of any particular setting are changing rapidly, I can't blame people for not understanding the settings. I can however blame them for being associated with that site, the one which feels the need to stalk random people on the net with their accursed like buttons.

and this surprises you?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476160)

facebook, myspace everyone on there will tell you anything if you will read it... everyone is looking for there 5 minutes of fame.

Atlanta Movers [sunrisemoving.com]

I wouldn't mind giving my info to him, he's cute (3, Insightful)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476162)

just look: http://www.sophos.com/images/misc/freddi_frog.jpg [sophos.com]

Anyway, some issues:

A) Why such a small sample data? I mean, it shouldn't be hard to annoy 1000+ users instead of just 200.
B) Why aren't they talking about apps that access your information? I know you can disable them but, if you are willing to accept froggy here, I don't think you will.

The implications of the whole thing are hilarious:
Apparently, being poked by a Frog doesn't make you want to start a friendship. That could be a better title for the article.
http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2007/08/facebook.html [sophos.com]

C) Next Survey: There's a pretty good chance that I'll waste valuable time with inconsequential Slashdot articles. But hey, It's good fun before going to sleep.

Re:I wouldn't mind giving my info to him, he's cut (1)

euphemistic (1850880) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476374)

In terms of A), I suspect it has to do with being below the theoretical threshhold facebook might have for identifying scam users who are there to scrape information for profit/social engineering/other bad thing. Had they targeted 1000 a little bell might have gone off at facebook HQ before they had an adequate chance to actually look at what they'd managed to access.

Re:I wouldn't mind giving my info to him, he's cut (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35477298)

A) Contacting people individually (ie not with a script) and verifying their information takes time. Doing so 200 times should add up to a nontrivial number of hours. It's likely that part took a good fraction of the time the researchers allocated for this report.

B) Contacting 1000 people is 5 times as much work as contacting 200, yet the accuracy goes down as 1/sqrt(n), so with 1000 people you only halve the statistical error of 200. To improve the numbers by an order of magnitude, you typically have to multiply the sample size by a hundred. That's one hundred times more work.

Misleading Heading (1)

Scotland Tom (974094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476170)

The heading, and a main talking point of TFA, suggest that, when asked, 41% of Facebook users will simply hand over personal information. But really what's shown is that about 44% of Facebook users will happily accept a random friend invitation and of those users more than 80% of them ALREADY HAD personal information posted on their profile. What does that tell us really?

It tells us that nearly all of the idiots on Facebook who are stupid enough to accept a friend invitation from a total stranger are ALSO stupid enough to post personal information in their profiles. Wow! 80+ percent of all Facebook idiots are really HUGE idiots! Amazing!

Re:Misleading Heading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476248)

But really what's shown is that about 44% of Facebook users will happily accept a random friend invitation and of those users more than 80% of them ALREADY HAD personal information posted on their profile.

Still not there. Maybe "... 80% of them already had information that the author *considers* highly personal posted on their profile". I mean, email address? Really?

There's plenty of stupidity on social networks, but it's almost offset by the idiotic self-righteous paranoia of some of their critics.

Re:Misleading Heading (1)

aXis100 (690904) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476388)

Ergo, 41% of facebook users are really HUGE idiots!

I'm glad I don't have a Facebook account. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476176)

This way I can skip all these stories.

The point of Facebook (3, Interesting)

LongearedBat (1665481) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476218)

Isn't that the whole point of Facebook? ...to divulge personal information to all one's friends, and allowing strangers to also see it in case they happen to be long lost friends.

An experiment... (3, Funny)

tuxrocks1 (2015818) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476222)

How many slashdotters will click this link [tiny.cc]

Re:An experiment... (1)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476352)

One goatse was enough for me. No clicky strange links. ;-)

Re:An experiment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476440)

I think my last goatse was in 2000 or 2001 on IRC. I never thought it possible but I managed to forget the image.

Re:An experiment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476398)

why is it so red

Re:An experiment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35477300)

Goatse Warning !!!

SPAM MUCH FB LOSERS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476252)

41% of facebook users are nasty spammers who waste all our taxmoney by keeping our fascist goverment busy with their pictures and comments... and their fucking traffic ruins torrent for everyone who is cool... :(

better than expected (0)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476264)

Only 41%?

That's better than I would have expected.

Or as a republican would say, (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476278)

the vast majority of people were not willing to divulge their private information.

A Better Headline (3, Insightful)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476310)

"41% of Facebook Users Willing to Press a Button Without Understanding or Caring About the Consequences."

Let's just hope none of them end up in missile silos.

Re:A Better Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476378)

Apologies, tried to mod this +1 insightful and hit redundant by accident, Slashdot made it permanent with no option to undo or change.

THIS ARTICLE IS FROM 2007 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476326)

Seriously slashdot?

Re:THIS ARTICLE IS FROM 2007 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476590)

You must be new here: Editors don't check submissions, this is /.

Back in the day, IT used to be called IS (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476350)

I suspect that very soon "social networking" will be rechristened "social engineering network".

I'm among them (1)

phmadore (1391487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476360)

Here's to a society where we really don't care that our boss knows who we fucked this weekend and how drunk we were when we did it; here's to a society where the boss has something better to do than worry about how much he pisses me off, because I'm still performing and he's still bossing; here's to the New America.

This article is four years old. (5, Informative)

Krystalo (1580077) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476370)

This article was published in August 2007.

Re:This article is four years old. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476706)

Quickly, someone search for a 4 year old dup on slashdot!!

CAPTCHA: policy

Re:This article is four years old. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476858)

So you're saying slashdot is getting to the stories faster?

whitepages.com (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476372)

...and what percent of the remaining 59% who actually do care about hiding their phone number/street address bother to take it off sites like whitepages.com? I mean, my mom says that she will never put her street address on fb, yet has never attempted to remove it from whitepages.com

Simple answer: *ONLY* friend actual friends... (1)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476380)

I only friend people that I have met in real life, and with whom I wish to continue to have a friendship with.

I have de-friended many old high-school friends after deciding that I didn't want to bother 'restarting' a friendship after a decade. I have refused to 'friend' people I knew in college, even Fraternity brothers, because I simply didn't know them well enough to consider friends.

Finally, my Facebook account *DOES* have my birthday public, but the only 'contact' information on there at all is a 'throwaway' email address.

Re:Simple answer: *ONLY* friend actual friends... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476664)

Aren't you special.

Well (2, Insightful)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476384)

"willing to divulge highly personal information to a complete stranger."

I do this twice a month. It's called seeing a therapist. :p

Re:Well (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476526)

I do this every weekend at the local bar. Its called lying to some hot babe to get her into the sack.

Oh, did you mean accurate personal information?

You mean 82 people? (2)

cliath (978599) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476396)

It's not 41% of facebook Users. its 82 of 200 sampled users of the 600,000,000 users on facebook.

This is old data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476402)

If you follow the link, you can see the data is quite old (http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20070814/facebook-privacy/ is dated August 14, 2007, as is http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2007/08/facebook.html). Ever thought what it would look like nowadays?

I think it would look different. I believe many users are more and more thinking about privacy, because many media stress privacy and expose the privacy problems concerning Facebook.

Just look for some more up-to-date data, then there will be something to discuss.

Only 41%? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476420)

It this somehow related to the news that 50% of the population are below average?

Phasebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476452)

Let's move on to Diaspora and beyond.

http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox

Well let's see (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476498)

Draw a normal curve of facebook users with IQ on the x axis and number of people on the Y axis. Now without thinking too hard, estimate the amount of people to the left of the peak in the curve. Approximately 50%. Wow - coincidence? Also for extra credit, quote that "correlation is not causation" to me to properly assign you your place on the curve.

Re:Well let's see (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476626)

Considering Facebook users need to be able to read and have computer/Internet access, I'd say most of them are average or higher intelligence. Computer security isn't something even slightly above average people think about. Unfortunately it's our job.

Re:Well let's see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476696)

Now without thinking too hard, estimate the amount of people to the left of the peak in the curve. Approximately 50%. Wow - coincidence?

Yes, coincidence. You seem to have mistaken a mode for a mean, but hey, it's a common mistake among high school freshman taking Algebra I, so who can blame you.

Facebook hypocrisy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35476812)

Wait a sec....

How come facebook doesn't terminate this bogus account, Freddi Staur, yet they happily terminate an account of a journalist in China for penning articles under a pseudonym. AND, they do so under the premise of a company policy that accounts must be established under a real name!!!

See article here, http://cpj.org/internet/2011/03/michael-antis-exile-from-facebook-over-real-name-p.php

Very hypocritical on Facebook's part that they do not enforce their policies uniformly.

a good online shopping store (0)

allent (2014632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476826)

Hello every one ,
i want to introduce a good online shopping site , there are over 35000 kinds of top name brand products for sale , such as shoes: nike shoes,Air jordan shoes,air max shoes,air force shoes,nike Dunk shoes, nike rift shoes,timberland,prada shoes,puma shoes,gucci shoes,Lv shoes , Ed hardy shoes ,
purse : coach ,chanel , LV ,juicy and so on ,
T-shirts: lacoste T-shirt,polo T-shirt,Affliction,A&F,coogi,ed hardy and Christan Audigier t-shirt.
Jerseys :NFL jerseys,NBA jerseys,NHL jerseys,
Sunglasses,Belts,wallet and watches
deliver time: about 5 work days to arrive our address.
payment :paypal ,credit card and western union ,
so welcome to : http://useeshopping.com/ [useeshopping.com]
I love it very much you will be loved it as well .....

http://www.buylouisvuittonoutlet.org (-1)

nancy110 (2011906) | more than 3 years ago | (#35476928)

Louis Vuitton is a famous brand in France and becomes centenary classic. Louis Vuitton outlet [buylouisvu...outlet.org] make customers enjoy aristocracy quality and sticks to its own brands to create a brand spirit. Louis Vuitton Outlet Store [buylouisvu...outlet.org] set foot in various kinds of commodity,such as handbags,purses,luggages and so on..If you have a desire to buy louis vuitton [buylouisvu...outlet.org] ,ACT at once.

Contact info != personal info. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35477012)

Contact info != personal info.

My FB page contains my address, my phone and my email. As does the yellow pages. Duh.

If you're looking for sensitive info about me, you have to ask me. IRL. Unless you mean my political opinions, which are all over the place (I do consider them public, as I do consider myself living in a democracy, so far...)

highly personal? seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35477044)

email address, date of birth, address or phone number

This is highly personal information?

It always surprises me how little actually identification is required to pretend to be someone else.
I think most people would be surprised if they realised.

The problem comes in when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35477070)

The problem comes in when they use this as a basis to say 41% of people don't care about privacy (rather than 41% of people ON Facebook are a little incautious about who they approve as friends)

I find that odd (1)

givejonadollar (2016034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35477124)

I could actually see it being higher than that! 41 percent seems real, real low in my experience.

dated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35477182)

the sophos research is from august 2007!!!!

Highly personal? yeah right... (2)

prcko (1448753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35477246)

Here in Sweden there is a site at birthday.se, where by typing a full name, you get information on home address (including the flat number) with link to a map, link to yellow pages with your home phone number, mobile number, etc, and of course the date of birth. Also they provide a service to show you who else is living on the same address, with their "highly personal" information. Very good to know who else is living on the same floor, to get a name of the spouse incl birthday and mobile phone number, etc... Then by doing some searching on the web, you could probably get the pictures of all the people on the floor, etc. The actual problem is not whether or not the information is considered "highly personal" by me, as much as by other people that are trusted with my personal info. After all, I deserve my own stupidity, but not the stupidity (or greed) of others...

59% do it without being aware (1)

Gumbercules!! (1158841) | more than 3 years ago | (#35477352)

If 41% of facebook users are divulging personal information to strangers without a care - the other 59% are doing it without knowing it...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?