Why Facebook is never safe
newmatilda.com
newmatilda.com
How about future credit checks based on your network of debt-ridden college friends? http://www.pcworld.com/article/246511/how_facebook_can_hurt_...
How about health insurance claims? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2009/11/19/queb...
How about investigations? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_social_network_websites_...
Skeptics will say "just don't do anything wrong and you'll be fine." But what about civil disobedience, like the Occupy movement? What about when the definition of "wrong" changes? What about when the information is used not to implicate you in something, but just learn more about your activities?
I think eventually this will become a big enough issue with some event (maybe a popular crime case in which the defendant is perceived to be innocent but FB data is used to implicate him/her) that the general public is appalled and will try to delete their data. But by then it'll be too late.
I'm in the UK. I post an update roughly once ever 3 months, usually a photo from my phone. I have around 100 friends. I'm tagged in a handful of photos, some geotagged. None of any particular interest. My about me section has some basic information on my home city. I do however have chat history with a few people.
My privacy settings are all on the maximum, so no one public can see anything without being my friend, nor am I in search results. I block facebook outside of facebook.com.
I always feel like if a corrupt entity (lets say the government) wanted to 'take my freedom' then my email, skype, public paperwork (property ownership records etc) and bank statements etc would be of much greater benefit? Most of the 'facebook data is bad' stories at the moment seem to revolve around people with poor privacy settings and job interviews etc.
If your of the mindset that if the current government collapses and you end up with an extremist regiem in place, then a list of people you met over the last few years might be useful. But I'm not really in that camp, and my email address book or skype logs would be more accurate anyway.
I'm not saying facebook data isn't a bad thing; I'm just wondering what concrete things could happen?
By canvassing you friends list, and your friends' lists and the way different lists intersect, it's often very easy to know who are your, say, school friends, and who are your work friends. It is also quite easy to find out who your close friends are, and whom you only know in passing or have fallen out of touch with.
Using that information, I could introduce myself (online or offline) as a friend of one of your not-so-close friends. Then, it would be quite easy to gain your confidence. I could use you trust to get something directly out of you, or I could gain your trust just enough to friend you on Facebook (under a false identity) and pass your information (which is no longer so private) to a third party that has hired me to follow you.
No information on my profile is public. You must set your friends to public, mine are set to 'me only', so even my friends can not see them (always wondered why anyone would set it to anything else!). Were you to friend me I would not accept as I don't know you. So this attack would not work.
It highlights the point about 'public' facebook data though, which many users are very lax with, but provided you take the steps to contain your data is not a concern. This is more about social engineering than facebook doing any scary with your data on a 3rd party / government level. The same 'job interview' situation can arrise from a blog, a forum or any service with public URLs.
Note, however, that this information may leak if you let other services access this information to build their own friend lists.
I'd like to hear an example where you don't have to assume an aggressor with supernatural motivation to go after me, the random stranger.
I realise some people (possibly including you) say "your data is being sold to advertisers" when they know how it works, but it is surprising how many people say the same thing and don't.
(I work at Facebook.)
What has happened? Look at the way hundreds of kids were scooped up after the London riots, merely for exercising freedom of speech and protest.
It's just that the arguments generally presented seem to be able to be applied to skype, forums, blogs, email... pretty much having an IP address, or even a mobile phone. I'm just generally interested in what makes facebook specifically so bad to me personally - beyond it's obvious size and centralisation.
The riots one is an interesting example. Do you have any links to examples of people arrested as a result of just having a facebook account? Not just as a result of posting pictures of themselves doing something illegal or organising illegal activity publicly; in which case the medium is unimportant.
Plus just because surveillance is possible by other means does not make Facebook ok, it's just the scariest for some people at this point.
Now, we just give it to them wholesale. In this way, the tech that empowers us may eventually be used against us. It is terrifying enough that I would prefer a more analog future.
(Apologies for the throwaway account, but I'm not naive.)
But I'm still just looking for an example of how this can be leveraged? When you say 'used against' us, how do you mean?
The biggest problem isn't just finding one piece of evidence a user has revealed, it's inference of collective data. Because access can be made at so many levels on Fb via the API you can infer information from the data alone. [0], [1] Data mining of server logs and inference poses the biggest potential threat.
[0] Carter Jernigan, Behram F.T. Mistree, "Facebook friendship exposes sexual orientation", MIT ~ http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/ar...
[1] Paul Fenwick, "Dark Stalking on Facebook" ~ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=816372 & http://use.perl.org/~pjf/journal/39608
Personally I don't own a facebook account and any request to facebook from my computer is blocked, since they introduced their like button. In my world it's very much like facebook doesn't exist at all. The only disadvantage I experience is, that I'm locked out of some websites, which require a facebook account for log-on (stupid, if you ask me).
Neither does anyone else.
What I am certain of is that Facebook's IPO comes at a time of peak-Facebook. The ridiculous valuations Facebook and other web companies, and the outlandish profit multipliers analysts bestow on them never cease to amaze me. When companies grow so quickly it's hard to know when something really mirrors a true market shift or is just a fad. And even if it's not a fad, competitors can disrupt the market just as easily. After all, if investors expect upcommers to succeed so quickly, it must surely mean that they expect "established" companies to fail just as quickly; you can't have it both ways. Who could have predicted five years ago that Facebook will pose such a threat to Google (search)? Search seemed like it will forever be the preferred method of finding things online. And so will Facebook be displaced (or squeezed) by something new that comes along, or its product commoditized and Facebook turned into AOL circa 1994. The whole web economy is built on black swans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory).
But whenever Facebook's inevitable market decline arrives (and it will happen quite soon), the question remains whether people's extroversion or naivete will continue to be fodder for web corporations. I would like to hope that with time and with the proper lessons learned, this behavior, too, will decline.
Good article, BTW.
Would you care to elaborate on that?
Fine line relating to privacy there.. something perhaps to look into.
In the Second Circuit (CT, NY, VT)[13] and Eighth Circuit (ND, SD, NE, MN, IA, MO, AR)[14], courts have found that an employer violates Title VII when they ask questions about childbearing plans, pregnancy, child care, and/or whether their husband approves of the job and its requirements. Courts in these circuits have found that those types of interview questions are discriminatory and directly affect the hiring decision in violation of Title VII.
However, courts are not as friendly in the Seventh Circuit (IL, IN, WS). There, a woman applied for a paramedic position and was asked during the interview, she was asked about the number of children she would have, her child care arrangements, and how her husband would feel about the job. The interviewer admitted that he did not ask male applicants the same questions. However, her claim failed because the court found that the evidence did not support the finding that her sex was a determining factor in the decision to hire a man. She failed to show substantial evidence that the interviewer relied on the gender stereotyping questions when making its decision not to hire her.[15]
So, check the court circuit you're in before you ask the questions which a large number people and online-resources assert is "illegal." Even if it isn't illegal in your state, you're going to run across candidates who think it's at least immoral and prima facie indication of discrimination.
and the reason why you dont want to warn everyone against the hospital that seems to be prejudice and unlawfully asking questions it shouldn't is?
> What I am certain of is that Facebook's IPO comes at a time of peak-Facebook.
you may be certain of that if you assume that Facebook monetary mission was to connect all humanbeings, or at least most of it. You cant make enough money off of it. But I think you wrong if you think that Facebook customers are users -- they are advertisers. Zuck said it himself years ago that stage 1 is to sign up everyone and thats only beginning of his idea. Now since he got everyone signed up its time to treat billion people like a test rabbits and see how to maximize revenues per user without pissing off too many of them at the same time. In this case, possibilities are almost endless and I think you will see five years of strong monetary grow until, of course, everyone will jump ship for something new, more exciting. Further, Facebook IPO comes in a perfect time. Zuck proved to investors that his idea is sustainable. Now its time to reward those who worked hard to achieve it and use stockpile of cash to accelerate and execute "milking cows" ideas. Brilliant!
> The ridiculous valuations Facebook and other web companies,
Facebook numbers came out. $1B profit. I think trading them 23x is reasonable.
> When companies grow so quickly it's hard to know when something really mirrors a true market shift or is just a fad.
2004-2012 thats 8 years of a grow. I fail to recognize it as "fad" since all FB numbers grow users and revenue wise. Is Google a "fad" ? they grew similarly fast, and what? Still in business...
> And even if it's not a fad, competitors can disrupt the market just as easily.
Well, so far we dont have "another" Facebook, because Facebook based its success on a fact that humans, in general, are lazy. Nobody will be willing to switch unless you can benefit something out of it that outweigh reason to drop all your friends and start rebuilding your network all over again, somewhere else. Until then, Facebook is safe.
> by the wonderful Diaspora*
where is the asterix leading? you work at Diaspora?
> Who could have predicted five years ago that Facebook will pose such a threat to Google (search)?
I think majority still search with Google and socialize with friends over Facebook. If you want to point threat to Google, point at Pinterest. Instead of Googling "cool bathroom ideas" and clicking "images", I go to Pinterest and have more pictures of beautiful inspirations for bathroom than I could ever analyze. This is a serious threat to Google.
> But whenever Facebook's inevitable market decline arrives (and it will happen quite soon),
can you shed some light? What do you see that we dont?
> I would like to hope that with time and with the proper lessons learned, this behavior, too, will decline.
So basically you claim that everything related to Facebook is evil. I disagree and billion naive sheep can back me up. Look, I know most hackers here are programmers. Most of us could write Facebook overnite today, and as a weekend project in 2004. This didnt happen. Facebook happened and one guy is worth $25 billion. I get it. Money-wise it hurts me sometime too. But the bottom line is, that you are trying to go against trend and your bitching is not different when 80years old librarian claimed that internet is evil and will kill libraries. Would you like internet to never happen because eventually libraries would be closed? If you go even more back in history, think about horse versus cars. I am pretty sure when cars came out, people riding horses were saying something: "oh, look at that piece of metal! it uses oil, produces deadly fumes and look how fast it goes! But everyone loves them! What a clueless sheep! I am sure it will take some time until enough people will kill themselves for everyone to realize horse-riding is more safe and secure and eventually everyone will switch back from cars to horses". Well, as we know history, this never happened and cars are here to stay. You see my point?
> In this case, possibilities are almost endless and I think you will see five years of strong monetary grow until, of course, everyone will jump ship for something new, more exciting.
I'm not saying Facebook will not be able to squeeze a healthy profit in the next 5 years or or so, but I don't think they'll justify the multiplier - maybe their stock will rise in the short term, but not enough in the long run.
What I'm "seeing" is that for Facebook's future plans to work their market penetration has to maintain itself at the current levels. If Google+ or Diaspora* and whatever other competitors that join the game take even a 25% market share, then plans that require "almost everyone" to have a Facebook account (like other services that use a Facebook-only sign-on) will no longer be viable). And, of course, the next big thing will inevitably arrive. Like I said, this is a "black swan" market, and the point is that you can't exactly see what it is that will cause the decline, but investors assuming super-fast growth must also expect a decline among the successful. And, again, the question is not whether or not a company will do well, but how it will perform relative to expectations.
> Is Google a "fad" ? they grew similarly fast, and what? Still in business...
Yes, they are in business and doing well, but have already begun to disappoint the analysts. Also, Google has many products (many of them unsuccessful), and there were very few successful companies in history that continued to show good growth with only one product (oil companies, perhaps). By this time, Facebook should have had at least one more product that's showing a promise. They have none - all of their offerings are strongly tied to their social network, while Google's products (like Google Docs or GMail) are not directly tied to the success of search.
> where is the asterix leading? you work at Diaspora?
Diaspora* (with the asterisk) is the name of the project.
> So basically you claim that everything related to Facebook is evil. I disagree and billion naive sheep can back me up... Well, as we know history, this never happened and cars are here to stay. You see my point?
While I indeed think that Facebook and its business model do a lot of harm to people, I'm not saying the same about the idea of virtual social networks in general. I believe that Facebook has shown that the social network to be an essential service in the internet age, so, just like e-mail, it will be commoditized, with many different vendors with different offerings and different business model, will provide social network services all compatible with one another.
Example Solutions
1.Dont use your real name
In Mexico, many people do not use their real names on Facebook partially because names (Jorge, Paula, Arturo, Pancho, Gomez, Ramirez, Rodriguez) are so common and using an alias makes it easier to find people.
2.Dont use your real information
I dont use my real info on facebook. My real friends should know my birthday and where I live.
3.Use privacy settings so strangers can not view your personal life.
I say this because, I quit facebook, then realized how popular it is as a form of communication these days for some demographic groups. I like letters and postcards, but I realize that's my preference
On the very rare occasion I add someone new to Facebook (1/month max) it is not difficult to say "I'm on Facebook as Nickname. My work e-mail address is not connected, use specialized-address." It requires about a minute's out-of-band explanation, but so what? I have no interest in being friended by random strangers.
People need more awareness.
...
"Why could the holocaust never, ever happen again? Facebook."
Try systematically killing 10 million+ people when their relatives can't poke them on facebook anymore.
People would catch on pretty quickly I think.
[1] http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/details.php?lang=e...
[2] http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005182
Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. Either government is a part of it and you take your chances with the possibly they over-regulate and use the data for harmful purposes. Or, you just let free market economics handle it and keep the government out of it entirely.
In short: there is such a thing as good government (which, sadly, the American democratic party doesn't stress enough).
Whether there are regulations or not government agencies will still use the data, oh, unless you regulate it...
Um.. is this guy aware that the spec for PDF has been open for a long time? Using PDF isn't endorsing Adobe any more than using MP4 is endorsing the motion picture experts group.
You know how easy it is to fake meta data in a camera image?
The possibilities to make the FBI or CIA or some corporate private investigator look very stupid are endless..
Shall we play a game or two with them and expose their own stupidity? Why not?
It would be the perfect hack and best part non-one gets hurt but we do a great public service..
You can try to mess with the FBI, CIA or any other three letter agency if you want, but I wouldn't recommend it.