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!

Facebook To Share Private Data With Politico

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the sharing-is-caring dept.

Facebook 157

tomhudson writes "AllThingsD is reporting that Facebook has agreed to share users' private data with Politico. Quoting: 'Most notably, the Facebook-Politico data set will include Facebook users' private status messages and comments. Every post and comment — both public and private — by a U.S. user that mentions a presidential candidate's name will be fed through a sentiment analysis tool.' Yes, they claim it will be anonymized, but we've seen that doesn't really work in real life."

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

Google does the same (5, Informative)

TechGuys (2554082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38715888)

Even the article mentions it:

This is similar to the way Google offers reports on search trends based on its users’ aggregate search activities.

In fact, all of this is public information too. You can look at search amounts for specific searches here [google.com] .

It's just numerical data. Facebook seems to do this analysis by searching all the posts that mention candidate's name and if the associated words are positive or negative.

The comparison to anonymized data in the summary is stupid. Facebook publishing any of those messages, they're just doing analysis on them. There would be good point in this article if they actually published those messages because then anonymizing doesn't work, but it's a moot point because they aren't making anything public. Only the aggregated search amounts.

Re:Google does the same (4, Insightful)

ThisIsSaei (2397758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38715916)

It's cool to hate facebook + sensationalist headlines get more attention = this article.

Re:Google does the same (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716130)

Pssh, I was hating FB way before that became cool.

Also, it's obviously not working, despite the numerous warnings about FB people still maintain their accounts and we have yet to see the government really step in and tell them to stop spying on random internet users.

Re:Google does the same (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716176)

I was hating facebook before it was cool to hate myspace.

Re:Google does the same (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716266)

You should join the rest of us in hating Google for the same reasons we hate Facebook and Microsoft. It's very avant-garde here on Slashdot.

Re:Google does the same (3, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716330)

Coincidentally, I bet most slashdotters can't provide a valid reason (no imagination, no tinfoil) for hating any of them. And I'm accomplishing nothing by stating so besides ruffling the herd :)

Re:Google does the same (2)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716676)

Coincidentally, I bet most slashdotters can't provide a valid reason (no imagination, no tinfoil) for hating any of them.

Because I want to.

Valid enough for me.

Re:Google does the same (1)

ThisIsSaei (2397758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38717034)

It seems that's reason enough to denote the original comment trolling. Perhaps if I was needlessly verbose...

Re:Google does the same (0)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38717142)

The original comment was pretty insightful. Proof that idiots get mod points. Just another day at /.

Re:Google does the same (3, Insightful)

garaged (579941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716850)

Well, you must be new around, I have seen WAY too much reasons to hate pretty much any existing company just in the last couple of months :D

Re:Google does the same (-1, Flamebait)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38717274)

No you haven't, your not authorized or qualified to see anything influential, and...

1. You didn't provide a reason, so for every pt I get for being new (I'm not) you get 3 for being an idiot (you get the pts anyways, experience is gained, intelligence is given).
2. Are you a business analyst? Do you do marketing forecast? Your mom's basement and doing her taxes don't qualify you.

You can have your own opinion and your welcome to it, but don't act like you know shit about business and try to pass it on me, I assure you you don't.

I personally don't see a reason to hate them, it's like hating wal-mart for having a superior business model instead of coming up with a better one yourself.

I bring up this point because the article is strongly biast towards privacy violoation vs statistical data. Fb violating people's privacy can be truly horrible (though Idk why ppl would care who knew about the political views they posted on fb for everyone to see???), but in this case they are doing statistical data, which is completely different, and I believe can be used to help the world when used in the right light.

Re:Google does the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38717712)

Moo! Moo! Moo!

Re:Google does the same (2)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716438)

Pfft, hating M$ and F-UB are SO mainstream.

I hate slashdot.

Re:Google does the same (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38717110)

Pfft, hating M$ and F-UB are SO mainstream.

I hate slashdot.

Well, I hate everybody.

We Like Google, Hate Microsoft.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716898)

We Like Google yet we hate Microsoft, Facebook, Oracle, Novell, Fox, Apple, British Overlords.

Re:Google does the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716948)

You should join the rest of us in hating Google for the same reasons we hate Facebook and Microsoft. It's very avant-garde here on Slashdot.

I'm ways ahead of all you biatches. I used to hate Microsoft, then MySpace, then facebook, then Google, then my pc...now i hate myself! I'll wait for the rest of you schmucks to catch up.

Re:Google does the same (3)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716354)

I hated AOL way before you owned a computer.

Re:Google does the same (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38715958)

But would they properly aggregate posts about Mittens?

Re:Google does the same (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38715960)

This is completely different.

Google is taking data that users are providing them, and doing statistical analysis on that data. There's no issue with this, because it's not leaving Google.

Facebook is taking data that users are providing them, and sending it off to a third party to do statistical analysis on it. This is a terrible invasion of privacy, because Facebook users never intended for their private data to be shipped off to other companies.

If you can't see the difference here than you're either dumb or an anti-Google shill.

Re:Google does the same (2)

gnick (1211984) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716028)

Google is taking data that users are providing them, and doing statistical analysis on that data. There's no issue with this, because it's not leaving Google.

Umm... Sure it is. In fact, you can go look at anonymized aggregate search trends from Google yourself. For [google.com] free [google.com] .

I am a huge Google fan, but don't think that anything you do with them is kept private unless they specifically tell you so.

Re:Google does the same (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716078)

yes, google shares anonymized aggregate search trends. facebook is sharing anonymized personal messages and typed posts. the difference here is night and day.

Re:Google does the same (4, Informative)

TechGuys (2554082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716136)

facebook is sharing anonymized personal messages and typed posts. the difference here is night and day.

No they aren't. Summary is just badly worded. Facebook will not share any messages with anyone, they will run the statistics tools themselves. Read the announcement by Facebook [facebook.com] , where they clearly state that. Politico will not get the messages.

Re:Google does the same (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716272)

facebook is sharing anonymized personal messages and typed posts. the difference here is night and day.

No they aren't. Summary is just badly worded. Facebook will not share any messages with anyone, they will run the statistics tools themselves. Read the announcement by Facebook [facebook.com] , where they clearly state that. Politico will not get the messages.

The link you provide doesn't really clarify. It implies that actual messages go to Politico but it's hard to say for sure.

"Facebook will compile mentions of the candidates in U.S. users' posts and comments as well as assess positive and negative sentiments expressed about them. Facebook’s data team will use automated software tools frequently used by researchers to infer sentiment from text. This information will be exclusively available on POLITICO with analysis by its journalists."

A compilation of mentions of candidates would presumably be more than just some aggregate statistics. But is "the information" that they give to Politico the same thing as the compilation of mentions?

Re:Google does the same (2)

TechGuys (2554082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716342)

No. Facebook will compile the mentions of the U.S. candidates. Then Facebook's data team will use automated software tools to do the statistics. These statistics are given to Politico, not the actual messages.

Re:Google does the same (3, Informative)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716502)

If Politico actually believes that it can get useful information from the statistics alone, they paid a ton of money for absolutely nothing. People can hawk the social media tools all they want, but all they do is keyword analysis with some language heuristics thrown in. The vendors themselves will tell you (if they are honest) that they cannot tell you what the accuracy of their tool is, because nobody knows for sure how the training posts correlate with the posts in the wild.

And DCTech/InsightIn140Bytes/SmithZ/Whatever else you will post under in the next FB/MS/Google stories, I hope you get paid well. Your job is worse than that of a used car salesman. At least they don't lie about whether they are used car salesman.

Re:Google does the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38717046)

And DCTech/InsightIn140Bytes/SmithZ/Whatever else you will post under in the next FB/MS/Google stories, I hope you get paid well. Your job is worse than that of a used car salesman. At least they don't lie about whether they are used car salesman.

I didn't know you could get paid just for being a paranoid dumbfuck fanboy.

Re:Google does the same (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38717506)

If Politico actually believes that it can get useful information from the statistics alone, they paid a ton of money for absolutely nothing. People can hawk the social media tools all they want, but all they do is keyword analysis with some language heuristics thrown in. The vendors themselves will tell you (if they are honest) that they cannot tell you what the accuracy of their tool is, because nobody knows for sure how the training posts correlate with the posts in the wild.

You do realize that they can't get statistics on stuff they can't see, right? It's all fine and well to gather statistics on the public stuff, but what about the private stuff? That's where the analytics behind Google and Facebook come in, because that information isn't supposed to be released, and if it can't be released, it means any third party wanting it needs to pay the company to run the analytics for them.

Heck, sometimes just the keyword search differences between public posts and private posts can be revealing,

Re:Google does the same (4, Interesting)

gnick (1211984) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716202)

I think that saying that FB is "sharing" the personal messages and such is a little bit of a stretch though. Yes, they have partnered with Politico (they've been working with them for years), but according to their announcement [facebook.com] , the only things that are viewed or shared to anything but the automated analysis program are stats on how many mentions each candidate gets and aggregations of positive or negative "sentiment."

It's uncomfortable, and I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I don't think it violates the TOS that I, of course, read thoroughly before agreeing to it. The only part that really chaps me is that, if I were offended enough that they were doing this, I'd have no way of retracting posts that I'd already made even if I discontinued my account.

Re:Google does the same (1)

Tyr07 (2300912) | more than 2 years ago | (#38717052)

It still won't learn! We can't get it to read the TOS! When will you learn iCentipede!

Psht...reading TOS.

Re:Google does the same (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716110)

You have missed the point. You gave that data to Google when you searched via Google. Google is doing the analysis itself and then presenting the findings itself. At no point does it leave Google. Plus, no identifying info leaves Google as it is all scrubbed down to pure numerical form before it is presented.

With this new Facebook/Politico thing, Facebook is giving the data to Politico to analyze. There's the problem. They are taking what I put on Facebook and giving it to someone else without my permission. That would be like Google taking your emails and giving them to a 3rd party to look at.

This isn't even subtle difference, it's pretty blatant. If Facebook wants to analyze it and keep it all on Facebook, that's fine, or they should allow an opt-in (NOT and opt-out) option to have your posts counted in this.

Re:Google does the same (2)

TechGuys (2554082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716158)

With this new Facebook/Politico thing, Facebook is giving the data to Politico to analyze. There's the problem. They are taking what I put on Facebook and giving it to someone else without my permission. That would be like Google taking your emails and giving them to a 3rd party to look at.

That is entirely false. Facebook is not giving Politico any private messages. They will run the statistics tools themselves.

Re:Google does the same (-1, Troll)

TechGuys (2554082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716076)

Google is taking data that users are providing them, and doing statistical analysis on that data. There's no issue with this, because it's not leaving Google.

Facebook is taking data that users are providing them, and sending it off to a third party to do statistical analysis on it. This is a terrible invasion of privacy, because Facebook users never intended for their private data to be shipped off to other companies.

If you can't see the difference here than you're either dumb or an anti-Google shill.

No, that's only what the summary is claiming. How unsurprising that it is wrong. Read the announcement by Facebook [facebook.com]

Facebook will compile mentions of the candidates in U.S. users' posts and comments as well as assess positive and negative sentiments expressed about them. Facebookâ(TM)s data team will use automated software tools frequently used by researchers to infer sentiment from text.

Re:Google does the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716792)

Eh? That announcement doesn't claim neither. Note how it says "compile as well as assess". They could be much clearer about that, so it's their own fault for leaving this to speculation.

Re:Google does the same (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716306)

There IS a difference, but I wouldn't say it's COMPLETELY different.

Re:Google does the same (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716512)

It's not, actually. While the summary is misleading, Facebook is performing the analysis themselves and providing Politico with the summary results. It would be more correct to say that Facebook is sharing the results of analysis performed on private data with Politico, as they're not sharing the data itself.

Re:Google does the same (2)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38717126)

Facebook is taking data that users are providing them, and sending it off to a third party to do statistical analysis on it. This is a terrible invasion of privacy, because Facebook users never intended for their private data to be shipped off to other companies.

Facebook never intended for users to give them data that they considered private. If you want to keep something private, common sense dictates that you not give it to other people. Heck, it's not even common sense, it's tautological -- data that you give to other people isn't private (anymore) unless there are specific safeguards (attorney-client privilege, HIPAA comes to mind) that create a positive duty on them not to share it.

Seriously folks, if you've sent it to someone else, it's not private. If you've kept it to yourself, no one can leak it but you.

Another day another account (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38715976)

Google does not give it's data to anyone else. Facebook does. The difference is clear.

Oh also fuck you DCTech/cmdrpony/ge7/tech4. Get a life.

Re:Google does the same (4, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716014)

Small point: There is a vast difference between some half-cobbled search term pecked in, and a statement of personal ideology. I mean, something like "Sen. Congresscritter criminal record" on Google has a lot more variations of context that could be applied than a Facebook-borne "Senator Congresscritter is a friggin pedophile/terrorist that stomps on puppies and then enjoys beating up old ladies while forcing his wife and kids to watch. If it wasn't for his money and status, he'd be enduring 30 years fo hard sodomy at the nearest federal penitentiary! Oh, and he cheats on his taxes - I have proof!"

Otherwise? While it would likely begin as just numerical data, I can see how the Facebook setup could be very easily abused. You're still parsing the words, after all, and those can easily contain the owner's name, or at least enough references to infer it quite easily.

Re:Google does the same (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716032)

This is fine so long as Facebook only gives Politico the numerical results and not the actual information itself. TFA is a little skimpy on the details about who is actually running the analyzing tool: if it is Facebook, fine, but if Politico has access to the private data, that would be a problem.

Re:Google does the same (1)

jcreus (2547928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716074)

Well it's fine; but for a reason. Because all you Facebook members accepted the terms of use! (Some of us don't have that problem.) Even if it is in the terms of use (which I haven't read), you know, it's not much ethical giving out private data to third parties.

Re:Google does the same (2, Informative)

TechGuys (2554082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716102)

Yes, the summary is badly worded. Facebook themselves clearly say that it is Facebook who will run the statistics software [facebook.com] .

Re:Google does the same (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716328)

Ah, thanks. Facebook has the data either way, so I don't really see this being a privacy problem. So long as they do it right, of course.

Re:Google does the same (1)

ironjaw33 (1645357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716164)

The comparison to anonymized data in the summary is stupid. Facebook publishing any of those messages, they're just doing analysis on them. There would be good point in this article if they actually published those messages because then anonymizing doesn't work, but it's a moot point because they aren't making anything public. Only the aggregated search amounts.

The articles I've read about this don't specifically say as to how much aggregation Facebook will provide. I'm guessing that it would be a really coarse grained distribution of Facebook users' opinions and no different than the level of granularity most other political polls provide. However, if they provide breakdowns on very fine grained age ranges, geographic regions, ethnicity, gender, political views, etc, identifying specific people may be possible. I recall a similar study [chronicle.com] done with aggregated Facebook data by Harvard researchers where third parties using the data were able to identify some of the individuals.

Overall, I think this is mostly FUD. The only thing that makes this different than traditional surveys is that Facebook users don't have a choice as to whether or not they participate, but when it comes to Facebook, user choice seems to be the exception, not the rule.

Re:Google does the same (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716244)

Even the article mentions it:

This is similar to the way Google offers reports on search trends based on its users’ aggregate search activities.

In fact, all of this is public information too. You can look at search amounts for specific searches here [google.com] .

"Number of Global Searches" and "Number of Local Searches"? That's not a lot of information.

So you're telling us that Politico won't be getting Facebook's users age/birthday, gender information, party affiliation, and zip code, along with the number of times they mentioned a candidate's name positively or negatively?

Now I agree that this slashdot headline is mostly just for click-bait purposes, but personally, I would still love to see the specific report Politico was getting. The same goes for Google, if Google delivers any report privately to any company out there, I would love to see that private report as well (to make sure it only matches what's listed in the public adwords web page you just linked us to).

Re:Google does the same (2)

ilguido (1704434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716426)

I don't think that I'm offtopic if I ask you how you could read the FTA and write the first post (citing the FTA btw) in less than a minute after that the story was published. I'm not offtopic because the answer could invalidate all your points.

Re:Google does the same (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716626)

Oh, he's just an another part of CmdrPony/InsightIn140Bytes/DCTech/DavidSell sockpuppet (forgive me for not enumerating each of his throw-away accounts, I'm skipping 4 or 5 of them). He's got an account with subscription to see when the story's coming up and a new account every week to get first post with anti-Google tripe.

Check his posts history and see. He's always like this, once there's a chance to bash Google - he's right here. Here, there was even same scenario, an article about FB with his first post [slashdot.org] bashing Google.

Different expectation of privacy (1)

Comboman (895500) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716608)

I think the expectation of privacy is considerably different between submitting a query to a search engine and posting a message marked "PRIVATE" to a social network. A bit like the difference between making a call to 411 for directory assistance (where I expect the call may be recorded) and making a private telephone call (where I expect only the government to be able to record it, and only with a warrant, though perhaps I'm being a bit nostalgic in that regard).

when will the FBI come for me? (5, Funny)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#38715920)

i LOVE our glorious President. he's the Dearest Leader i've ever had

Re:when will the FBI come for me? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716288)

He's also an internet expert.

Re:when will the FBI come for me? (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38717262)

And very good at looking at things.

It's simple... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38715922)

We just have to troll the data by posting nothing but Ron Paul links on Facebook. /looks at Facebook feed

See! Everyone's already doing it!

Facebook posts and lawn signs.... (2)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716132)

If either of those things translated into real votes Ron Paul would be President. Seriously, I see four of his lawn signs around these parts for every one I've seen for another candidate.

Re:Facebook posts and lawn signs.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716366)

Sure, vote for the man who wants to repeal all the Amendments to the Constitution since 1800.

Re:Facebook posts and lawn signs.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716402)

As opposed the ones that will just gleefully ignore them?

Re:Facebook posts and lawn signs.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716872)

Cite?

Re:Facebook posts and lawn signs.... (0)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38717296)

Cite?

You been under a rock for the past couple of decades or are you just as dense as one?

Ron Paul will have a JFK moment. (4, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716730)

If he ever becomes president.

Seriously, it won't be allowed.
 

Re:It's simple... (0)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716360)

What about all the links from Rick Santorum links to the first Google search result on his name?

paranoia (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716058)

I'm learning that when the fundamental dynamics of something seem wrong, you should usually go with your gut regardless of what the crowd does.

With a little thought, it's easy to spot problems that the mainstream media, and public at large, are simply ignoring. Perhaps they take cues from each others' lack of concern?

  • housing bubble - Easy to see the debt:income ratios for buying a house were becoming impossible to manage. I didn't understand bond markets and CDO's at the time, but I could tell something was going to give before long.
  • government deficit spending
  • higher-education cost bubble
  • Facebook's access to "private" data, with fundamental financial incentives to share it with 3rd parties.

Re:paranoia (0)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716090)

I forgot to mention lawsuits against file sharers. Whenever I even contemplated file sharing, I thought about how easy it would be for ISP's and websites to log my actions and tie copyright infringement to my computer/house.

Again, all the basic dynamics are in place for getting sued, but lots of people for some reason ignored them.

Re:paranoia (0)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716380)

Another fan of thehousingbubbleblog and zerohedge? Those two and /. seem to go together a lot.
Other than shock sites those are the three that seem to go together the most.

"Facebook To Share Private Data" (0)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716060)

Yup, there we go ... "Facebook To Share Private Data" ... it doesn't matter who at this point, because eventually it becomes "everybody".

Facebook is going to share your private data eventually. They're going to do it as often as they can get away with, and for as much money as it nets them.

Their privacy statement is meaningless, and they don't care about such things ... so, if anybody has the private information for Zuckerburg and the other trolls running Facebook ... start putting it on every public forum that you can find.

Soon, if not already (as we've seen with this [slashdot.org] ) we will truly have thought-crime, and the government will simply monitor you to ensure you're not a communist or a dissenter..

Post a status saying that you think a certain member of congress is a douchebag? Maybe a little visit from the feds to give you a little re-education ... I never thought I'd truly live to see the Orwellian future.

Re:"Facebook To Share Private Data" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716092)

You misunderstand Fuckerberg. He's an uncontrollable narcissist. He loves being in the public eye. He loves the attention. There is nothing about him that the world doesn't already know.

Re:"Facebook To Share Private Data" (5, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716216)

If you gave the data to Facebook, it was never private in the first place.

Re:"Facebook To Share Private Data" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716294)

Exactly. Do people really not get this by now, given it's been in all the mainstream media?

If you give your info to FB, whether directly or indirectly by (say) loading their "like" button from another site, then what you give them is not private. You gave it to an organization whose entire purpose is to distribute it to anyone who wants to buy.

Re:"Facebook To Share Private Data" (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716620)

Exactly. Do people really not get this by now, given it's been in all the mainstream media?

Clearly, they do not. That, or they just don't care enough to think about the consequences. The latter is, to me, the more troubling explanation by far. I guess that the civil rights reaming we've been taking from the government actually makes the violations by Facebook, et al, just kinda slip in unnoticed.

Re:"Facebook To Share Private Data" (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716352)

If you gave the data to Facebook, it was never private in the first place.

Valid point, but there are some places which have data privacy laws Facebook will be bound to ... and those laws likely say that there's limited things Facebook can do with certain data. I think in some countries, this would likely run afoul of that.

However, for the rest of us, it might be fun to game the system and flood it with a bunch of stuff to drive things crazy ... "Romney wears womens underwear", "Barak Obama wipes his nose on tablecloths" or other random things might at least poison the well.

They may be going to give it away no matter what you do, but that doesn't mean you can't have a little fun with it.

Re:"Facebook To Share Private Data" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716446)

But it should be considered private and that is the change we should push for.

I pass letters to the mail man, but he isn't supposed to open and read them. Website privacy controls should be considered as envolopes on any inputted data. If I don't want Facebook doings calculations on data I inputted, checking a box that says so should be like putting a mail envolope around it for that user/group/company.

If you advertise a service for communicating with specific others and provide controls for limiting who can see those communications, those controls should work as expected. Only allow X to view message or sending a private message to X should mean only X can see that message (NO ONE ELSE). Even the service provider shouldn't be able to view the data. The message content isn't needed to matain technaical operations of the service.

Re:"Facebook To Share Private Data" (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716486)

The day Facebook makes your data truly private is the day they start charging for using their products. How do you think they make their money?

Re:"Facebook To Share Private Data" (2)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716724)

Big Brother may have gotten his start in the public sector, but he's shifted to the private one these days.

Our government is the tool of the corporations and the big money. So, yes - this is an Orwellian trend, but nevertheless - look at who pulls the strings.

Politico huh? (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716084)

It'll never catch on here in the UK.

make them look for needles in a haystack... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716094)

... someone needs to write a random political comment generator app for facebook ... that way, we can hide the needle of our true political thoughts a ton of random comments.

Anyone have the link to the obligatory xkcd for that?

non FB user (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716144)

As a non-Facebook user, let me just say I applaud and commend all Facebook users who openly and willingly provide in depth psychological and sociological behavioral profiles to both profitable Corporations and snooping Government agencies. Your sacrifice allows those who don't participate to be categorized into the alternate category of 'potential domestic threat'. Soon to be put on a no-fly list.

We really are damned if we do, don't if we don't. Privacy really is dead, isn't it.

/knows IP has been logged for this comment

Easy to freak out if you don't understand it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716168)

Big problem: Facebook ships terrabytes of private data to Politico, Politico slices and dices as they see fit

No problem: Politico supplies aggregation algorithm to Facebook, Facebook runs it at their datacenter, Facebook reviews the aggregated output, supplies output to Politico

Fixed that for you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716250)

Facebook To Share Private Data With Politico Politburo

Fixed that for you. (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716682)

Facebook To Share Public Data

Its not private data (1, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716264)

If its placed in a public database. Now if i was *paying* for service id be in a bad mood if there was not a US warrant first. FB is free, its public. its how this stuff works.

Re:Its not private data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716808)

idiot.

Re:Its not private data (4, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38717446)

You do not buy rights. If you did, they'd be privileges.

We all know that the user is the product on Facebook. However, there are limitations on how Facebook can sell its product, and those are determined by the EULA, terms of service and privacy policy documentation.

I can't imagine a less correct statement concerning privacy in general and Facebook in particular than yours.

Why should anyone care? (1)

andyring (100627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716278)

Seriously? What's the big deal? If you don't like it, don't use Facebook. I don't. I quit several months ago and deleted my account. Same with Twitter after I learned they were giving their entire archive to the Library of Congress.

With FB, I am convinced it's really nothing more than a giant waste of time with little or no real benefit. Yes, I will grant that I met my wonderful wife courtesy of Facebook, but beyond that, I cannot see how my life is any better due to the time I used to spend there.

Not to mention Facebook basically means someone else is hugely profiting from the comings and goings of my daily life. And, quite frankly, I don't trust Mark Zuckerberg with my life any further than I could throw a giant boulder.

No one is forcing you to use Facebook. I don't miss it a bit.

Re:Why should anyone care? (1)

BLT2112 (1372873) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716632)

Yes, I will grant that I met my wonderful wife courtesy of Facebook, but beyond that, I cannot see how my life is any better due to the time I used to spend there.

Spot the irony in the above sentence!

Re:Why should anyone care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716704)

Poor poor andyring. What you did months ago was never deleted. You've granted FB and all its parteners perpetual rights to your data however they see fit without the need to futher provide you any control over that data. And just because you no longer use FB doesn't mean they no longer track you.

Re:Why should anyone care? (1)

andyring (100627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716772)

True, but I don't continue to add to it. Yes, I know what was out there is out there for good. And I suppose it could be considered irony in the statement about meeting my wife, however that was several years ago and does not negate my point that aside from that, my life hasn't benefited from spending hours a day on FB.

Re:Why should anyone care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38717164)

Wouldn't it be great if you never made an account? I never made an account. Internet is meant to be anonymous except for email. I don't know when the fuck everyone decided anonymity shouldn't exist on the internet. Must have been the around the start of the Eternal September. If you don't know what that is without searching it, then get the fuck out.

Fucking idiot kids.

AllThingsDd? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716372)

Dee Dee get out of my laboratory!

Automated analysis of intent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716392)

Facebook's data team will use automated software tools frequently used by researchers to infer sentiment from text.

There's a lot of fun ways to ruin that data. I'd like to see software that correctly infers sentiment from status updates like:

Obama is like Hitler's enemy, almost psychotic in pursuit of terrorists.
Romney is, like, my dog, always chasing tail.
Santorum is like my dog, always chasing his tail.
Gingrich can return the economy to the greatness of the early 1930's.
Huntsman has as great a memory as Rick Perry.
Ron, Paul and I are great friends. We went to see the Revolting Cocks last week.
She turned me into a Newt. I got better.
Obama is as socialist as Stalin's predecessor.

Re:Automated analysis of intent? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716760)

Absolutely. But the only way to really ruin the results is to get enough people to make such comments that it has a statistically-relevant influence on the end result.

A lot of sentiment-analysis algorithms are very simple, though -- they should probably consider most or all of your examples to be unclassifiable (so they'd still count as "mentions", but not with a positive or negative sentiment).

It's more likely that you'd get bad data off of statements like, "I hate how Ron Paul is being mistreated by the media," or, "Ron Paul would be a great president, if you like policies that don't make sense and have no chance of being implemented."

rediculous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716448)

we should have an opt-in for this, even if the results are never published, this was not something we agreed to in the TOS.

data set? (2)

whereiswaldo (459052) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716472)

If I put on my I-want-your-data hat for a second, I think giving a data set is the wrong approach. Give Politico a search interface to perform research on. Then I get to collect data on the things that Politico cares about and do my own tertiary data mining. Maybe that's a bad idea, I don't know. I'm not very good at being evil. ;)

Okay, but only if I get the same courtesy. (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716590)

Let me see everything written by any Politico employee, published or private. You can anonymize them if you like.

Hopefully the data will be better visualized (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716646)

After looking at these wonderful unlabeled graphs for years, I hope they've learned how to visualize data:

http://www.facebook.com/developers/chart.php?type=at_total_time
http://www.facebook.com/developers/chart.php?type=at_error_count
http://developers.facebook.com/live_status/

So what. (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716662)

Come on, this is getting old. If you don't want your words or pictures to be made public don't put them on Facebook. How difficult is this? Assume that anything you write there will be public information because it's, well, public.

Re:So what. (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38717222)

It won't get old until Facebook says on their privacy page, "We don't value your privacy. Everything you say will be data mined and sold to anyone who gives us enough money. And we might even give it away for free."

How it should be done! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38716672)

The use and purpose of my personal data must be more explicit to me and I have to be able to opt-in. This is especially true for my private messages.

How is should be done:
Q: Do you want to Opt-in for political sentiment analysis of your messages for the next 6 months? You get a free whatever.

I also see the value exchange unbalanced, surely Facebook provides a value in servicing us, but I want my share of the data. Even though it might be tiny amounts, let me decide where to direct them, e.g. charity.

btw. there is no doubt that this is not representative, almost difficult to ask what the result actually mean.

Where anonymous data fails (1)

Chewbacon (797801) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716896)

Coorelation. If you combine enough data, you can identify the people that make it up. For example, the malls that were tracking people via cellphones. Combine that with sales data from merchants, and you can see what individual people were buying and filter out window shoppers from legitimate shoppers. So who is willing to go the distance on this and delete their facebooks?

Yet another reason you cannot find ... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716914)

... Skapare on Facebook.

Re:Yet another reason you cannot find ... (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38717028)

Give it time.

Facebook will find you.

What about Person + Bomb? (1)

Tyr07 (2300912) | more than 2 years ago | (#38716980)

Well, we all heard that phone calls get recorded if you say specific messages like president and bomb in the same conversation.

What about facebook messages? Does it suddenly become not anon if they see phrases like that?

What if it was, 'I love Obama, he is the bomb'. What happens?

Who cares? (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38717330)

The only thing this says is that Politico is stupid. Something most of us know already.

Politico + Facebook are abandon, abuse, abusive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38717438)

Politico is abandon, abuse, abusive, ache, aching, advers, afraid, aggravat, aggress, agitat, agony, alarm, alone, anger, angr, anguish, annoy, antagoni, anxi, appall, apprehens, argu, arrogan, asham, assault, aversi, avoid, awful, bad, bastard, beaten, bewilder, bitch, bitter, blam, bore, boring, bother, burden, careless, cheat, complain, confus, contradic, crap, craz, cried, cries, critical, critici, cruel, crushed, cry, crying, cut, cynical, damn, and wrong.

Just saying.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?