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!

EU Targets Facebook's Ad System

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the subtract-those-ads dept.

Facebook 170

redletterdave writes "The European Commission plans to put a stop to the way Facebook gathers information about its users, including their political opinions, religious beliefs, whereabouts and sexual preferences, and how the social network sells that information for commercial purposes. A new EC Directive aims to ban targeted advertising unless users specifically allow it, and to amend the current European data protection laws to ensure consistency in how offending sites are dealt with across the EU. If the European Commission has its way, Facebook would suffer big losses in advertising dollars that fund its site, which would further damage the company's plans to go public next year. Facebook has defended itself, claiming its advertisers target wide demographics like age and location, rather than specific individuals. The Palo Alto, Calif.-based company denies outright that it misuses or mishandles user information."

cancel ×

170 comments

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

More info here (-1, Troll)

dev382 (2518642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193436)

EU Parliament statement about that here [evenweb.com] .
Seems like real, sudden outbreak of common sense. Go EU!. I am moving to it next year.

Re:More info here (-1, Offtopic)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193448)

If they keep this up I might join you. The USA will probably make facebook accounts mandatory so the NSA can track us better.

Re:More info here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38193468)

Yea, you just responded to an obvious goatse troll like it was a real post.

Re:More info here (2)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193630)

I dont click links here for obvious reasons.

Re:More info here (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193658)

Yea, you just responded to an obvious goatse troll like it was a real post.

He just announced that if that goatse site is kept alive ("If they keep it up") he might also become a goatse troll ("I might join you.") :-)

Re:More info here (5, Interesting)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193508)

If they keep this up I might join you. The USA will probably make facebook accounts mandatory so the NSA can track us better.

Yes despite all the terrible press the EU gets especially in the UK, there are some nice things coming out of it like forcing mobile phone companies to all use mini-usb chargers. Sometimes I wish England would stop dicking about in EU and actually commit to something bigger than themselves for reasons other than personal greed.

Re:More info here (1)

Rhodri Mawr (862554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193698)

Getting one thing right once in a while does not make up for the lack of accountability, NIMBY syndrome, waste and general stupidity that the EU manages to achieve. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, assuming that it's analog. IMO it deserves the terrible press that it gets, particularly in the UK.

Re:More info here (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193744)

Yeah. Too bad you are all bankrupt and the Euro is collapsing.

Oh. Wait...

Re:More info here (2)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194508)

You do realize the only reason the UK are doing fine today is because they took a lot of EU money a couple of years ago when they were in a crisis and the rest of Europe was not?
There are 27 countries. Not everyone can benefit from it at the same time. The EU exists to regularize things between member countries, so that they can balance each other out. Sometimes a country is at the bottom of the balance, sometimes at the top.

Best thing from the EU is the plane to NZ (-1, Flamebait)

SleepyJohn (1481257) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194744)

If you study carefully what is really happening in the EU you will realise that their economic crisis is an essential and cleverly engineered part of a much bigger, and more worrying plan. And the reason the British object so vociferously to the EU can be clearly seen in the current disgraceful goings-on in Greece and Italy. If the British Prime Minister were turfed out of office by the unelected Commissars of the EU and replaced by one of their card-carrying stooges I suspect there would be blood in the streets. And rightly so.

The EU is not a kindly old uncle looking after the people, it is a totalitarian state, increasingly controlled by Germany, that subjugates the masses with bureaucracy and bullshit rather than bombs and bullets. It has never been given a mandate by the people to govern, yet it does so with an autocratic arrogance that is quite breathtaking to those who have lived in it. It is controlled by a self-anointed European political elite who have never been elected by the people, who are in no way, shape or form accountable to the people, and who are building a rigidly centralised, dictatorial superstate for the sole purpose of boosting their own importance and power in the world; and they are using the people as economic cannon-fodder. The only good thing to come out of the EU is a one-way flight to New Zealand.

Re:Best thing from the EU is the plane to NZ (1)

nitrowing (887519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38195062)

I've chosen Brazil...

Why would FB care anyhow? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38193458)

The EC is a toothless entity with no legal power. Why should FB even care about what they say? Where it matters are the laws of the respective country.

Re:Why would FB care anyhow? (5, Informative)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193564)

You don't have a clue about the EC if you claim that. Stop reading the Daily Mail and start reading actual newspapers.

Re:Why would FB care anyhow? (-1, Troll)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193948)

The EU will probably have collapsed before they could pass this law anyway.

Re:More info here (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38193462)

Seems like real, sudden outbreak of common sense. Go EU!. I am moving to it next year.

It should be much cheaper to move there next year.

Re:More info here (1)

Bardwick (696376) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193464)

Assuming the EU exists.... Hope your talking about Germany...

Re:More info here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38193600)

Please do. I suggest we change the meme "Think of the children" to "Think of the Europeans" when discussing some stupid law that is designed to help theoretically helpless people.

those europeans... (5, Funny)

clavo-t (831373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193460)

Those Europeans doesn't understand the right of an American company to do what they want wherever they want

Re:those europeans... (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193930)

That's ok as long as American companies don't understand that those Europeans can have all the laws they want.

You can opt out (5, Funny)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193466)

under options>settings>some data>settings options>options settings>user data>user data settings>user data settings options>ad's data>ad's data options

Is that hard?

Re:You can opt out (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193502)

The easier way to opt out is not to sign up for Facebook in the first place. Or what am I missing?

Re:You can opt out (4, Informative)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193806)

Don't forget to block Facebook on your computer. Since every website that has a Facebook Like button or other widget loads that widget from Facebook. Facebook still knows many of the sites visited from your IP. Of course the same is true for Google widgets/ads and pretty much any widget.

Re:You can opt out (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194328)

NoScript to the rescue again, I guess.

Re:You can opt out (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194708)

NoScript is only a partial solution to that problem as you will find plenty of sites with iframes loading php from facebook. Requestpolicy might help or you can try to maintain a hosts file which blocks all the various hosts they use.

Re:You can opt out (4, Informative)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194396)

Re:You can opt out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194852)

HOSTS, HOSTS, HOSTS. APK has been summoned, where art thou?

Re:You can opt out (1)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193858)

Your friends who are too lazy to call your phone won't invite you to their NYE party. But then, if they are that lazy, they will probably forget to buy eggnog too.

Re:You can opt out (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194350)

will probably forget to buy eggnog too.

... and nothing of value was lost?

Re:You can opt out (1)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193574)

But you have to opt-out for each ad as it appears on your page. That's the problem!

Re:You can opt out (1)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194030)

I'm all for this. I've been noticing ad's following me recently and it bothers me. For example the last few times I've been on /. the ads in the top right are reflecting places I have looked at on Newegg or Amazon. I would like to see this practice be curtailed and not just on facebook.

Re:You can opt out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194302)

...you have ads on /.?

The Internet should not be regulated (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193478)

It's not just Facebook, many other companies like Google do this. But although this regulation has good intentions, like all attempts at regulating the Internet it will be counterproductive and unenforceable. The Internet is based on anarchy, that's what made it big and drives it today. Securing their data is the duty of the users.

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38193554)

This is not regulation of the Internet. This is regulation of advertising.

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (3, Insightful)

SkunkPussy (85271) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193952)

specifically the fact that it has become common practice for sites to treat opt-out as informed consent, when its well known that if opt-in was in place extremely low numbers would opt-in.

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (2, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193588)

So Amazon should shut down, as no one can be expected to keep their credit card details secure on the net. Of course there should be regulation to protect people. Large websites, such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, et al. all can easily be assessed for compliance, and once compliant, a large part of the internet has been made compliant. How a user is supposed to actually *use* the internet without providing any data to it is going to severely limit the uses of the internet. We'll end up with LOLcats all over the place, and nothing of any actual use.

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193862)

So Amazon should shut down, as no one can be expected to keep their credit card details secure on the net. Of course there should be regulation to protect people. Large websites, such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, et al. all can easily be assessed for compliance, and once compliant, a large part of the internet has been made compliant. How a user is supposed to actually *use* the internet without providing any data to it is going to severely limit the uses of the internet. We'll end up with LOLcats all over the place, and nothing of any actual use.

I don't think that the EU will forbid you to give your private data out voluntarily and for your own purposes. I believe the issue revolves around companies distributing your private data for their benefit and without your express permission.

Express permission means "opt in" not "opt out". Opt out is often difficult if not impossible, especially in the case of facebook. Also it is not something that many, if not most, users know that they can do.

You should add keeping IP addresses secret in your over the top argument, then no one could even connect to the internet.

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (0)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193880)

So Amazon should shut down, as no one can be expected to keep their credit card details secure on the net.

Amazon shouldn't need credit card details, they should handle money transfers like a physical store.

We'll end up with LOLcats all over the place, and nothing of any actual use.

Yeah, the Internet certainly has no useful parts today...

Lack of government regulation does not mean no regulations at all, the market forces can also shape the net.

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (5, Interesting)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193646)

What about Facebook's constantly morphing privacy and security policies? How can the user protect their data from that?

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193900)

Don't use Facebook.

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194130)

How about a realistic solution where the user isn't required to be an anti-social loser?

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (4, Funny)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194384)

Don't use Facebook, and occasionally venture out of the basement?

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (2)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194152)

But that's like saying, "Don't use the web".

No, I'm not arguing that Facebook == the internet. However, if you're going to use the internet for anything other than getting docs, if you're going to use it for personal communication, then there has to be an element of trust with the entity that carries and stores your data.

Would you say, "don't use email" if a bunch of providers out there started making the contents of your email public? Or how about if your bank started to publish your account balance - would it be your fault for having used on-line banking?

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194258)

It's not necessarily about not using the Internet, but rather not using unreliable services, and letting the free market sort out the trash. But yeah, there are many examples for why it is stupid to trust your email service or online bank with sensitive data.

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194552)

"It's not necessarily about not using the Internet, but rather not using unreliable services, and letting the free market sort out the trash."

The "free market" has already spoken in this case, though. It's not like Facebook's anti-privacy policies are some kind of underground secret. On the contrary, it's regularly the subject of network late night comedy show jokes. Fact is, most people just don't care.

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194422)

Would you say, "don't use email" if a bunch of providers out there started making the contents of your email public? Or how about if your bank started to publish your account balance - would it be your fault for having used on-line banking?

I would say "don't use email provider ", or "don't use bank ".

There are other social networking sites other than Facebook (dozens still current, hundreds been and gone). If people ditched companies that treated them badly, some of their competitors would eventually get big enough to topple them. Hell, Facebook did that to the likes of MySpace, and Twitter is arguably doing the same thing to Facebook now.

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194748)

But the damage is already done, neh? Switch banks, after they release your data, or email providers after they do? At some point, shouldn't there be legal protections that don't allow these entities to break what amounts to a contract?

And - I'd note that there's not a lot of point in using a "social networking" site that no one uses. Diaspora looks to be a really cool idea - but people have to use it if it's going to be anything other than a cool idea about distributed communication. Without users, it lacks the social part of social networking.

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194274)

I have a solution for that. Invalidate all EULA:s. If Facebook wants you to sign a contract, let them physically send you a contract and ask that you send it back.

Re:The Internet should not be regulated (4, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38195004)

Securing their data is the duty of the users.

I don't think you understand the power of data mining. Humans are very, very bad at performing inference on many variables. Computers are very, very good at it. It's true that people have a responsibility to safeguard their own privacy, but that's no reason we should have artificial intelligence programs scanning people's every online move to infer as much as possible about them. That's fucking scary, and it's scary that you don't think it's scary.

It's ironic that in "socialist" Europe... (5, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193504)

... steps are taken to ensure that Big Brother doesn't get too big.

While here in the US, those who most love to cite Orwell also tend to want there to be no limits to what corporations can do, even when it's the corporations (far more so than the government) that are filling the power niches.

Re:It's ironic that in "socialist" Europe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38193596)

Uh.

The only reason this is done is to deflect and defuse negative attention away from the EU's own "Data Retention Directive", which basically says that any time you speak to anyone during your day the person you spoke to and time you spoke must be recorded and stored in the range of 1-2 years. As applied to e-mails, text messages and phone conversations made and received.

You have kind of gotten your concepts mixed up.

Re:It's ironic that in "socialist" Europe... (3, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193654)

It's only ironic if you don't know what socialism is...

Re:It's ironic that in "socialist" Europe... (0)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193802)

Ah - were you going to give me this week's Newspeak definition, then?

Re:It's ironic that in "socialist" Europe... (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193852)

I vastly prefer a corporate system over a government system. I can choose to not do business with any given corporation.

Re:It's ironic that in "socialist" Europe... (2)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193976)

No, you can't. Try to buy food without giving money to Nestlé or Monsanto for instance!

Re:It's ironic that in "socialist" Europe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194146)

It's pretty easy if I wanted. There's tonnes of niche brands and all sorts of different suppliers of fruit and vegetables. Sometimes it'll be 20% more expensive, sometimes it'll be cheaper but the kids want the "brand name" brand. But it's not hard to do.

I'd rather have this choice than have some toothless, unelected "Union" tell me what to do.

Re:It's ironic that in "socialist" Europe... (3, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194034)

Problem is, the end result of an unregulated free market is a monopoly, and without the counterbalance of government, corporations fill the role of government, and acquire the powers accorded to governments by the people. However, with this end result, there is no voting them out of office, and no one left to make laws to reign them in.

Re:It's ironic that in "socialist" Europe... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194626)

I can choose to not do business with any given corporation.

So, you're stuck with Apple then, since everybody else's computers have Windows preinstalled. And where are you getting your natural gas and electricity from? If you eat, you're doing business with Monsanto and ADM, even if you grow your own food. Cable TV? Well, your choices are Comcast, Dish, or an antenna.

What are you going to do when there are only three huge players in an industry you can't live without and they all behave in exactly the same way?

I can't affect a corporation at all; I'm one of seven billion prospective customers. With government at least I get a vote, meaningless as that vote may be.

Re:It's ironic that in "socialist" Europe... (2)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194242)

What's more ironic is that Orwell was a socialist himself. Interpreting 1984 as an attack on socialism is a gross misunderstanding - one that's taught by many teachers in the U.S. It's an attack on totalitarianism. Fascism, for example, is a free-market totalitarian system. Oceania was socialist because it represented Soviet Communism, the good intentions of Lenin warped into the totalitarianism of Stalin. It's important to note that Emmanuel Goldstein represented Trotsky, an opponent of Stalin's totalitarianism and Hitler's fascism.

Re:It's ironic that in "socialist" Europe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194560)

"Fascism, for example, is a free-market totalitarian system."

Utterly idiotic.

Firstly, it takes an extreme act of mental acrobatics to imagine a system that is both totalitarian and free-market. If it's free-market that should mean I can buy whatever goods and services I want. I can quit my job, move to a cabin in the woods and produce death metal CDs that I sell at a stall in town. I can buy porn made in places that resemble the presidential palace. Totalitarianism implies highly rigid control over at the very minimum the social and inner sphere of people, but plenty of products should exist in a free market that directly affects and subverts this control.

Secondly, fascism has at the very minimum at its core according to any commonly agreed definition some kind of movement based on the concept of the strength and unity of either a nation or a people (a 'united entity'), and moreover, that although businesses are privately operated, they should all serve the 'united entity'. Businesses that don't serve the 'united entity' (nation or people) whenever required will not survive in a fascist state. Yet a market where businesses have to kowtow to the government to please it isn't a free-market system. If businesses can choose not to sell to the government, or charge it market rates, then they are outside the fascist system.

Not to mention all the statements by Mr. Fascism himself, Mussolini that directly and very explicitly totally contradict your statement. Hm, who should I lend more credence to - the man who coined the term 'fascism' and ran a nation based on the concept, or some fantasist on Slashdot? Maybe you were mixing it up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_(epithet)

Thirdly, you can absolutely say that 1984 is an attack on totalitarianism. But there's plenty of elements in there that overlap in various ways with most notions of socialism, like how "the man with the top hat", and how the only way to legitimately and ethically possess large amounts of money was through a lottery (paradox of all paradoxes!)

"In the old days (it ran), before the glorious Revolution, London was not the beautiful city that we know today. It was a dark, dirty, miserable place where hardly anybody had enough to eat and where hundreds and thousands of poor people had no boots on their feet and not even a roof to sleep under. Children no older than you had to work twelve hours a day for cruel masters who flogged them with whips if they worked too slowly and fed them on nothing but stale breadcrusts and water. But in among all this terrible poverty there were just a few great big beautiful houses that were lived in by rich men who had as many as thirty servants to look after them. These rich men were called capitalists. They were fat, ugly men with wicked faces, like the one in the picture on the opposite page. You can see that he is dressed in a long black coat which was called a frock coat, and a queer, shiny hat shaped like a stovepipe, which was called a top hat. This was the uniform of the capitalists, and no one else was allowed to wear it. The capitalists owned everything in the world, and everyone else was their slave. They owned all the land, all the houses, all the factories, and all the money. If anyone disobeyed them they could throw them into prison, or they could take his job away and starve him to death. When any ordinary person spoke to a capitalist he had to cringe and bow to him, and take off his cap and address him as " Sir ". The chief of all the capitalists was called the King, and -"

Re:It's ironic that in "socialist" Europe... (3, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194688)

Just as socialism can lead to totalitarianism, so can capitalism.

Totalitarianism is the result of the concentration of power. If this is at the hands of a socialist government, you get the USSR. If at the hands of a corporate state, you get Germany in 1938.

It's about balance. And those who oppose all government in the US (sometimes for good reasons) never seem to have another counterbalance to growing corporate power. Remember, the second part of the famous quote about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is that "men form governments to ensure these rights".

I have an easier idea... (2)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193528)

Don't post stuff to facebook that you wouldn't want public.

I'm kidding, that's insane - who could possibly follow such a lunatic policy?

Re:I have an easier idea... (1)

CapnStank (1283176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193586)

Personal rule of thumb: Don't share anything on FB you wouldn't willingly share to a person you got stuck in a broken elevator with.

Re:I have an easier idea... (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193742)

Personal rule of thumb: Don't share anything on FB you wouldn't willingly share to a person you got stuck in a broken elevator with.

Well, my conversation with other people in a broken elevator would concern the topic "how do we get out of here?"

Re:I have an easier idea... (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193928)

Personal rule of thumb: Don't share anything on FB you wouldn't willingly share to a person you got stuck in a broken elevator with.

Well, my conversation with other people in a broken elevator would concern the topic "how do we get out of here?"

Elevators have notoriously poor internet connectivity. So it's unlikely that you would be able to Google how to get out of the elevator even if the information was available on FaceBook.

Sorry state of affairs that.

Re:I have an easier idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194120)

Personal rule of thumb: don't join FB, don't ever have anything to do with it, filter it out from sites with adblock.

Why?

You have no control about anything you share there. This way you have control - don't give them the information in the first place.

Re:I have an easier idea... (0)

tbird81 (946205) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194156)

But the citizen's of Europe need some unelected representatives to be their nanny. They can't survive on their own!

People don't understand facebook (4, Interesting)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193534)

To understand facebook it might help to use google as an analogy.

Google is an advertising company that happens to provide services that inspire people to see the ads that they sell.

Facebook is a data mining company that happens to provide services that inspire people to provide the data that they sell.

They both offer advertisements, the both do data mining. In many ways the companies are very very similar. The biggest difference is the interface that is presented to the public. They both offer most of their services in exchange for what they need to sell to make a living.

If you don't want to pay the price than don't take the service they offer. Or, just click the buttons to avoid telling the world about the things you'd rather the whole world not know.

/not a facebook fan and thinks people waste way too much time on it

Re:People don't understand facebook (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193846)

the problem is, I can't fully opt-out of google!

I build electronic things and I tend to frequent places like mouser and digikey to order my parts. how shocked I was to see googleapis listed in in the bottom tray of firefox as something was loaded from google. I have ZERO desire for my stuff to touch google. I'm trying to build a project. its none of their fucking business. but what requests are going to google? and WHY?

more and more, I see google*this and google*that on varoius domains that my browser is trying to connect to. googleadservices, googleapis, whatever - there are remote connects from my system to google's and I can't seem to avoid it and its not even me, its the vendor who has made whatever deals with the devil and I'm stuck sending outgoing packets to the devil.

I can fully opt not to ever touch FB. in fact, I don't have a FB account and so I'm safe. but while trying to order some items online, I can't seem to avoid google. that is just plain wrong. do no evil? bullshit.

Re:People don't understand facebook (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194430)

That annoys me as well. Why the hell are people using off-site javascript files in their webpages for things that could just as well have been done locally? Just copy the bloody files, it's not like there are no decent free javascript libraries.

Re:People don't understand facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38195028)

CDNs are handy for pulling javascript files. I use YUI things in a few projects. I could host them locally or have the biggest single time hit use a redundant geographically local mega-hosting site, I'll gladly take the hosted item.

Re:People don't understand facebook (2)

bfree (113420) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194764)

I use my hosts file (or dnsmasq) to point googleapis to my local apache which has a jquery mirror to match theirs.

Easy solution for facebook (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38193558)

Only allow people to use their accounts if they agree to allow target advertisement... That would almost guarantee the majority will keep targeted advertisement over losing their accounts.

Anybody honestly believe such a law will have much effect on a site like facebook? This law would be more effective against sites where there isn't an incentive to keep an account. Of course, they could have a clause in the law that forbids such requiring permission to have an account but kinda doubt they thought of that.

Frost 4ist!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38193592)

and bui-ldin6 is

Easy opt-out (3, Informative)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193652)

Adblock+ [adblockplus.org] works perfectly well for facebook just like it does for most other sites. I suppose an opt-in system is better, but adblock covers pretty much all websites while this half measure covers only facebook.

Re:Easy opt-out (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193690)

If people had to opt in for advertisements, advertising companies wouldn't make any money. In what world do you see that happening?

Re:Easy opt-out (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193972)

The world in which I run noscript and don't associate my real name with my free online accounts.

Not posting what I ate for breakfast on twitter helps too.
It was... coffee!

Data mine that.

Re:Easy opt-out (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193960)

No it doesn't....

http://hackademix.net/2010/05/26/google-analytics-opt-out-snake-oil/ [hackademix.net]

Noscript does. And I guess they have to emulate google features to do it cause of the state of the web.

Re:Easy opt-out (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194392)

No it doesn't....

http://hackademix.net/2010/05/26/google-analytics-opt-out-snake-oil/ [hackademix.net]

Noscript does. And I guess they have to emulate google features to do it cause of the state of the web.

I said that Adblock+ works perfectly well, I did not mention "Google Analytics Opt-out Browser Add-on" which you linked.

Re:Easy opt-out (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194594)

Oh, I was under the impression we were still talking about tracking mechanisms, but ya if all you want to do is block ads then adblock+ is great. It won't stop you from getting tracked. Also noscript blocks javascript which google analytics happens to use to achieve its functionality, thus blocking Google analytics javascript blocks google analytics.

Re:Easy opt-out (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194780)

Maybe with the right list it will work, if so would you please tell us what list? The iframes to facebook php got past my browsers adblock plus and NoScript so dns seems the sanest way to cut them off at the knees,

Nanny State! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38193666)

Yay for the Nanny State! You know, you can just skip adding all of your personal information in there if you choose. Individual responsibility. What a concept!

Re:Nanny State! (3, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194060)

According to your logic, we should get rid of the police, the justice and the military, because protecting yourself and punishing perpetrators is solely your responsibility.

The best way to avoid facebook getting your info (4, Informative)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193670)

The best way to avoid facebook getting your info:

DO NOT SIGN UP FOR FACEBOOK.

Yes, they have alternate ways of tracking you and getting your information- but if you don't sign up for facebook you get more spare time, and less privacy stolen.

If you already are a member- quit now before you give away some other facet of your life.

Honestly- we all know how evil they are by now- so why do people keep using them? Is it really worth giving away every piece of information of your life just to play crappy games (that most slashdotters could write a better version of in an evening).

Re:The best way to avoid facebook getting your inf (1)

Pirate_Pettit (1531797) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194014)

And there's plenty of middle ground in-between: Anyone who posts their political affiliation, sexual preference, religion, graduation date and place, home town, phone number (PHONE NUMBER!?), voluntarily, does so with the specific intention of letting others see it. Things like purchases and browsing habits, personal and unsolicited data mining are somewhat involuntary, and are legitimate privacy issues. Things like getting political ads because you posted your political party affiliation on the page of a public, ubiquitous site, are not legitimate privacy concerns, because you have already chosen to make them public. They wouldn't be on facebook, otherwise: it's not as though you need to put it on paper to remind yourself of these bits of information, and 'close friends and family' would likely already know these details, so on some level it's pretty obvious that you want people to know these things about you easily. That includes corporations. Don't like it, then don't post it. The only thing facebook requires of you is name, age, and an email address. And I've never gotten one bit of spam or directed mail to that address.

Re:The best way to avoid facebook getting your inf (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194248)

Yeah, I was buying cell-batteries the other day and the retailer wanted me to enter a facebook user and password so it could automatically insert a facebook comment that I had purchased batteries from them.

I remember thinking - WhyTF would I do that? Who on earth would want to post mundane information about what they buy online? IRS would looove to get a hold of their facebook profile no doubt.

Re:The best way to avoid facebook getting your inf (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194106)

And not going on sites that have a Facebook like button. Or are somehow affiliated with Facebook without telling you.

Re:The best way to avoid facebook getting your inf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194394)

and don't associate with any one who uses Facebook

You're not facebook's customer people... (5, Insightful)

drachenfyre (550754) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193718)

Seriously. If you aren't paying for it, you aren't the customer. You're the product being sold.

Re:You're not facebook's customer people... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194126)

Seriously. If you aren't paying for it, you aren't the customer. You're the product being sold.

The problem is that even if you're paying for it you aren't the customer. You're the product being sold.
Say hi to subsidized smartphones, and even retail smartphones. :)
Some kind of shitty era we're living in.

Re:You're not facebook's customer people... (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194456)

Seriously. If you aren't paying for it, you aren't the customer. You're the product being sold.

That should be your sig line.

Apache, bind, linux (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194870)

Not everything needs a customer... (unless you count customers as those who also contribute)
Unfortunately a lot of scamware tends to put people off the concept that there are plenty of good things out there that are clean and free.

simply solved (2)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#38193740)

Facebook will simply solve this by presenting their users with an annoying popup that only goes away if you agree (opt-in) to the new EULA.

So there's not much significance to all of this.

Re:simply solved (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194128)

If this causes Facebooks popularity to detoriate, more power to the E.U.!

Misdirected hysteria (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194008)

The press loves to get people all worked up about data mining. Data mining itself is not an invasion of privacy. At that point you are just an anonymous set of attributes. The purpose of data mining is to understand and discover the relationships that exist among different data. It's an analysis performed on a large body of data from a large population or it doesn't work. Your personal identity is not important or useful for its purpose. Targeted advertising isn't an invasion either even if it uses information you've provided along with relationships discovered in data mining to try to put something in front of you that you may be interested in. That's actually a service. Facebook or Google are capable of providing targeted ads without providing your information to the advertisers or any other third party. The merely need to match the ads they display on your page to your characteristics. Do you think Google shares your gmail e-mails with others in order to target advertising to you based on an email's content? An invasion of privacy happens when without your permission the information you've entered is sold or given to others to use. That is what should require an "opt in" from the user. That isn't an internet specific thing either. Every company or institution that collects information from you as part of a transaction should be so restricted.

Re:Misdirected hysteria (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194180)

Your description is good, but does warrant hysteria. It is important that you can't deduce the identity of an individual from statistics, and the EU privacy regime makes that point. But these statistics are highly personal in nature. We have only the company's vague assurances that humans are not accessing data on individuals.

An opt-in would solve many of these problems for all parties. If you'd rather see ads relevant to you than generic "Drink Coca Cola" ones, you'd have that option. Hell, I might take it.

At any rate, people are going to abuse the mined data. For example, police officers, nurses, city employees and other public employees routinely access public figures' and acquaintances' private data on computer systems in Finland, where that is highly illegal. The best protection against such data breaches is not to collect the data where it's not absolutely necessary.

Participatory Totalitarianism ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194080)

this is an interesting perspective - TED Talk last week

    http://www.tedxbrussels.eu/2011/speakers/kaliya_hamlin.html

Pffft, Zuckerberg will solve this in five seconds: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38194386)

1. Change the terms and conditions to include "I agree to X".
2. On the next login, show a "The terms and conditions changed" pop-up with miles of tiny text and a big "I agree" button next to the "Close my account". (Note how it doesn't say "delete".)
3. Auto-logout everyone who hasn't logged out in the last 24 hours.
4. Wait.
5. PROFIT.

(But at least the EU is stumbling in the right direction... this time.)

Just How Gullible Are You? (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194442)

The Palo Alto, Calif.-based company denies outright that it misuses or mishandles user information.

Does anybody believe this any longer?

Just adds one click. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38194546)

When rights are revokable, they are useless. "If you want our service, you must agree to give up all your rights to sue, your right to due process, and your right to privacy." Well, then they aren't rights. When you must "explicitly" give permission, they will just add a single splash page that people will click through to get the service, then they will do the "illegal" things as before. The only "cure" is the anti-libertarian solution of preventing that contract. The person can agree to the boilerplate ToS, but then the site must then explicitly request for every sharing, and when denied, not retaliate against the user.

Personally, I think the best compromise is a requirement that the user be notified on each and every instance of sharing, along with an opt-out for the information both in the primary database and the one it was transferred to. That was a failure for CAN-SPAM, where they can store your email forever and were never required by law to remove it from a list, unless they emailed you. So the list would be held by company A, who would then sell the list to people. That sold list would email you, and you could opt-out of that one, but the actual list you are on that generated that email was legally shielded, as the email came from a secondary source, protecting them from having to ever cull the master list.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?