

Senator Al Franken Facebook privacy settings - kp212
http://franken.senate.gov/press/?page=news_single&news_item=Facebook_Privacy_Instructions

======
Qz
They aren't going to stop until someone sues the $@%& out of them.

~~~
dcurtis
Remember News Feed? People freaked out, started screaming about suing, etc.
Just watch: people will get more comfortable sharing their basic information,
and you will too.

This privacy freakout is really amazing to me.

~~~
pedalpete
Remember Beacon?

The News Feed is shared with people you know, and only people you have added
as Friends (or sometimes one step removed when somebody you know comments on a
photo or something).

Beacon was about selling your information to advertisers and 3rd parties whom
you had a very loose connection with. The example being the guy who bought his
engagement ring and had it broadcast via facebook before he was even engaged.

With the news feed, you control the information which is posted (with the
exception of being tagged in photos).

Now Facebook is sharing your information with 3rd parties whom you have NO
connection with.

I don't use Docs, Yelp, or Pandora, but they were given access to all my
information.

Remember, they were 'given' access before Facebook announced what was
happening. Before we had the option to opt-out.

~~~
dcurtis
Beacon was great because it showed that Facebook isn't scared to take risks.
They later admitted it was a bad idea.

I'd rather a company like Facebook err on the side of innovation.

~~~
seldo
Selling my information to third parties without permission or prior
notification is neither innovative nor brave.

~~~
julio_the_squid
I suppose you could say it's 'brave', though, in the same way that trying to
swindle someone and hoping they don't notice is brave.

~~~
jrockway
That's not what "brave" means.

~~~
bonaldi
/pedant: it is, actually. Definition is "ready to face danger or pain".
"Brave" is mostly used approvingly, but it's also completely proper in
sentences like "He decided the app should be IE-only, which was a brave move
but one he felt was justified by ..."

Similarly with "daring" -- you often hear of "daring robberies" and the like.

~~~
jrockway
Ah, the joys of learning English from dictionary definitions instead of
literary use.

~~~
james2vegas
Because dictionary definitions aren't based on literary use at all.

------
wheaties
Evidently he's given a lot of thought to the flow and control of personal
information posted by users on the internet. It would be nice if websites
followed the "opt in" rather than the "opt out" route when it comes to these
things. It would be even nicer if some senator made this the defacto
standard...

~~~
RyanMcGreal
I don't have a problem with opt-out _when you sign up for a web service_. For
example, on Twitter the default is for your stream to be open to the public
but you can opt to lock your account so only approved users can follow you.

That leads to stronger network effects faster, and creates a more usable tool
for everyone.

The problem I have with facebook (note: I don't have a facebook account) is
that people signed up based on a particular set of terms but the company then
changed those terms and switched a default opt-in to a default opt-out _after
the fact_.

~~~
pasbesoin
Yes, and this is the same sort of problem many people had with Buzz. Your
contact list was private, and then -- wham! -- there it is (or parts of it)
for the world to see. (And your profile à la Buzz started aggregating Google-
related activity; even if aspects of it were not previously designated
"private", hanging it all off of your profile sure made it more accessible.)

If you knew at the start that that would happen, it might have stopped you
from giving them -- originally and mostly through Gmail -- your contacts list.
(Or using other affected services.) But when you signed up, they were all
about "privacy" -- particularly after their previous efforts to reassure
people in the face of concerns over automated ad targeting in Gmail. (Which
was its own event, but I guess people generally decided that, as long as its
purely automated and doesn't affect anything more than ad presentation, they
could live with it.)

Hmm... as a thought exercise, what if your Gmail content starts affecting not
just ad presentation but your search results. Would you have a bit more
concern, then?

What if your employer starts examining employees' "customized" search results
(perhaps by hiring a third party that specialized in this) and making
inferences?

I assume they can and some may well already log and analyze the ads returned
on those searches. Now that ads are starting to "follow people" across
searches and sessions -- at least at some sites -- what personal habits might
you inadvertently be bringing with you to work, via third parties' tracking of
and response to your web use?

~~~
anigbrowl
Exactly. That might merely seem embarrassing, and one could say 'use incognito
browsing' for obviously personal stuff. But what if you're interested in
politics and your employer strongly supports a different party? Or you have
health worries of your own or for your kids, and an employer doesn't want to
see health premiums rise? Such concerns seem abstract until they begin
affecting people's livelihoods, by which time it can be hard to undo the ill
effects.

------
markbnine
He should do a Stuart Smalley skit to get his point across.

 _I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, I have ten thousand friends, and doggone
it, people like me!_

------
campnic
I'm really on the fence here. On the one hand, its a business and they need to
make money to remain viable. On the other, the way the bury the option to turn
it off makes me think this could be a lot more transparent. If they feel like
they need it to survive, i think they should look at a model where turning it
on (opt in) gives you some advantage.

------
boredguy8
I was wondering why Yalp (which I rarely visit) knew about my Facebook
account.

------
Aetius
No, those links at the bottom aren't adsense. He's not _that_ web savvy!

