
We know what you're doing - Kenan
http://www.weknowwhatyouredoing.com/
======
georgemcbay
I'm surprised there isn't a column for people who are reading Hacker News.

This guy for example:

<http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?=743264506>

~~~
ffmmjj
It's kinda scary to see your own facebook profile being posted on HN out of
nowhere... =\

~~~
georgemcbay
Just to set any minds at ease after the initial shock:

The link I posted is just a generic bad id link that ends up redirecting to
your own Facebook profile if you are currently logged into Facebook. Anyone
logged into Facebook will see their own profile.

The link joering2 posted OTOH is actually to my Facebook profile. But:

A) I don't really care (anything I put on my Facebook profile is assumed to be
1000% publically available information anyway).

B) Turnabout is fair play

~~~
djeikyb
Interestingly, the string of numbers is a real user id. I presume it defaults
to your own profile because facebook.com/profile.php goes to your own profile,
and fb simply ignores the malformed parameters.

~~~
edu
Nope, the trick is that he's skipping the "id=" part between the '?' and the
user ID, so the param is not being passed properly and thus the link is
processed as just 'profile.php' without params. The link
<https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=yaddayadda> would work propperly.

------
confluence
A great example that should remind people that it's probably best to assume
that everything they say or do online (offline as well) is now (and
forevermore) public. Assume that anything you say or do has the ability to be
seen by anyone and everyone around the globe instantly - without any methods
of recourse. The genie is out of the bottle.

Hence one should adapt one's own behaviour and act accordingly (that doesn't
mean that you should get paranoid - just be more careful :).

Reduce risk and watch what you say from now on.

~~~
andreasvc
It doesn't have to be that way; it's very easy to lock down your facebook
settings to friends-only. I think it's quite ridiculous that that's not the
default. This pessimistic assumption you mention where anyone can see
everything might be the safest, but it's just not how humans work. When you're
surrounded by a bunch of friends (or their status messages), you don't assume
the rest of the world is overhearing you as well.

~~~
confluence
You are right about that option. But I find it prudent to always reduce the
chance of a type 2 error and increase the chance of a type 1 error
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4081972>). It is best to assume the
worst and trust nothing whilst acting probabilistically than to assume
perfection/trust and act deterministically.

Hence, in this case, if you assume everything is public, you reduce the harm
that can come to you when the trust you have in a service fails you (as it may
well do). Just like an investor - take on risk, minimise uncertainty and price
catastrophe correctly. This gives you the best of both worlds - risk priced in
proportion to reward. You can have your cake and eat it too - if you only take
a slice and no more.

~~~
mduerksen
As a completely off-topic side note: Since I was introduced to statistics, I
always forgot which error was type 1 and which was type 2. I had to read your
link to find out.

In code, "int errorType = 1;" would be a badly chosen variable :)

The expressions "false positive" and "false negative" reveal more semantics
than "type 1" and "type 2", and are therefore much easier to remember.

~~~
confluence
You are correct, my apologies for explaining with improper terms - that's the
curse of knowledge I suppose.

I quickly forget that the "map" in my brain is about 10 times more detailed
than the vector representation I detail in my answer - and it often lacks
ideas that may be critical to understanding.

I will use false positive/negative terminology from now on - apologies for the
dense language and propagating difficult to comprehend terms - I'll try to
stop doing that :D.

------
lukevdp
I can't believe people are still publicly posting stuff about their bosses.
Surely there has been enough press coverage about people getting fired for
fb/twitter antics

~~~
megablast
Most bosses do not have the time, wherewithal or care enough to do this. There
is nothing wrong with people blowing of steam.

~~~
dinkumthinkum
I think this is so naive. Sure a "good" boss probably won't be snooping on his
or her employees. However, I'm pretty sure most bosses are humans and humans
tend to snoop on each other

------
praptak
I have some doubts about the site's disclaimer: _"I cannot be held responsible
for any persons actions as a result of using this experiement."_

If someone gets fired upon a comment you took out of context and put under
"people who want to get fired" then I wouldn't bet the above statement as your
best line of defence in a lawsuit.

~~~
jahewson
That's a terrible disclaimer. You can't just disclaim your way out of
statutory liability.

There's probably nothing to worry about with re-publishing an already public
fact, but the cases where errors are made e.g "I'd hate to be my boss" filled
under "People who hate their boss", the casual reader may be confused (some
might say mislead).

The solution is just to keep people informed, so your disclaimer may say
something like: "the information on this site is automatically collected from
public posts to Facebook. Posts are classified automatically, and as such our
classification of their sentiment may be inaccurate."

Also, just in case one of the Facebook posts says something defamatory, hate
speech, etc. you can gently remind people that you didn't write, edit, or
approve of the content so "are not responsible for the content of messages".

------
iamdave
You know what? Use that same GET method from the about page, mine for certain
words, display analytics on a dashboard next to a stream and you've probably
just put a few social media "consultants" out of work.

/dastardlyGrin

------
stfu
Reminds me on the who-is-not-at-home syndication from Facebook and Twitter.
Even so these are scary, I really think they provide excellent privacy
teaching moments. Hope you are going to keep this up for some time and enhance
it with other categories.

------
peterwwillis
_peterwwillis tweets_ "I LOVE MY BOSS, HE'S THE SMARTEST, I CAN'T WAIT TO WAKE
UP EARLY AND FIGHT TRAFFIC!!!"

Am I doing it right?

~~~
dasil003
Sycophancy is more effective in person. You could waste a lot of time like
this without getting your nose brown at all.

------
gurraman
Another interesting column: "Who's out of town?". I wonder how burglers use
social networking.

~~~
Deestan
> I wonder how burglers use social networking.

Allegedly, they do pay attention to tweets from people they can find the home
address of.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8789538/Most-
burg...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8789538/Most-burglars-
using-Facebook-and-Twitter-to-target-victims-survey-suggests.html)

------
chrischen
Sad how most of these people fail to form a coherent sentence.

------
Henwys
I find it odd that people are surprised by things like this. The information
is very public.

~~~
andreasvc
Maybe because they never consciously chose to make it public; that's simply
facebook's default and IMO it's counter-intuitive that social interactions are
made public.

------
slig
See also: <http://openbook.org/>

~~~
jaredsohn
Here are some more interesting terms courtesy of a TechCrunch article about
FacebookSearch (now defunct) [http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/14/your-public-
facebook-status...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/14/your-public-facebook-
status-updates-now-publicly-searchable-outside-facebook/)

“playing hooky” "don’t tell anyone", "rectal exam", "stupid boss", "HIV test",
"control urges"

------
jrochkind1
Until I read the comments I didn't get what this was supposed to be ---
ghostery for the win, blocks Facebook Social Graph and Facebook Social Plugin.

~~~
skeletonjelly
Right but the data is still being collected via public postings on Facebook
etc

------
ComputerGuru
In case it's not immediately obvious (no visible sign, even on hover),
clicking on the people's names will take you to their facebook profiles.

~~~
bob_kelso
Hmm, looks like they removed this feature. It at least won't work for me (in
neither chrome nor firefox).

It is fairly easy to get a link to the profiles however:

The urls to the profile-images look like this:
"<https://graph.facebook.com/[facebook> profile id]/picture"

By replacing "graph" with "www" and removing "/picture" we get the url to the
profile.

------
icoder
This could have been done a little more sophisticated. Now it seems nothing
more than some basic text searches.

For instance two people saying "Not Hungover AT ALL, I love these mornings"
and "Hungover !" respectively are both in the hungover section. And in the
doing drugs section there was one guy who was happy he actually quit.

~~~
andreasvc
That's a nontrivial problem to solve. Consider "I avoided becoming hungover
again!". In other words, you'd have to do a full semantic analysis and get the
scope of negations right. I hear that current sentiment analysis techniques
use a heuristic by looking for a nearby negation.

------
johnchristopher
Reading the comments I understand that it grabs public facebook data _if_ you
are logged, right ? Since I am currently logged and can't see any of my data
it means that my facebook profile isn't public (or at least the data this page
fetches aren't public) ?

~~~
saraid216
No. I viewed this on a browser where I'm not logged into Facebook.

~~~
johnchristopher
Well I think I am totally missing the point then.

The page doesn't display any info/statuses related to my fb profile or any of
my fb friends. From my point of view it is just displaying random fb results
obtained by keyword related searches performed against the fb public data
accessible via fb API. As far as I am concerned and aware of nothing in my
profile is public.

~~~
andreasvc
It's simply displaying public data that has been scraped before-hand (so
nothing to do with your own profile). It abuses the fact the people's profiles
are public by default, something that people are probably not aware of.

------
russtrpkovski
Some 18 Year Old Made A Site That's Going To Get People Fired For Using
Facebook

[http://www.businessinsider.com/lock-down-your-facebook-
priva...](http://www.businessinsider.com/lock-down-your-facebook-privacy-
settings-2012-6)

------
ChrisNorstrom
I can see this blossoming into a very titalating "Juicy Gossip" like startup
involving delving deep into other people's lives.

I own Jussip.com (Juicy+Gossip) hit me up if interested. My contact info(s)
can be found on my blog ChrisNorstrom.com

------
dreadsword
I'm guessing the site is making an API call to pull each user's thumbnail.
Remember, your capped at 350 API requests per hour per APP ID. You should
cache image links to avoid all the broken image icons.

------
daviddi
Haha: Who's hungover?

Murray Heather Not Hungover AT ALL, I love these mornings!

------
pyre
Impressively they handle unique well enough. It still caught, "I hätë my böss"
under "Who wants to get fired?"

------
godisdad
Hilarious. Reminds me a bit of <http://pleaserobme.com/>

------
josteink
None of the posts have any likes. Now I don't feel so bad about my own ignored
facebook posts ;)

------
leke
If you click one of these profiles, you can't see those messages, so how does
this guy do it?

------
ps2000
99th percentile of people who either don't care or are not able to care about
privacy

------
akozak
Well no, I didn't. But now I do that you're looking for and publicizing it, I
guess?

------
barbs
Reminds me of youropenbook, which doesn't exist anymore :(

------
normalfaults
I wonder if there is a list of other sites like this?

------
nathanb
Needs an RSS feed for data mining purposes...

------
Jgrubb
Why use jQuery 1.3.2?

------
stephen272
should include twitter as well

------
briandear
This is freakin awesome. Nice work!

------
intended
the phone number column is really bad form.

~~~
intended
Does someone actually think having visible phone numbers put up by unaware
people scraped is a good thing? What am I missing here?

------
treetrouble
What am I doing? Not giving a fuck about who is hung over or takes drugs

~~~
farnsworth
It's not a research tool... you're missing the point.

~~~
treetrouble
You're missing my point. That information is uninteresting to me no matter
what the purpose of this site is

~~~
Karunamon
The point isn't that it's uninteresting to you, the point is that it may very
well be interesting to stalkers, bosses, insurance companies, thieves, exes,
"lost" relatives, arsonists, mother stabbers, father rapers, litterbugs,
jaywalkers, identity thieves, nosy neighbors, and other undesirables.

It's a thought experiment. Along the lines of _YOU DOLTS, YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T
BE PUTTING ALL THIS STUFF OUT HERE!_

~~~
treetrouble
Yes, I understand that. The fact is that people drink and do drugs. Smart
people, stupid people. That's reality.

This is a "thought experiment" that teaches cowardice, IMO

~~~
Karunamon
On a purely ideal level I agree with you (the fact that at any time someone
has been fired from their job for expressing personal opinions on non-company
time does not sit well with me..), but the reality of it is, how many of these
people do you think know that their info is on this site and/or accessible to
quite literally anyone in the world? Of the people that know that, how many of
them do you think understand the implications of that openness?

This is why you lock down your privacy settings.

~~~
treetrouble
Yes, I understand the intention of that site and conventional thinking on the
subject. Thank you for assisting in my description of an alternative

