Posted on 01/18/2011 3:56:34 AM PST by markomalley
Facebook has disabled a new feature which allowed third party companies access to people’s personal contact details, after negative user feedback and warnings from security experts.
The company, which turned on the new feature over the weekend, admitted in a blog post published this morning that Facebook “could make people more clearly aware of when they are granting access to this data”.
The post said: “On Friday, we expanded the information you are able to share with external websites and applications to include your address and mobile number…Over the weekend, we got some useful feedback that we could make people more clearly aware of when they are granting access to this data. We agree, and we are making changes to help ensure you only share this information when you intend to do so. We’ll be working to launch these updates as soon as possible, and will be temporarily disabling this feature until those changes are ready. We look forward to re-enabling this improved feature in the next few weeks.”
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
All a big scam. Facebook does not care about your security. It cares about selling your data and habits to the highest bidder, much like Google.
Here’s this story in a nutshell.
1. Create insecure system
2. Fix insecure system
3. Claim they care.
Watch it folks!
BUMP! You nailed it perfectly.
Reason number 618 to stay away from Facebook. I really wish Sarah Palin would use another venue. I’d love to read her stuff, but I’ll not go to Facebook to do so.
I have never and will never join any of the social sites. FR is my home.
LLS
Could it be possible that the movie “The Social Network” EMBARESSED Facebook BIGTIME?
Many prominent FReepers are on FB, including our FR CIC, JimRob.
The fallacy here is somehow thinking that if you don’t join FB that you are all the sudden anonymous and hidden on the web.
If there is a PTB, the “they” of black helicopter fame, etc. trust me. They already know who you are. Trust me.
I rarely use Facebook but I do have an account and stay logged in just for convenience.
Is Facebook monitoring keeping selling my web surfing activities? I know Google does this if I stay signed into Gmail
If you put it on the internet it is public. Why don’t people understand that?
You at least don’t need an account or to sign in to read her postings: http://www.facebook.com/notes.php?id=24718773587
(I don’t do Facebook myself either.)
I have a FB page. I checked off every security option available, and no one can see my page unless I give them permission.
I never gave FB my address or phone number. I’m there to keep in touch with relatives around the USA.
I get updates from Sarah Palin there.
And so we discussed this ad nauseum on the other threads. It’s like prophylactics. The only 100% method is abstinence!!!!
To: discostu
Also this kind of thing get’s around, if FB changes that link code in a nefarious way the internet WILL notice and WILL complain,
That would be true if the simple looking link was “web 1.0.”
But since the FB server gives back a dynamically generated script, that can be tailored by referring link, time, requestor IP, etc, then the same old simple link from JimRob simply gives them a hook to do whatever with whomever.
148 posted on 11/17/2010 2:20:07 PM by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: sam_paine
No it’s true right now. Every single time FB changes their security settings there’s a hundred stories on the net and half of them wind up on FR. Even if they did do a customized one for FR all JimRob (or any FR nerd) has to do is the EXACT SAME THING you did a couple times a week.
154 posted on 11/17/2010 2:28:07 PM by discostu (Keyser Soze lives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2628476/posts?page=166
There are deeply embedded things that go beyond JS.
If you work with ethernet adapters, you are likely to see “Compliant with DoD protocol X.YY” or something similar.
Also, most people don’t know that the internet itself is a subset of a larger network. Certainly not larger in terms of size, but larger in terms of authority.
The Internet is a subnet of something bigger. Maybe it’s still Darpanet, but whatever it is, it’s not hidden or anonymous at all.
Think about it. Just like Internet chat. That’s peer-to-peer communication between someone? (Who????) and the actual mac address on your machine.
How many folks change their network hardware every time they log on?
It’s as unique as a phone number.
Exactly. And it's supposed to be a unique hard-coded ID. Except that it can be edited in many cheapo soho routers and nic chips.
Look, there's big black-ops big-brother security issues (of which I'm not likely of interest, and I'm not likely to be able to counter) and there's legit commercial scamming and bungling where an online bank gets hacked or such (where I am a target, but am reasonably protected by a legitimate commercial entity) and then there's deserved scamming and bungling (Where I can avoid being a target by simply not surfing promiscuous sites like facebook or porn etc).
I'm not worried about the CIA, and can't do anything about it anyhow.
I'm -less- worried about banks (or even ebay) and legit institutions.
I lump facebook and twitter and porn into the third, "just don't go there" category.
Actually, I’m glad that the NSA and others are out there doing their job. I’m sure they have found and thwarted more than one thing that would make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.
Sure, a few of them are jerks, and you always have the bureaucracy, but many are the best and the brightest.
And I don’t give a rat’s azz if wallyworld or whatever knows that I might want to buy a chain saw. As long as they don’t call me directly, load my mailbox with trash, or fill my inbox.
Most people have a very exaggerated sense of their place in the world. But I can still respect their (false) belief that they live a private existence.
Most people overgeneralize too much.
No, Social Network was a big giant ad for Facebook. Most of the time people don’t really care if the guy in charge of some company is a cutthroat ass, in some ways they actually like it. They added 100 million user in the time between when Social Network started serious advertising and now. FB now has two entire US populations in active users.
You do realize that this whole thing just proved me right. They made a change, it caused a stink, they changed it back.
100% abstinence from FB is silly for anyone that has a message to get out. There’s 600 million users, it’s literally the largest audience in the world, 2 entire US populations.
Nothing is safe on the interknot.
You would be right, except when you are not.
How long does it take a rogue interface to extract a database? How fast does this "stink loop" you describe take to resolve itself?
As long as the former can happen in seconds and the latter takes days, it's not a meaningful protection.
Anyway we can disagree to degrees on that. It's no big deal.
But your larger assumption is more interesting. Just because FB has 600 million users does not mean it's a productive target just waiting to be freeperized.
Certainly there are potential "skulls full of mush" there which might be exposed to conservatism, but in my humble opinion, this page illustrates why using FB to promote conservatism to these 600 million is absurd.
It's like "Avatar does historical biography."
If you have a message to send out the largest possible audience is a good target. That’s why companies buy ad time during the Super Bowl.
I don’t see how the Edmund Burke page renders that “absurd”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.