
Not on a Social Network? You’ve Still Got a Privacy Problem - cryptoz
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/privacy-friendster/
======
novum

        A Facebook spokesman says the company “doesn’t have shadow
        accounts or profiles – hidden or otherwise – for people 
        who haven’t signed up for our service,” and a 2011 audit 
        by Ireland’s Data Protection Commissioner confirmed this.
    

Does anyone really believe that Facebook is not assembling shadow profiles for
as close to 100% of the human population as is possible?

~~~
stringray
Here's how I would play this game:

Siphon as much data as possible. Keep it indefinitely, but don't synchronously
add rows for shadow identities. Instead, build a querying infrastructure that
projects your mountain of data into forms you can exploit at runtime. Part of
this is sorting activity into unbound identities.

Now you get to have your cake and eat it too: all of the delicious privacy
invasion, with the PR/legal bonus of being able to say you don't have "shadow
profiles".

I'm sure Facebook has shadow profiles on everyone, just as I'm sure they're
smart enough to prove they don't.

~~~
denom
Exactly. Facebook doesn't have shadow profiles, they have user data and
algorithms. The algorithms traverse the shadow profiles at runtime and produce
some output, but there is no need to hold onto the profile data in that form.
All facebook needs is the advertising "action-item" that the algorithm
produces.

The same analysis applies to the intelligence gathering done by the
government. They hold onto all data for all time and draw conclusions from it
at a later date.

------
junto
To misquote a common saying, I @junto hereby shall be quoted as stating for
the record:

    
    
      The social network of my friend is my enemy.
    

The only solution is not to share your real identity with your friends. You
should tell each friend that you have a different surname.

Even better we should start a cult and all choose the same surname to use
online. I suggest it be broken down by country and highest frequency. In the
UK we would all use 'Smith'. In Germany 'Müller'. In France 'Martin'. In Spain
'Garcia'. In Portugal 'Silva' and so on.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_common_surna...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_common_surnames_in_Europe)

Sadly, most people have already shared their real identity either by giving
those details directly to Facebook or by friend's uploading your details in
their contacts.

Still, it would be a nice protest.

------
denzil_correa
Co-Location Privacy and Interdependent Privacy also hints to a similar privacy
problem [0]. For example - your Facebook friend could tag you and check-in on
a location thus leaking your location details and violating your privacy.

[0]
[https://www.petsymposium.org/2014/papers/Olteanu.pdf](https://www.petsymposium.org/2014/papers/Olteanu.pdf)

------
shmerl
_> We already know that if you use an online social network, you give up a
serious slice of your privacy thanks to the omnivorous way companies like
Google and Facebook gather your personal data._

Not so, if you use a privacy respecting one like Diaspora*. Not that it offers
a robust protection against either attackers or the Big Brother. But the
network itself is not built to profit from users' data which is a huge
difference in attitude.

It's annoying that such articles take it for granted that social network = FB
/ G+ way of doing things.

~~~
dunder
>It's annoying that such articles take it for granted that social network = FB
/ G+ way of doing things.

It's annoying when people are uptight about something that's merely pragmatic.
They're talking about social networks people use and know about.

Including Diaspora, a network almost no one has ever heard about, would be
completely counter intuitive. Diaspora simply isn't an alternative for the
overwhelming majority of users of active social networks.

~~~
shmerl
_> Diaspora simply isn't an alternative for the overwhelming majority of users
of active social networks._

That's bunk, simply because people already use it and it is a functional
alternative.

------
dohertyjf
*You still have

Grammar people, grammar.

~~~
blowski
I don't understand the grammar problem here.

[http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/200161/you-
still-...](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/200161/you-still-have-
got-vs-youve-still-got)

------
dreamdu5t
I am so sick of the Facebook bullying.

"you give up a serious slice of your privacy thanks to the omnivorous way
companies like Google and Facebook gather your personal data."

Ooooh scary! Hardly. Nobody can search for me on Facebook... or view my
profile without being friends. Yes, they have my info in a database somewhere.
Info I gave them.

~~~
zyx321
Yes, they have the info you give them. And info that others give them about
you. And info that they gather from you without your knowledge. And whatever
they can infer from the aforementioned info.

Which they will save forever. Good thing you've seen the future and know with
100% confidence that they will never abuse this data. Or sell it to someone
who will abuse it. Or get acquired by the selfsame. Or hire someone with a
personal vendetta against you.

~~~
dreamdu5t
You're the one who purports to know the future - worrying about what you think
Facebook might do with your data, instead of what they actually do with it.

