×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Facebook Responds to EPIC FTC Timeline Complaint

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the what-was-this-stranger-doing-ten-years-ago dept.

Cloud 150

An anonymous reader writes with a snippet from a ZDNet article: "The Electronic Privacy Information Center is unhappy with the way Facebook launched its new Timeline profile. Last month, the privacy organization complained Facebook went too far because it started rolling out the redesign without asking users first. EPIC then followed up with a (four-page letter (PDF) to the Federal Trade Commission asking it to investigate the new feature to insure that it meets with the terms of a November 29th FTC-Facebook settlement. Facebook denies these claims, saying that the Timeline launch has nothing to do with its users' privacy."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

150 comments

What it has to do with privacy? (5, Insightful)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636698)

As far as I can see, the only change is how user profile is displayed. It's a cosmetic change. There is nothing visible that wasn't visible to begin with. The only change is that events and posts are grouped together based on their dates instead of that flat style that was before. But even then the dates were visible, they just weren't grouped together.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38636714)

So you admit that you use Facebook?

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (4)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636770)

And if he does? You just have to be smart with what information you enter, and what you do with it, and there, no risk at all.

Seriously, there's no real reason to hate on Facebook, at the very least, not this time. As for the users, there's no reason to hate on them at all just because they use Facebook.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (4, Informative)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636862)

On the same subject actually, I really wish Slashdot would remove those flickering social buttons on the posts. It's not even the fact that they're there (which is still somewhat ridiculous, but), it's the fact that they flicker as you move mouse. Makes it really hard to concentrate on actually reading the posts.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38636960)

Weird - I read your comment and I honestly have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. "Flickering social buttons"? I don't see anything like that on slashdot. I believe you see these things, but it's weird to read a comment from someone looking at the same web page I am but seeing something completely different.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (5, Informative)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637024)

Adblock Plus - add a rule to block "http://a.fsdn.com/sd/commentshareicons.png"

Seems to have fixed it for me, they are most annoying and I can't think of a time I have ever wanted to share someone else's slashdot post on social media sites.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (5, Insightful)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637210)

I went above and beyond and just blocked them everywhere.

#a(href*=facebook.com/sharer)
#a(href*=plusone.google.com/_/+1)
#a(href*=twitter.com/intent)

If that causes problems I might restrict them to slashdot.org. But it probably won't.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637302)

The ghostery plug-in also gives a satisfying smackdown to numerous scripty page warts and barnacles-with-ears.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

Man Eating Duck (534479) | more than 2 years ago | (#38638922)

The ghostery plug-in also gives a satisfying smackdown to numerous scripty page warts and barnacles-with-ears.

Seconded. It's currently blocking two trackers and three social network plugins (which are probably trackers as well) on Slashdot. It will also block many third-party discussion plugins like Facebook comments under articles at online newspapers, which may or may not be regarded as a benefit according to your view. I personally find that discussions under news articles are seldom constructive. Before some smartass jokes about me reading Slashdot comments, that's a different case entirely :)

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637310)

Can you explian this edit? Are they added somewhere in ad-block plus, some file on the system? I too don't like the social buttons to default to always pop up on my pages.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637450)

Yes, they're AdBlock Plus blocking rules. Put them in the Element Hiding Rules section.

They block <a> tags based on the content of their href attribute. *= means "contains the following string".

Putting slashdot.org before the # will restrict to this domain (and subdomains of it).

Block EVERYWHERE 4 any webbound app (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38638558)

0.0.0.0 a.fsdn.com Add THAT in a custom HOSTS file

Means it's then blocked everywhere globally

(Not only just certain webbrowsers with AdBlock type addons do...)

* HOWEVER - Layering in BOTH methods is probably the "best" way to go, just to get "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" vs. this thing though...

(Also - By not loading its data, you also save that bandwidth too (bonus, because YOU PAID FOR THAT BANDWIDTH out-of-pocket most likely - get your hard-earned money's worth!))

APK

P.S.=> Additionally, HOSTS aren't just for browsers that have AdBlock addons, but also work for:

---

1.) Globally for apps like Email programs external to webbrowsers, &/or any webbound application really!

2.) Global protection running @ ring 0/rpl 0/PnP kernelmode driver level, fastest & most efficient there is, as opposed to addons only runs in ring 3/rpl 3/usermode too = slower/less efficient + being limited to certain browsers only & NOT "global" to any/every webbound app too!

3.) Browser addons like AdBlock can slow browsers down (FF mostly this happens I have noted) IF You add too many addons, as well!

---

The latter doesn't happen with HOSTS files, & can actually speed you up by:

---

A.) "Hardcoding" your fav. sites into it

B.) Via A above, then you're avoiding potentially misdirected/dns poisoned DNS servers, DNSBL's &/or DNS Request Logs

C.) Resolving sites to their IP address FASTER once locally cached into RAM too from a HOSTS file "hardcode" of a site (vs. calling out to remote DNS servers @ all (much slower))

D.) Faster & SAFER online too (via blocking adbanners which HAVE had malicious script in them before, & more like they slowing you down & robbing you of bandwidth + speed YOU PAID FOR out of pocket)

---

"Here endeth the lesson"...

... apk

Re:Block EVERYWHERE 4 any webbound app (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38638590)

I actually use Facebook. Your custom HOSTS file would make Facebook simply not work.

Odd: I C Facebook w/ a.fsdn.com HOST blocked! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38638762)

Then don't block it via HOSTS files. HOWEVER, oddly? Well - I get to Facebook sites though doing it..

(HOWEVER - I don't use facebook myself, so you MAY be correct IF you use facebook I suppose, & then you're better off "selectively blocking" via addons like AdBlock OR Opera's right-click "block content" option for selective blocks etc.).

APK

P.S.=> Oddly, the ONLY issue I have ever had even SEEING facebook pages is in my router!

E.G. -> When I set it to filter:

---

A.) Cookies
B.) JAVA applets (the one I suspect most, but haven't checked FOR SURE - I don't "do facebook" myself's why)
C.) ActiveX
D.) Proxies

---

Then? Heh - Then, I can't even SEE large tracts of facebook pages @ all (nearly zero/nada/squat/zip)...

... apk

Re:Odd: I C Facebook w/ a.fsdn.com HOST blocked! (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38639422)

No, never mind, this was about Facebook and I (strangely) assumed you were talking about Facebook.

I'd like to know how Slashdot looks without the CSS from a.fsdn.com. My guess is, it looks like shit. But I don't suppose that bothers you. Personally, I like the AJAX-y goodness that is Slashdot 2.0. If you like bludgeoning the internet into barely-working crap before you read it, that's your business.

You *MAY* wish 2 read _0xd0ad's post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38639132)

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38638626 [slashdot.org]

(So, "small wonder" that I can see facebook users' pages blocking a.fsdn.com as I said, eh?)

HOWEVER: It's NURSIE who said the "one to block" = a.fsdn.com here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38637024 [slashdot.org]

Apparently, it's really -> fbcdn.com to 'block' (or not) from this poster _0xd0ad here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38638626 [slashdot.org]

* You guys decide, because as I said? I don't USE/DO "facebook", for a LOT of reasons...

APK

P.S.=> Security & privacy being the "main ones" really, because until they "get more solid" on those fronts? I am just "leery" of it (as I am with smartphones for the most part too, especially ANDROID ones (cool as they are, need more "maturation" on the security front imo, the most))...

... apk_0xd0ad

Re:You *MAY* wish 2 read _0xd0ad's post... (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38639576)

You *MAY* wish 2 read _0xd0ad's post

Read it? I wrote it.

Apparently, it's really -> fbcdn.com to 'block' (or not) from this poster _0xd0ad here

Blocking fbcdn.com will make Facebook not work. I did not say you should block it. Unless you can block it on everything except Facebook, so that Facebook will still work. But your HOSTS file can't do that.

Re:Block EVERYWHERE 4 any webbound app (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38638626)

Oh, and by the way, fsdn.com is Slashdot, not Facebook. You're thinking of fbcdn.com.

Got a.fsdn.com from Nursie' post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38638804)

I got a.fsdn.com from "Nursie"'s post, here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38637024 [slashdot.org]

APK

Re:Got a.fsdn.com from Nursie' post (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38639518)

Nursie said to block a very specific URL, not an entire subdomain. You and your hammer are unwelcome here. Not every problem is a nail. You can't just bash an entire subdomain into nonexistence because you don't like ONE PICTURE on it.

Checked my HOSTS: fbcdn.com != blocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38638918)

Some "FYI" in my subject-line above, so you're probably right & perhaps Nursie was wrong here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38637024 [slashdot.org]

APK

P.S.=> Also, oddly? The ONLY issues I ever had seeing facebook pages is due to my router's filtering!

E.G. -> When I set it to filter:

---

A.) Cookies
B.) JAVA applets (the one I suspect most, but haven't checked FOR SURE - I don't "do facebook" myself's why)
C.) ActiveX
D.) Proxies

---

Then? Heh - Then, I can't even SEE large tracts of facebook pages @ all!

(Nearly zero/nada/squat/zip)...

Just as I stated to yourself or another poster in this exchange, here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2611312&cid=38638762 [slashdot.org]

... apk

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38639256)

If we're getting Slashdot-related wishes granted, I'd prefer they spend some time making Slashcode less of a massive clusterfuck. Slashdot is hands down the slowest, clunkiest, and least user-friendly website that I use on a daily basis.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636928)

I have every reason to hate users of Facebook who enter information about me. I may not be on Facebook, but I can still be tagged in a photo, have my name used in a "Check in" style post, have my details entered as an invitation to join Facebook (thereby linking my email address to me, the person who submitted the invitation, any picture I am tagged in without my knowledge etc).

I'm not paranoid, I just dislike the idea of my life being profiled by a private entity without my consent. I'm well aware that store / loyalty cards, CC companies etc do this; I accept that as part of the terms of service. What do I gain from Facebook?

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38637352)

What do I gain from Facebook?

Not living under a rock and having friends?

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38637356)

You might want to re-think who you want as your friends. If your "friends" are giving your personal information away to an entity who then sells it downstream to anyone who wants it, including most likely the big brother TLA agencies, I'd suggest those people are not actually friends.

My friends, somehow, do not do this to me. You need a better class of friends.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38637790)

Not everyone is aware that this is an issue to someone else. If all the people you know are privacy-conscious, you probably don't know that much people.

Hanlon's razor (3, Interesting)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637924)

You might want to re-think who you want as your friends. If your "friends" are giving your personal information away to an entity who then sells it downstream to anyone who wants it, including most likely the big brother TLA agencies, I'd suggest those people are not actually friends.

Or maybe they are friends, but are not educated in the implications. May I suggest you familiarize yourself with Hanlon's razor before judging you don't know and their worthiness for friendship? I don't know, something to do with social skills, rational thought, humanism, or something.

My friends, somehow, do not do this to me. You need a better class of friends.

Wow, just wow.

Re:Hanlon's razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38638366)

Wow, just wow.

What, exactly, is wrong with expecting your so called "friends" to not betray your trust?

Re:Hanlon's razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38638528)

Friends don't post things that involve you on Facebook to betray your trust. They do it because that's what everyone else does. It has little or nothing to do with quality of your friends... a measure usually having little to do with facebook.

Basically, most normal people don't get nearly as uptight about information sharing as we do, so they don't understand that "checking in" somewhere with your name, as friends will often do, is akin to stomping the life out of your dog.

Re:Hanlon's razor (2)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38638712)

Wow, just wow.

What, exactly, is wrong with expecting your so called "friends" to not betray your trust?

Again, wow, just wow. Ignorance of what you desire is not an indication of betrayal. As I said before, Hanlon's razor, which what separates reasonable expectations and stupidity. It is stupid to take actions carried out of ignorance/innocence and attribute malice or betrayal connotations to it. Yes, it is stupid, regardless of how you want to rationalize it.

Re:Hanlon's razor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38639184)

Ignorance of what you desire is not an indication of betrayal.

You could... maybe... TALK to them and tell them your preference. You know, actually communicating with another human being, like people used to do back in the days before Facebook.

Oh, wait, I forgot, this is slashdot. Never mind.

It's seriouslly bizarre to me to see the lengths to which the FB-sheep will go to excuse their lack of basic ability to communicate with other human beings without somebody else recording every word they say and logging it forever.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38638242)

I'm not aware of Facebook selling my information, though I know they use it to target ads. I'd be somewhat interested to know if they are, though I don't share much about myself that isn't public knowledge.

That said, more than once I've had to ask some acquaintances to take down photos of me. I just don't love the idea of there being photos of me all red-faced inebriated being posted on the internet.

When you're goofing around with friends somewhere, that's one thing. Sharing the photographic evidence of that with hundreds or thousands of people you don't even know... well that's unnecessary. I don't want to feel like I have to be careful about what I say or do when I'm tying one on with friends (on the rare occasions we do anymore).

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38637454)

Sorry to hear you are no longer going to use the internet, cell phones, and you are moving off the grid to a cave and continue to live alone so no one can say or think about you without your permission. You know you are tracked everywhere, isp, search engine, etc all by your ip address and more. You can not escape from us. Your phone calls are tracked, and over heard using technology to see what key words you use to flag you. All you posts that you seem to like using your handle here http://slashdot.org/~L4t3r4lu5 is tracked so anyone can read about you and see what your thinking.
 
  You need to man up and tell the people who are doing the tagging and doing the invites to take a hike and quit it. It's not a social network fault that they give their users easy to use features that draw more money to the sites.
 
Oh and I forgot the Backdoors in the operating systems that allow the government to see what you are doing on your computer. Also the IOS Government Backdoor that people should read about http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=458180

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38637466)

All of the things you mentioned annoy me too. That's one of the reasons why I have a Facebook account. Since I have an account, I can control the settings. If someone tries to tag me in a picture (and they do!), I get an email with a chance to approve it. I don't approve them, I go delete the tag from the picture. Facebook doesn't know where I live (fake address in a different state). They don't know my phone number. My security settings are pretty locked down and don't allow strangers to message me, etc. If you do this, you are better able to manage what people may post about you on Facebook than you can if you don't even have an account.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

zarthrag (650912) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637712)

This should be illegal in the first place. You shouldn't have to opt-in because of a lack of an opt-out.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38638474)

Sorry, but people might talk about you, or show pictures of you, in real life too. You won't even know about it, and you can't really opt-out of that either. Or you can if you don't deal with other people at all. But then you solve your issue with Facebook at the same time.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38638756)

When your mom mentions you on the phone or shows someone a picture, the likely 3rd party exposure of that mention or photo is 1 or 2. On facebook, it's the number of tagged individuals, + 1, times the number of friends each of those people has (let's call it avg 200). So 4 people in one photo, posted by a fifth, is 1,000+ individuals in one, nonchalant post. Often more.

Short of robbing a bank and ending up on the news, you didn't usually have to think about that kind of exposure before facebook.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637824)

Ha, good try. Your fake address is one "At $YourName's house for a kewl patray!" check in post + GPS coordinates away from being rendered useless.

See, I used to have a Facebook account. However all I ever ended up doing was confirming the data which was personal by refusing to allow it to be published.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (2)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637948)

All of the things you mentioned annoy me too. That's one of the reasons why I have a Facebook account. Since I have an account, I can control the settings. If someone tries to tag me in a picture (and they do!), I get an email with a chance to approve it. I don't approve them, I go delete the tag from the picture. Facebook doesn't know where I live (fake address in a different state). They don't know my phone number. My security settings are pretty locked down and don't allow strangers to message me, etc. If you do this, you are better able to manage what people may post about you on Facebook than you can if you don't even have an account.

^^^ THIS.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637752)

I have every reason to hate users of Facebook who enter information about me. I may not be on Facebook, but I can still be tagged in a photo, have my name used in a "Check in" style post, have my details entered as an invitation to join Facebook (thereby linking my email address to me, the person who submitted the invitation, any picture I am tagged in without my knowledge etc). I'm not paranoid, I just dislike the idea of my life being profiled by a private entity without my consent. I'm well aware that store / loyalty cards, CC companies etc do this; I accept that as part of the terms of service. What do I gain from Facebook?

I wonder what you will do if a friend posts a picture of you on a non-FB page, like a blog or a non-commercial web page. What are you going to do? Or if a newspaper takes a picture on the street and you are in it. What are you going to do?

At the very least, if a friend or acquaintance of yours post/tag a pic of you, you can ask them to undo just that. You cannot do that with other venues, at least not easily and without involving legal action.

I can understand the desire of being a hermit, but to go bananas because a friend (not a random person, but someone you call a friend) tags you on his FB, what's wrong with you? Yes, you have a right to get all pissy, but still, what's wrong with you? You are just building strawmen to be upset at, building up a cause to be upset about and for all the interweebz to see, that's all.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38638082)

I don't want to be hermit. Go back and redo your reading comprehension classes from grade / primary school. I said I don't want a private company, from which I require no service and gain no remuneration, to profit from my personal data. That is not an alien concept, one quite sufficiently backed up by the widespread concern of identity theft, for one example.

To me, the costs out-weigh the benefits. This is basic logic.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38638796)

I don't want to be hermit. Go back and redo your reading comprehension classes from grade / primary school. I said I don't want a private company, from which I require no service and gain no remuneration, to profit from my personal data. That is not an alien concept, one quite sufficiently backed up by the widespread concern of identity theft, for one example. To me, the costs out-weigh the benefits. This is basic logic.

Yes, and as you tell me I lack reading comprehension, I remind you of the questions I posted that still remained unanswered.

I wonder what you will do if a friend posts a picture of you on a non-FB page, like a blog or a non-commercial web page. What are you going to do? Or if a newspaper takes a picture on the street and you are in it. What are you going to do?

Yes, I get you. Still, what are you going to do about it? Hate facebook users as you said in the post of yours that I first replied? That's just an asinine response, and that is my point of contention. What's the point of being so aware of privacy concerns if the response you produce not conductive for what you desire? If you are going to be (or claim to be) logical, be all the way.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (2)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636940)

Seriously, there's no real reason to hate on Facebook [...]. As for the users, there's no reason to hate on them at all just because they use Facebook.

Oh well, just as there was no reason to hate aol users in the 90ies...

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38636998)

And if he does? You just have to be smart with what information you enter, and what you do with it, and there, no risk at all.

you forget to be smart about which people you send friend requests to, which people send friend requests to you, which posts you read, which links to external sites you click on, which you don't click on, at which times you visit Facebook and from which device, which other sites that have Facebook tracking you visit, ...

Any action you take or don't take that they can track says something about who you are.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 2 years ago | (#38638414)

This particular change doesn't seem to significantly change privacy, but...

You just have to be smart with what information you enter, and what you do with it, and there, no risk at all.

No "risk" of what, exactly?

The studies on what you can gather from Facebook data are shocking. Simply based on who you are friends with, researchers have shown they can accurately guess whether you're gay, where your hometown is, what your approximately birthdate is, etc., even if you don't make those facts available on your profile. With an extrapolated hometown and approximate birthdate, they can pretty accurately figure out the first five digits of your Social Security number (something like 30% of the time). If someone had a large sample of data, they could probably predict the other digits as well.

With face recognition software, someone could snap a picture of you and get to a probable SS# and other personal details in a matter of seconds.

Granted, this doesn't work all the time. But even if your profile is empty, facts about your friends may allow someone to predict a lot of stuff about you. That's the power of statistics and aggregate data.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636774)

Yes I do, it's a good service and there really isn't anything that compares. Especially since I have friends all over the world and travel a lot. When traveling and going to new place, it's extremely easy to find restaurants and other small businesses via Facebook. They don't often even have websites, and you wouldn't know about them anyway, but via your friends or other connections you stumble upon them. Google fails in that because not all places have websites and you don't know what to look for to begin with. And it's easy to add new friends you meet while traveling.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38636866)

Yes I do...since I have friends all over the world and travel a lot...Google fails in that because not all places have websites and you don't know what to look for to begin with...

Translation:

There are MS astroturfers all over the world, and we travel online alot, fantasizing about what we're going to do when MS cuts us our paychecks. And in keeping with the overall theme of my posts (including the numerous aliases), I have to bash Google, otherwise I won't get paid.

FTFY

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (5, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636854)

So you admit that you use Facebook?

I also use facebook.

And I also have 2 Macs and 2 Windows PC's on my desk where I run VMs with everything from W98 to 2008 server as well as a couple of variations of linux. I program in a host of languages doing things from websites to industrial control systems to smart phone apps. I use Yahoo messenger, and on occasion use my 3 hotmail accounts. I'll admit that my ICQ profile is probably long gone, and at one stage I did have an AOL account, but moved on to Earthlink.

So has your little, puny AC head exploded yet?

Just a new, condensed view (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636762)

It just makes you even more aware/scared of all the things Facebook has on you. Which is good.
Aside from the privacy-concerns of giving away so much information at once it is a really nice visualization feature.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (2)

sunr2007 (2309530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636784)

one of Facebook's motive is to confuse users as much it can with respect to privacy. Timeline is doing that. for e.g., if u enable timeline any person on FB can see where u are born , what u did in which year n all type of activities. It helps advertisers whom FB is selling your information.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (2)

DCTech (2545590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636836)

Anyone could see those years and dates to begin with. They were always there. Timeline isn't helping advertisers in any way, nor is FB selling your information to them. That is their valuable asset, why would they be selling it? They run advertising system where you can somewhat target users, they're not selling information. And I've actually run a few ads on Facebook and you can't target that well, Google lets you target much more.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38637106)

Oh, sure, anyone could see them, but with any reasonable amount of activity on someone's wall you'd have to click an awful lot of times to get back to activity from 2011 (less than 2 weeks ago), much less 2010 or 2009.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637342)

Advertisers are not clicking through facebook pages. They are using automated tools to scrape them or using facebook's API to get the info. All this information was visible to these tools before. This update levels the playing field by giving a facebook user more info about what is stored on facebook. It is a good thing privacy wise.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38638182)

I already knew what was stored on facebook about me.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637604)

Anyone could see those years and dates to begin with. They were always there.

According to the complaint in TFA, that is not quite true.

EPIC described Facebook’s launch by saying the social networking giant is posting “archived user information” so as to make “old posts available under Facebook’s current downgraded privacy settings” all “without user consent.” Furthermore, the group noted “users have just a week to clean up their history before Timeline goes live.”

So if you do nothing and the feature goes live, information that would have previously been not displayed due to your privacy settings will now be displayed.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637406)

one of Facebook's motive is to confuse users as much it can with respect to privacy. Timeline is doing that. for e.g., if u enable timeline any person on FB can see where u are born

you mean people will be able to view what is already public record? oh the horror!

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (2)

slthytove (771782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636790)

It's a cosmetic change. There is nothing visible that wasn't visible to begin with.

Agreed. The backlash after any Facebook redesign is ridiculous. Now we have to complain to the FTC?

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38636816)

So, my evidence here is third hand, as I've never used Facebook, but based on the rantings and ravings of a certain vagina possessing friend, the issue is this:
1. User creates Facebook account to talk with friends
2. User and friends post many horrible, inappropriate things on Facebook and let all their friend see them
3. User gets friend request from mother/father/teacher/grandma
4. User realizes mother/father/teacher/grandma friend request can't be rejected due to familial obligation, and can't be accepted due to horrible, inappropriate things on Facebook account
5. User deletes all the horrible, inappropriate things and accepts friend request
6. Timeline rolls out and grandma scrolls through users Timeline and sees all the horrible things that were deleted

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

iB1 (837987) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636888)

So, my evidence here is third hand, as I've never used Facebook, but based on the rantings and ravings of a certain vagina possessing friend

Most of us call them women...

HTH

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38637412)

No, his friend just carries a used vagina in his pocket. It's quite creepy really :(

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636894)

It will, however, make facebook worse.

Not that this should be a legal issue, but every time they make a change to the interface, it gets worse.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (3, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637012)

Wait. I'm confused. There's privacy on Facebook? When did this happen?

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637486)

There's always been privacy on Facebook. Any data that you place on Facebook is made difficult to access for anyone who doesn't pay Facebook.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38637090)

I hate it, but I agree.

I hate it because for a "timeline" it's hideously non-linear. It has two columns, and for no apparent reason. I mean, the old wall tended to be rather non-linear already (since it grouped similar posts), but this just multiplies that by two.

I agree, however, that it basically changes nothing about how much information is available. The only thing they've changed is how it is displayed.

It does, however, allow you to jump directly to a particular year, which is a significant change in how much trouble it is to browse the old material on someone's wall. Previously, you'd have had to click an awful lot of times to get back that far.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637142)

It used to get real slow to find posts more than a couple pages off the first wall page (things may have changed in 2 years though).

But I agree, stuff used to be there. Also, don't you need to install a timeline app, and pick who gets to see a timeline vs your wall?

I hardly feel it was shoved down users throats.

Re:What it has to do with privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38638164)

When I switched to timeline view A LOT of my photo albums were made "public" by default along with a handful of other things. My only guess why is because they were old enough albums that no privacy data was stored. Seems like the default value for converting old data should be Private/Friends Only and not Public.

I viewed my profile as "public" and went through a lot of things setting them to private... I could see where people would complain about this. I did it before I made my timeline "public" so it wasn't a big deal to me.

Not a Facebook fan, but.. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38636738)

I'm not a Facebook fan at all, but if anything it appears to me that the new timeline and accompanying activity view make it easer to hide, delete and change the audience of individual items.

Stop saying EPIC (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38636752)

About everything!!!! Oh wait, it fits here. NVM :p

As a programmer... (4, Funny)

Pionar (620916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636764)

The first thing I noticed in TFS was the unmatched parentheses.

Re:As a programmer... (4, Funny)

troon (724114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636870)

I'm still waiting for the summary to finish...

Re:As a programmer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38638718)

I'm still waiting for the summary to finish...

)

Re:As a programmer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38636984)

I almost had an aneurysm when I spotted that. I saw 3 years of my life vanish in an instant.

I must write a userscript to complete parenthesis on pages for me. It's too dangerous to leave those things out in the wild. They'll cause all sorts of havoc.

Re:As a programmer... (2)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637126)

That's what you get for reading TFS.

I think I read the first sentence and the last sentence and completely ignored what came in between them.

And.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38636804)

When people sign up the agree to let Facebook change HOW stuff is displayed. EPIC is an EPIC failure.

Remove social buttons from comments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38636814)

While we are on the subject - is there a way to remove the obnoxious social sharing button that flickers down the page while I try to read comments? I can't picture a situation that I'd ever want to share a comment from this site and it is incredibly distracting while I try to read...

Re:Remove social buttons from comments? (4, Informative)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637144)

Can, and already did. You can too.

Block them everywhere:
#a(href*=facebook.com/sharer)
#a(href*=plusone.google.com/_/+1)
#a(href*=twitter.com/intent)

or just on Slashdot:
slashdot.org#a(href*=facebook.com/sharer)
slashdot.org#a(href*=plusone.google.com/_/+1)
slashdot.org#a(href*=twitter.com/intent)

Bonus filters, no additional charge:
#a(href*=goat.)
#a(href*=goatse.)
slashdot.org#a(href*=/boredgeek)
slashdot.org#a(href*=/geekatwork)
slashdot.org#a(href*=/goo.gl/)
slashdot.org#a(href*=/is.gd/)

Facebook? (4, Insightful)

bytesex (112972) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636838)

Facebook is not critical infrastructure (or even near it); users willingly and knowlingly signed up for what amounts to a toy. A toy with commercial motives.

Re:Facebook? (4, Insightful)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637018)

Unfortunately, the way they work, they already have a profile on you even if you dont sign up on their serivce. So many websites add that "useful" Like button, that servers as a tracking trojan, that it's impossible to navigate without being caught and profiled by Facebook. They keep growing a profile on you even if you dont have an account. They'll just tie everything up the day you actually make an account to "check some friend's pictures" or something.

Re:Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38637912)

Which is why you disable it using abp and noscript...

You are the product not the end customer...

I have a facebook account. And the only time any of their sites are enabled is when I am on that site. With an account I at least have a miniscule amount of control. I am going to be tagged in the service anyway...

Re:Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38638070)

it's impossible to navigate without being caught and profiled by Facebook.

Lolwut?

You mean, the tracking crap that YOUR computer requests and loads? My computer doesn't, because I don't want them to track me. If you voluntarily load their like buttons and javascript infested crap, don't complain when they know you loaded it.

Look, it's your computer. You get to control what it does. It is beholden to you, and no one else. That means that you get to decide what it should and should not do. If you don't want to load FB's like button, by all means, don't load it! But it makes no sense to do so and then bitch that you did it. It's your choice!

Re:Facebook? (4, Interesting)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637034)

Facebook is no mere toy. Used properly it is an efficient communications platform. Not perfect by any means, but denying Facebook's strength as a communications platform is really quite ignorant.

Re:Facebook? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38637754)

.....ha ha ha ha ha ha

Re:Facebook? (1)

http (589131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38638550)

What communication feature does Facebook have that email/IM does not?

Re:Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38638752)

How about targeted demographic with social (pressure) connections. Required analogy: Email/IM is a conversation whereas facebook is a town square.

I have a facebook profile which is all positive, wonderful and makes me look like a saint. When an individual "Likes" something, it is often broadcasted or associated with the user's profile. Those associations create a demographic and an archetype.

Archetypes can be exploited, directed and organized. This organization creates tribes (social networks with common goals/ideals/identity).

I just "Liked" a movie that will be released later this year so I can follow their progress. They have access to all my demographic data including my associations.

You don't get all that information via email/IM.

Re:Facebook? (2)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38638838)

What communication feature does Facebook have that email/IM does not?

Tehnically: Nothing.

In practice: I don't have to hunt for email addresses or tell my technically clueless friends how to use IM brand X. I just tell them that well talk/message on Facebook and from their perspective, things Just Work.

Presentation Change Only (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38636876)

Facebook is ok on this one, to an extent.

The only thing that I can tell the timeline does is make information on someone's profile page absolutely impossible to find. That should IMPROVE the users' security if nothing else.

Display only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38636968)

Timeline is just a new way for Facebook to show off all the data they have with you. It is just better organized and makes it even more creepy. As soon as my profile kicks over to the timeline, I am dumping Facebook for good and just keeping a anonymous account to work on my developer stuff with.

confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38637048)

I'm confused why so many people seem to dislike Facebook.... and use it anyway.

Seriously, why would you keep using something you don't like? Why do they complain to the FTC about anything? Why not just, you know... not use it any more?

You can always change the channel... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38637080)

This "free" service has a cost and that cost is the value that the company can extract from your information by selling it to whoever is willing to pay for it.
Four-five years ago, the notion that FB was collecting and selling private info was dismissed as conspiracy theory. Today, it causes outrage.
The remedy, as always is to stop using it. Judging by the ever increasing number of users, that's not happening, so the privacy concerns only bother us enough to register the token complaint but not enough to stop using the service. When the balance tilts the other way, we'll just change the channel.

Of course it impacts privacy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38637326)

Case in point.
A user chooses to *hide* most if not all of their content. Must be a friend before you can see anything, including photos and videos, etc...
Now, timeline comes along and all of a sudden things that were thought hidden or long gone are suddenly visible.
Short video clips, when the user joined facebook, when photos were posted are all visible now.

It definitely exposed more data than previously, which is why I've disabled / prevented timeline from functioning - and will for as long as possible.

ENSURE (2)

Draque (1367509) | more than 2 years ago | (#38637328)

There's a reason that there are two different words, one meaning "a fiscal investment against mishap" and the other meaning "to make certain."

My question (1)

HideyoshiJP (1392619) | more than 2 years ago | (#38638136)

I wonder who Facebook isn't paying? Not to troll too much, but the government has been pretty corporatist lately. I suggest to Facebook to get some better paid lobbyists. Yes, I'm terribly cynical.

A simple solution to this merry-go-round (1)

JasonBee (622390) | more than 2 years ago | (#38639520)

Give FB users the option of paying 1 dollar per month (okay...99 cents) for the service. Offer premium options.

Lord know they have plenty of well paid staff on board to build the option.

Roll experimental services (that annoy people) out to all non-paying members, explain that they can avoid all such issues by paying the nominal fee. The 12.00 per year will give you some form of SLA and a requirement by FB to conform to some other norm. Paying clients will appreciate the extra voice they have, because they are paying customers.

if FB fails to comply, they've set the paid service bar high enough that other services will start charging, making other options viable.

If you pay for your data, you can also truly "own" it, and likely pay for the option to dump it all and move on.

Oh, and FB could well raise another 100-200 million a year this way, which gives a potential IPO some heft.

I'm paying decent monthly fees to several services now. I prefer to pay for my social networks now that I've experienced the underbelly of free service SLAs.

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...