• FTC doesn't buy Zuckerberg's excuses for Facebook's privacy issues, Facebook is now forced to have a
    39 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The Register]"We've made a bunch of mistakes" on privacy, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has admitted. It turns out Facebook is just as bad as Google when it comes to data-handling. And the result is to sit next to Mountain View on the Federal Trade Commission's naughty step by agreeing to a bi-annual privacy review for the next 20 years.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=New York Times]The order, announced by the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, stems largely from changes that Facebook made to the way it handled its users’ information in December 2009. The commission contended that Facebook, without warning its users or seeking consent, made public information that users had deemed to be private on their Facebook pages. The order also said that Facebook, which has more than 800 million users worldwide, in some cases had allowed advertisers to glean personally identifiable information when a Facebook user clicked on an advertisement on his or her Facebook page. The company has long maintained that it does not share personal data with advertisers. And the order said that Facebook had shared user information with outside application developers, contrary to representations made to its users. And even after a Facebook user deleted an account, according to the F.T.C., the company still allowed access to photos and videos. All told, the commission listed eight complaints. It levied no fines and did not accuse Facebook of intentionally breaking the law. However, if Facebook violated the terms of the settlement in the future, it would be liable to pay a penalty of $16,000 a day for each count, the F.T.C. said. Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Facebook, conceded in a lengthy blog post that the company had made “a bunch of mistakes,” but said it had already fixed several of the issues cited by the commission. “Facebook has always been committed to being transparent about the information you have stored with us — and we have led the Internet in building tools to give people the ability to see and control what they share,” he wrote. By way of example, Mr. Zuckerberg pointed to more explicit privacy controls that the company introduced over the summer. Facebook has long wanted its users to post content — links, opinions, pictures and other data — on their Facebook pages with minimal effort, or “friction,” as company executives call it. The settlement with the F.T.C. will undoubtedly require it to introduce more such friction. The order requires Facebook to obtain its users’ “affirmative express consent” before it can override their own privacy settings. For example, if a user designated certain content to be visible only to “friends,” Facebook could allow that content to be shared more broadly only after obtaining the user’s permission. On Tuesday evening there seemed to be some disagreement about what the agreement entailed. A Facebook spokesman said in response to a question that it did not require the company to obtain “opt in” data-sharing permission for new products. But David Vladeck, director of the bureau of consumer protection at the F.T.C., said Facebook would have to inform its users about how personal data would be shared even with new products and services that it introduces over the next two decades. “The order is designed to protect people’s privacy, anticipating that Facebook is likely to change products and services it offers,” he said. Ever since its public release in 2004, Facebook has drawn an ever-larger number of members, even as its sometimes aggressive approach to changes around privacy have angered some of its users. “We’ve all known that Facebook repeatedly cuts corners when it comes to its privacy promises,” Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, wrote in an e-mail after the announcement. “Like most Internet companies, they thought they could get away with it. They didn’t.” Facebook is also obliged to undergo an independent privacy audit every two years for the next 20 years, according to the terms of the settlement. Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which is part of a coalition of consumer groups that filed a complaint with the F.T.C., commended the order but said settlements with individual companies fall short of what is needed: a federal law to protect consumer privacy. “We hope they will establish a high bar for privacy protection,” Mr. Rotenberg said. “But we do not have in the United States a comprehensive privacy framework. There is always a risk other companies will come along and create new problems.” Several privacy bills are pending in Congress, and Internet companies have stepped up their lobbying efforts. The F.T.C., meanwhile, has ratcheted up its scrutiny of Internet companies. This year alone, it has reached settlement orders with some of the giants of Silicon Valley, including Google. The order comes amid growing speculation about Facebook’s preparations for an initial public offering, which could be valued at more than $100 billion. The settlement with the F.T.C., analysts say, could potentially ease investors’ concerns about government regulation by holding the company to a clear set of privacy prescriptions. “When you have an I.P.O. you don’t want investors to be skeptical or jittery,” said Ryan Calo, who leads privacy research at the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School. “In order for you to be as valuable as possible, you want to make sure the seas are calm. This calms the seas.”[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/30/zuckerberg_ftc_privacy_mea_culpa/[/url] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/technology/facebook-agrees-to-ftc-settlement-on-privacy.html[/url]
'Bout time.
But FB won't even last 20 years
Good
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33505562]But FB won't even last 20 years[/QUOTE] If the world doesn't go to shit and the internet flourishes, facebook will indeed last for a very, very long time they have like almost a billion users
serves his ass right. I'm really sick of hearing him want to make everything non-private.
[QUOTE=DrBreen;33505582]If the world doesn't go to shit and the internet flourishes, facebook will indeed last for a very, very long time they have like almost a billion users[/QUOTE] Agreed, people keeping using the flawed Myspace argument but realize: 1. Myspace was sold by Tom to Newscorp (Fox News owners) and they didn't maintain the site as well 2. Facebook is doing the Google, they keep making new products/features with their brand (like how Google remained relevant by making Google™ Mail, Google™ Calender, Google™ Android, etc). They make new service companies and customers [I]rely[/I] on. Facebook is also the biggest single place for ads at the moment, overpassing Google's search engine. 3. To further prove the above point, look at the Facebook phones (they have that button), Facebook exclusive games, heck they [I]want[/I] to make an SMS alternative for everyone. They also wanna make their own search engine. 4. Myspace was created to be appealing to tweens, most adults aren't wanna-be gangsters and kids who think N-Sync is cool. Se how fallacious it is to be compare Facebook to Myspace? No one says "Google search will be replace by Bing or some competitor" because Google for all these years kept upgrading, and make more services people use and rely on everyday, Myspace remained within the confines of it's own domain, [I]unless[/I] you were on [url]www.myspace.com[/url], Myspace was [I]irrelevant[/I].
[quote=Zuckerfucker] “Facebook has always been committed to being transparent about the information you have stored with us [/quote] Duh. That's why you're being investigated by the FTC, moron.
About time
His fault for making shitty privacy And it's about time
Mark Zuckerberg is a god damn pig fucker.
[QUOTE=Kurtzund;33506979]Mark Zuckerberg is a god damn pig fucker.[/QUOTE] Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa slow the fuck down Even PIGS have standards! [thumb]http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_56/11463859655n7cT5.jpg[/thumb]
Still waiting for zuckerberg to give us options to keep the current profile layout and not be forcibly and automatically converted to the timeline layout when it is released..
What? Our government is regulating a big money making business? Seize the day....
[QUOTE=J!NX;33507024]Whoa Whoa Whoa Whoa slow the fuck down Even PIGS have standards! [thumb]http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_56/11463859655n7cT5.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE] [IMG]http://img.timeinc.net/time/2010/poy_2010/poy_mz/poy_cover_z_1215.jpg[/IMG] :v:
[QUOTE=The Baconator;33507065][IMG]http://img.timeinc.net/time/2010/poy_2010/poy_mz/poy_cover_z_1215.jpg[/IMG] :v:[/QUOTE] Ew...
[QUOTE=The golden;33507186]Fastforward several months and that exact picture was now being printed on calendars in stationary stores.[/QUOTE] Has she said anything about this? I mean not that I don't believe you, but she could have sold said pic to the company that printed the calender...
[b]I don't know about Facebook's lifetime.[/b] It has a pretty solid foundation and there are no signs of its current user trend fading anytime soon (despite the bad publicity regarding privacy), true. But we're living in a really fast age and it's only getting faster, and the internet makes competition really easy for good products because news travels fast from mouth to mouth on social networks, blogs and forums. And this speed is only increasing. So if there comes a service notably better than Facebook, I think it'll be replaced in no time in my opinion, despite the huge community. I'd say it's a bit like WoW in terms of size on its respective market, but like the latest numbers show, [b]even WoW is going down[/b], even without a single supreme competitor and without being lazy on content updates.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;33507295][b]I don't know about Facebook's lifetime.[/b] It has a pretty solid foundation and there are no signs of its current user trend fading anytime soon (despite the bad publicity regarding privacy), true. But we're living in a really fast age and it's only getting faster, and the internet makes competition really easy for good products because news travels fast from mouth to mouth on social networks, blogs and forums. And this speed is only increasing. So if there comes a service notably better than Facebook, I think it'll be replaced in no time in my opinion, despite the huge community. I'd say it's a bit like WoW in terms of size on its respective market, but like the latest numbers show, [b]even WoW is going down[/b], even without a single supreme competitor and without being lazy on content updates.[/QUOTE] Google+
[QUOTE=The golden;33507348]She wouldn't have been upset if she legitimately sold it. Also she's not stupid.[/QUOTE] Well you never said she was upset though.
This whole thing is a meaningless slap on the wrist for Facebook and won't significantly change anything. No real penalties were imposed for past privacy violations, and nothing about the decision will prevent Facebook from continuing to be the largest, most profitable data mining venture in history.
[QUOTE=XIII;33507143]Ew...[/QUOTE]he looks like a fucking na'vi
And yeah the fact that Google made Google+ was because they [I]had[/I] to, Facebook overpassed Google as the number 1 visited site, so now the number 1 place to put ads is Facebook, and Google makes their money through ads. So Google+ was their response, to remain relevant. Facebook then does all their other services/products (FB Music, Facebook News, FB Deals, FB SMS thing that's not out yet, FB phone apps, FB log ins for other sites, etc) to remain relevant. It's a race to who will have a monopoly over sites. People don't even need to leave Facebook to do so much stuff like music or reading the news (notice that "your friend has read" thing lately?). And when they do leave Facebook, the familiar like button and "log in with Facebook" is on all their other sites. Facebook is a threat to Google's [I]very existence[/I]. So Google has to make sure you never leave their sites. For example, mail.google.com, plus.google.com, docs.google.com, google.com/calender, etc (Youtube is the combo breaker though). I'd rather have Google rule the net than Facebook any day, and no saying "I'd rather no one rules it" is not an option, it's too late for that.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;33508297]"log in with Facebook"[/QUOTE] The scourge that MUST be conquered.
Maybe Facebook buys the FTC
[QUOTE=The Baconator;33507065][IMG]http://img.timeinc.net/time/2010/poy_2010/poy_mz/poy_cover_z_1215.jpg[/IMG] :v:[/QUOTE] [img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2680/4256593254_7c797c760d.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=The Baconator;33507065][IMG]http://img.timeinc.net/time/2010/poy_2010/poy_mz/poy_cover_z_1215.jpg[/IMG] :v:[/QUOTE] He looked better in the movie... ... oh wait....
Facebook will go on as long as the users keep being fucking brain dead. They don't care if their privacy is at risk. Google+ is an awesome site and I think people should switch, but it's not going to happen.
[QUOTE=garychencool;33510265]He looked better in the movie... ... oh wait....[/QUOTE] I really don't like how he's trying to be a media personality. He's socially awkward and hard to watch whenever he tries to do anything.
[QUOTE=Nikota;33510693]I really don't like how he's trying to be a media personality. He's socially awkward and hard to watch whenever he tries to do anything.[/QUOTE] Not to mention a face at least a mile long.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.