Gourmet Goddess

Food, Fitness, Feminism... Fabulous.

Gourmet Goddess

Gourmet Goddess
Location
San Francisco Bay Area, California, United States
Birthday
December 26
Bio
Generally speaking, I'm a foodie, a feminist, a scholar, a former journalist, and a gourmet goddess dedicated to healthy, organic, and outrageously delicious cooking. Working from my own experience and ongoing personal journey, I promote a strong sense of self-acceptance of the body and a healthy relationship with food.

MY RECENT POSTS

Gourmet Goddess's Links

Salon.com
Editor’s Pick
DECEMBER 10, 2009 3:14AM

Facebook privacy changes expose more personal data

Rate: 28 Flag

It's hard to believe that a site with 300 million users and massively downplayed (but very serious) changes rolled out today to its privacy policy are getting nary a blip in the national media, and only a couple of small stories in tech zines, despite a growing furor from users. But if you're on Facebook, you should be angry, and demanding your control over your privacy returned to you.

 The changes were clothed in a cheery "we're simplifying things and giving you more control over your privacy!" While it's true that there were a couple of changes that were useful and long awaited - such as allowing users to control the privacy levels of individual status updates - they came at a price. And that price was privacy itself.

Previously, users had been able to control with some amount of granularity what was displayed on their profiles, and what was publicly available. Facebook argued that most users didn't use these settings, but also admitted that they were difficult to find. In the same sweeping motion that simplified the privacy settings, Facebook made certain information publicly available: name, profile picture, gender, current city, friends and fan pages. Until today, users could make most of this information private. All of this information is now considered public, and there's nothing that you can do about it.

To boot, Facebook is now encouraging its users through the "transition tool" to make all their posts and information public, a la Twitter. Since most users tend to follow whatever Facebook recommends, many people may not realize that all the information they thought was private will now be public, if they use what Facebook recommends. 

There's a storm slowly brewing about this on Facebook, which can be seen in the thousands of comments demanding the return of privacy in the Facebook governance page. Facebook's response has been to remind folks that they can turn off certain elements of the profile to people who are logged in, and hide themselves from search results - but then turn around and remind everyone that this information is publicly available, so people who are surfing Facebook but not logged in will be able to see the now public information.

Let's get this straight. You can hide it from people who are logged in, but not from people who are not logged in. How does that make any sense whatsoever?

We're getting there. And there's a great article on all of this over at the Electronic Frontier Foundation that goes through the nitty gritty and why you should really care about this. But let's cover some of it here, shall we?

So. What's the big deal? Does it matter if people can see your friends or your fan pages? Well, in a word: yes. A friend of mine is considering deleting his Facebook account now because of a stalker that has been following him for ten years. He'd been able to avoid her on Facebook, but now she will be able to track him down. People can get into hot water at work over joining certain political or religious fan pages, or naughty ones, for instance. And the FBI has a special data mining unit for sites like Facebook. If you're not worried about that, you should be.

Not only might it lead to embarrassment at work or scuttle a potential job search, but it's rather obvious to me that Facebook has done this as a calculated risk. And this is the real reason behind all this. They are risking angering a percentage of their users because they want to make this juicy demographic information available to advertisers and app developers. New studies are showing that Facebook and Twitter have a big impact on sales, and we're only beginning to understand how companies and individuals are using personal information mined from social networking sites to target advertising and exploit users.

Not only that, but not all app developers have harmless intentions, and with the privacy changes came another big blow to privacy regarding apps. Previously, one was able to block all apps from the Facebook API from pulling data about you. Now your information is public, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Facebook says that a small percentage of their users were using the privacy controls - but even if it were one percent, that's still 3 million people. That's a lot of people who just had the rug pulled from under them.

Particularly problematic is that this major change was rolled out without a word about it beforehand. Just a big bomb dropped and no way around it. There were weeks of discussion about privacy policy changes, but nobody mentioned this major detail about previously private information becoming public, about control being taken away from one's own profile, or about no longer being able to block all applications from using your data. Just gone, all of it. In one fell swoop. With no warning.

So what should you do?

In the short term, I've deleted all of my fan pages (out of fairness - some of them were started by friends and I figured if I was going to delete one I would delete them all, so data couldn't be mined from my newly exposed interests) and gone through and made everything as private as possible, including using a picture that doesn't have my face in it. 

What else can you do? Complain. Complain to Facebook. Look for another social network that will give you more privacy, and invite all your friends there, and dump your Facebook profile. Write to media outlets and let them know what's going on, and that you and a lot of other people are angry about it. Unless Facebook starts to get some really bad press about this, they aren't going to do anything other than thumb their nose as they count their cold, hard cash.

UPDATE: Think I'm ringing too many alarms about this? Gawker has a rather chilling example today of how the new Facebook policy can be used against people by those who want to make trouble: a friends list published for the purposes of hate mailing. (Thanks to Bonnie Russell for the tip.)

UPDATE #2: Some friends and I have been experimenting with different changes to see how private we can really be. I decided to hide my gender by deleting it, but now am frequently beset with a pop-up asking me whether I want to be referred to as "his" or "her." I close it, and it comes back periodically. Selecting this would broadcast that information (which would be considered public), which would presumably be most valuable to targeted advertising. I'll keep not answering the question, but I wonder how long it will keep going on.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Thanks for the comments - and how odd that this would be flagged. I'm not saying anything that isn't true or relevant (just the facts, ma'am).

In any case, privacy is a big issue, as are ethics. As information is increasingly becoming electronic, as are our communications, we really have to think twice before putting something out there. I have nothing to hide from law enforcement, but that doesn't mean I want people poking around my house. You know?
Bonnie - I think you are seeing the thumbs-up rating from someone liking the post, which is next to the flag button. I don't think these blogs show when a post has been flagged. In any case, thanks again for your thought-provoking comment!
Here's a radical idea: limit what you post. Don't post anything that you don't want the whole world to see.
Thanks for posting this, particularly for the link to the EFF page.

My basic rule of thumb - on a site like this, NEVER assume what you put up will be private. If you don't want people to know you are a fan of a particular organization or whatever, don't click the "I'm a fan" button. I understand the impulse to identify this stuff, but in the end, while I would like Facebook to do more to protect our identities, in the end, it's up to you to decide which information you want to share with the world.
Also, for your friend with the stalker problem - there's an explicit "Block List" feature he can use to try and keep her away. Not that that might stop her from registering a fake account to stalk him, but it's a start.
Thanks for providing this information. I'm with mad_typist on this one. In the end, it's up to you.

I have many of my graduate and undergraduate students who have friended me on my Facebook account. The reason why I'm allowing them to do it is because I do not post anything controversial. I do not even show my birth date and provide very little information other than the schools I attended. Every time I receive a request to join a group or become a fan of something, I quickly click on the “ignore” button.
Thanks so much for the explication!
Surprised?

Everything is for sale in the land of the almighty dollar and the "free market".

Decency? Hell no!! That went out the window when the Repugs and the media went after Clinton. Also see above. $$Talks!
I knew nothing about this! When I logged on yesterday, the new privacy settings thing popped up and I just kept everything the same as it was all private except for friends anyway. Now I'm going to go back and have another look. Thanks for bringing this here - I wouldn't have known otherwise.
My main reason for joining Facebook was to keep in touch with workmates from previous jobs. I'm now an independent contractor and I work at home. It's far too easy for me to get in touch with my introverted homebody self and then watch my business slowly slide away as I've lost touch with all my former friends and work associates.

Facebook, for me, is the equivalent of cubicle chat. There is purposefully NOTHING in there that I wouldn't put on the front page of my local paper. Nothing that I wouldn't chat about with a (former) work acquaintance over the cubicle wall. It's my online cubicle now that I don't have a real one any more.

Recently, I added my former last name to my profile, and so I've added a bunch of high school friends. Again, it's cubicle chat, only with a wider circle of friends.

So yes, I'll keep it as private as possible... but the point for me is contact. There is nothing in there I wouldn't share with the world.
Thanks everyone for your comments!

A bit of an update - since I wrote this, the Facebook story has been gaining more traction. Keep up your criticism and keep up the pressure on Facebook. Remember, the last time they did something that angered the public about privacy, their public image suffered so much that they rolled it back. That's the point of this and other articles - to make them realize they've really gone too far.
The comments on here about "don't say anything you wouldn't say in the newspaper" are all well and good, but some of us use FB to keep in touch with old high school friends, college friends etc. I would expose political views, share photos of my child etc. with these people. I don't want to share these things with potential employers or random marketers. That's why I had set my privacy so that you had to be a friend to see anything - particularly photos of my child. Now I may have to re-think FB. Just another empty place where I have to be bland and unrevealing is useless to me.
I can't stand this. You're wrong and frankly alarmist about this, Ms. Goddess. Every bit of a Facebook user's information is completely configurable to be as public or private as one wishes, down to the ability to make one's profile and profile information uncrawlable by public search engines.

I'm not a big enough shot in the world to have had anyone create a 'Fan Page' for me -- nor filled with the level of hubris it might take to create one for myself -- so I can't speak to that element of what you've written here. But if it's as accurate as the rest of your piece, then I have to assume it's wrong as well.

Since most users tend to follow whatever Facebook recommends... is that right? Most users? And your data for that assertion is found where? It might be more accurate to say many users, but whatever.

Anyone who engages in social media without understanding exactly what the privacy implications are of doing so deserves whatever they get as a result.

And anyone who uses a Facebook app for anything whatsoever has way too much time on their hands.

There are plenty of reasons for people to be concerned about their privacy in the modern age and to fret over the precise manner in which Big Brother is going to eventually manifest. Facebook is not one of them.
Lonnie, I'd direct you to the Electronic Frontier Foundation article (linked in the article above) to get more of the nitty gritty on the numbers and details, which is why I linked to it in my post. And you're wrong about everything being able to be made public or private. That was once true, but as of yesterday it isn't true anymore. Information that was once able to be made private is now public, and Facebook themselves has said that most people haven't changed the recommended privacy settings, and used that as justification for making some of the changes. They'll be leveraging that now to open up more information in the future.

Regardless of how you personally feel about this issue, it's still an important one, and it's not alarmist to point out some rather obvious new privacy issues, particularly when it comes to the API. Apps can now get all of your "publicly available information" whenever one of your friends adds the app. You can't block it until after it's already gotten all of your information. To quote a friend on the subject, that's a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out.
Have you read: Facebook and the Social Dynamics of Privacy by James Grimmelmann?

James Grimmelmann has written a compelling and comprehensive analysis of the law and policy on social network sites where he uses Facebook as a principal example. His general position with respect to online privacy within the context of social networking is that user privacy is at risk and that most users of such sites are either
ignorantly or blissfully unaware of the risks of participation. He chiefly advocates that whatever potential remedies are eventually rendered will only succeed if they first consider the factors of social dynamics because failure to understand what motivates social network participants will undermine the expected result of the
solution intended to protect an individual's privacy on a given social network site.

Where I differ is with the assumption he has implied that all social networking users are at risk of privacy violation. I agree that the risk of exposure to privacy violation, which can manifest itself in a variety of forms, is equal for all, beginning from the moment you agree to Facebook terms and create an account, but the probability that all users will have their privacy violated where harm is the result is not equal.

One could read the privacy terms and then decide to join but then Facebook might change its position on what profile data they choose to make public and accessible to web crawlers where had this been in place and outlined in the privacy statement read, may result in one deciding not to participate. In this case every member has equal exposure. What a user chooses to share in their profile or on a wall post is otherwise variable and dependent upon a user's understanding of potential consequences resulting from what they choose to share and with whom they choose to share it with. The risk in this instance would be depicted as a normal distribution with perhaps a higher average of acceptable risk among teenagers versus adults. The degree of risk taken therefore differs across the population. This is an important distinction that must be weighed in determining what constitutes the most appropriate remedy for arriving at some state of equilibrium between what users want from a social networking site; to be social without restriction or prohibition and yet ensuring a modicum of expected privacy.

While I don't entirely disagree with Grimmelmann's assertion that social dynamics must be given every consideration to the formulation of successful remedies, I believe he has too quickly dismissed the likelihood that sufficient software design and functional controls will eventually help despite their known failures and limitations today.
I don't really want to get into a pissing match about this with you here, but I read the EFF article (have been a lifetime member of EFF since its founding in 1990, in fact) and its tone is not nearly as alarmist as is the tone of your piece. I hope people do read it, because it also talks about some positive aspects of the FB privacy changes, which you neglect to address.

You can control your publicly available information. Don't want people to know your birthday, hometown, current city, religious views, political views, blah blah blah -- guess what? You don't have to make them known. Any Facebook user can control exactly what information about them is made public. You can even use Facebook under a fake name such as Gourmet Goddess.

Mark Zuckerberg does not want to eat your soul.
It has nothing to do with the users. Facebook is graduating to a full use social networking site. They all do this, it's part of their business model. And they won't change back either, or if they do, it'll still all be public in some way. If they don't keep growing, they're dying--that's how they look at it. I know, crazy, but that's so-net modeling for you. Rated.
Thank you!!! I needed this note - I absolutely need my privacy protected and for many of the reasons you specifically listed, I can no longer have an account).
this is how empires fall.

this was a bad management decision on the part of facebook. I realize they need to generate revenue but this is a dumb assed way to do it (presumably opening it up so that advertisers and marketers can get the info and create and pay for targeted ad campaigns). With 300 million users a small fee of $5/year would be more than they stand to earn from any amount of advertising - and probably cause them less anger and derision from their users, especially if they pitched it right (hey, guys...we want to make this ad free and keep it that way. could you help by pitching in $5 this year?).

There was once a time when MySpace was king of the roost. Things come and go and bad decisions can ripple and eventually kill off once great companies. Shame on them.
Don't blame Facebook for exposing YOUR information that YOU put on there. Facebook is just another social network for connecting people. It is not responsible just as any other website is responsible for the information YOU put out. It is trying its best to PREVENT your info from being phished but it is only YOU who controls it.

As soon as you go online you ARE exposed. Your IP address, your computer everything. There will always be someone who WILL get your information.

This is nothing new.

What Facebook is doing is trying to make people AWARE that there are these privacy settings. Just like you mentioned many people are not aware of it and its true! For example, very few people actually set their profile picture to private, most of them show it to strangers. Explain that.

Google yourself. Do you find yourself in the search results? If you do then you haven't set it to the privacy it requires. I haven't found myself on Google.

And honestly "Look for another social network that will give you more privacy, and invite all your friends there, and dump your Facebook profile." Really? Big enough like Facebook?

Heck Facebook is the only place I have been able to connect with everyone that I have not talked to for over 10 years and I have searched and searched for a very long time - the only place I found was Facebook. My friends span across the globe, each country has their own networking site, only Facebook is global.

If you run a big enough website like Facebook you will have to deal with a lot of issues and Facebook is facing that especially when you are a social networking site. And if you do find another site that is "good" if it get popular like Facebook it will have to go through the exact same thing as Facebook, there is no perfect solution.

So if you really have a problem with Facebook's privacy then remove all your information or create an alias like you do on here. You aren't limited to using your real name now since Facebook has opened up more options than it did before when you were limited to just being in a college network.

YOU have a choice and it is not Facebook that will tell you what to do.
Thank you, bkk5026. I know we are in a minority, but some people understand how this shit works.
The point is that information that was private is now public, and suddenly became so without consent. It's definitely up to Facebook to do whatever they like with their TOS and privacy policy, I'm not stupid. But the point is, when you sign up for a service and it promises a certain level of privacy, and then that privacy is removed, it's a big problem.

Just because you don't see this as a big deal doesn't mean it isn't one, I'm sorry to say.
The point, Ms. Goddess, is that information you thought was private is only public if you allow it to be. You remain in complete control of the information you choose to make public. If people think it's a problem to take responsibility for what they choose to make public about themselves on Facebook then, you're right, that is a big problem. For them.
The point is that friends, pages, and such information that was previously able to be set to private is now considered publicly available, and it's already being used against people by those with less than stellar intentions.

So, in short: was able to be set to private, now forcibly public. No warning.

But at this point, I doubt we will see eye to eye on that point, as you definitely don't seem to be getting mine. In any case, we disagree, and that's fair enough.

In other news: Adorable kitten!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHwY8qACATA
I deleted my FB account, anyone I want to keep intouch with can find me here, or they have my email. :)
we can definitely agree on adorable kittens. i'm also a big fan of your perspective on food!
I work for a company that doesn't like its current employees to keep contact with its former employees (a policy I resist as ridiculous), and does searches of employees periodically to see what sort of stuff is online about them. Having my friend list be public is now a problem for me.
Meh.

I find it hilarious that you mentioned an FBI data mining project in your post. I highly doubt that governmental data mining is worried about whether something on your account is public or private either before these changes or afterwards.

I think it's a little late to try and roll the clock back on the erosion of our privacy rights. The government and google and the rest of the oligopolistic corporations already know everything about you. The real issue is that you think you had any privacy to begin with. You didn't.
With all the many many articles now available on Facebook privacy you have been proven right and those who called you an "alarmist" were dead wrong. Zuckerberg does want our souls!