Big Data Could Cripple Facebook
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Facebook is my social life, not the company's time or anything, and if I'm a decent worker + programmer just let me be? For example I swear a lot on facebook about certain current events, should I stop simply because some HR person in 2 or 3 years might look/analyse my profile and see that I use profane language?
Lets say you write something about a topic that shouldn't be discussed (wasn't there a rape case that was clinched because of social media?). Who would want to risk potential backlash in the future?
While you may think its your social life, Facebook definitely has enough reach that statements made by you could reflect poorly on your employer as well as on you.
I hope this made sense i tried to keep it simple bs possible. True incident happened to me today
You can also use a custom audience selector to do things like specify a friends list (or more) to share with, not to share with friends of those tagged, and so forth.
Here is a link to the help page on privacy basics that starts with setting/modifying audience for posts: https://www.facebook.com/help/325807937506242/
If somebody likes that photo, that like will only be visible to those that can already see that photo. It does not give anybody the ability to see the photo that did not already.
In many cases, you can see the audience selected for posts your friends make by looking for the same icons from the audience selector next to the date and other metadata in your news feed, their timeline, or the picture page. If it is public, there'll be a little globe. If friends, then it'll be two people standing next to each other. If friends-of-friends, three people standing there. Obviously, you can't tell if it was shared with only them (since you wouldn't see it). In some cases (the person chose a custom audience), a gear icon will appear.
If after you investigate based on the information above you really think the privacy model expanded who could see the photo because of the like, please report a privacy bug: https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/?id=308229232560802
(In case it wasn't obvious, I work at Facebook. But I don't work on privacy specifically.)
So you can safely much assume anything you put on there can be made public or at least shared with others at any given time without your consent. The model can change at any time, and of course there is that lovely incentive called "profit".
Handing over any data to Facebook and expecting it to remain "private" is extremely naive.
What reason is there to believe that facebook wouldn't explicitly allow third parties to pay a fee and see your "private" information"
Facebook's ad targeting options are out there in the open for everyone to see. This is what you get if you pay Facebook. Where would they advertise your data without getting caught? Are Facebook and your boss part of some special club you've never heard of? And if you were Facebook, would you take that risk?
I can't prove that they won't sell my data, but you can't prove that Verizon won't sell your texts, that Google won't sell your searches, etc.
If I'm frustrated with some task, can I not say so? If I've been stuck on some problem, I can't say so to my friends?
You have full right to say whatever you want, but don't expect your employer not to take notice if you say it in public. And don't expect your employer not to do anything of they hear your rant.
The problem is the implicit expectation of Facebook privacy, For which there should be none. If you want to safely rant, do it in your home with your friends in the room. Every other medium (email, Facebook, twitter etc) involves intermediaries which could leak your rant. But don't complain that Facebook isn't private.
I don't think it's a good idea, however, just like I don't think that running drug tests or credit reports on job candidates (both widespread practices) are good ideas.
The process goes something like this:
1. octo_t sends in resume to BigCo.
2. BigCo. contracts with an outside company that uses an automated system (think big data) to troll through your twitter, facebook, HN, etc.
3. automated system rejects octo_t as a lesbian hater/drug user/or some sort of "undesirable".
BigCo. is protected from lawsuits because BigCo. didn't engage in discrimination: your resume was rejected without a human seeing it at all.
P.S. it is happening already. ( look for automated resume screening software ) ( http://news.dice.com/2012/06/22/hr-software-hinders-hiring/ )
I don't think that argument would stand up in court. If the software you contracted to use explicitly applied screening criteria based on protected classes such as race or sex, then you would be found to be discriminating illegally.
Just be creative with the criteria and filter based on the indirect criteria.
"At some point, the creepy corporate use of FB data will scare people from using FB"
That was the point of the article: "Most people already know not to publicize individual things that reflect badly on them; once they realize that the totality of what they post can have serious repercussions, too, they’ll clam up. "
People here already understand the implications, but this assumes that millions of users will "get it" too. Maybe they will, eventually, but not as readily as the author assumes. The data-mining will progress even further than it has before the masses change their behavior.
There is already analysis arguing (whether or not correctly) that social graphs themselves convey useful, actionable information. For example, the argument that friends of "deadbeats" are likely to be less reliable, themselves. So, if you "friend" too many people having low credit scores, this may effect you when e.g. a lender uses your Facebook graph in evaluating your suitability for a loan.
Similar concerns with regard to evaluation of insurance risk and insurability.
Knowledge asymmetry is the point of arbitrage upon which many people earn a living (and some, a quite extravagant living). Absent sufficient inhibitions (whether self-serving, e.g. Facebook's potential self-destruction; or external, e.g. regulation), people will use "big data" to this effect.