You are not connected. Please login or register

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

rosco 357

my words. first let me say, i have never been to facebook or tweeter or any sight like that so i dont know what they are , this article was just on aols welcome screen when i went on so i copied it,and i have not even read it all, take care,

Anonymous Employee Reveals Ugly Details of Facebook's Inner Workings
by Warren Riddle Jan 15th 2010 at 9:18AM

The whining and gnashing of teeth that immediately greet any changes to Facebook have become a cliched social networking punchline. The site, though, is currently being hammered over very real and pertinent concerns that go far beyond mere member tempter-tantrums.

The brouhaha began early last year when Facebook implemented, and then almost immediately retracted, new Terms of Service that many believed would give the site perpetual ownership of member information (like photographs). Over the course of the last year, despite the reversal, those concerns over privacy have only escalated, and some recent revelations by an anonymous Facebook employee should only serve to intensify the cacophony of complaints.

The spike in Facebook vitriol has amplified primarily because of December changes to Facebook's privacy guidelines. The new user settings were initially described as a method for members to completely control their profile activities. People steadily identified some glaring holes in the supposed security measures, though, including the inability to securely lock down profile pictures, fan pages, and friends lists.

According to the unnamed snitch, those aren't the only issues, as the employee claims that everything you do is not only permanently stored and saved, but completely available to Facebook staff and associates. The site All Facebook has expectedly and deservedly retaliated to the whistleblower claims, and has dismissed the supposed revelations as common knowledge with which all Facebook members should be completely familiar.

Speaking to the Rumpus, the Facebook worker asserted that when a member makes "any sort of interaction on Facebook -- upload a photo, click on somebody's profile, update your status, change your profile information," that activity is stored on Facebook's servers. In order to identify a member's "best friends," a feature which quietly debuted recently, the site tracks and stores (at one of four massive data centers) every possible interaction. All Facebook countered by saying this practice is "widely known," and that "if you don't want Facebook collecting information about you, don't give it to them." (Excellent customer service -- MySpace would be thrilled if Facebook adhered to an official "take it or leave it" approach.)

One of the most troubling revelations in the anonymous interview is the claim that any Facebook employee could log into any member account with a single master password (which was some derivation of Chuck Norris -- not so funny in this scenario). The shadowy interviewee also said that various employees (at least two of whom were terminated) were caught inappropriately using that password to gain access to accounts. But, according to some, that password issue "isn't really that big of a deal." That may not sound comforting, but the site says it has a zero tolerance policy for snooping and it has also created a Chief Privacy Officer position.


Facebook is garbage in my opinion. Its full of hackers and spyware. And as this article states the management is dishonest and corrupt. I disabled my Facebook account last year about 7 months ago when it was discovered they were hacked and had other security issues.. I want nothing to do with them. I will never login to Facebook server ever again.

Facebook makes MySpace look like heavenly Saints.

Last edited by runawayhorses on Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:22 am; edited 1 time in total


Its popularity is nearly unprecedented, making it a success to be envied in the eyes of many businesspeople, and in particular, software developers. Yet one area that Facebook has arguably not been successful in is that of protecting its users' privacy.

Although the issue has been raised time and again by users of the site, first with the introduction of the news feed and again with the introduction of its Beacon ad targeting technology, the company seems to be perpetually fumbling the ball. One starts to wonder: what's so difficult about keeping information private?

It's not that it was meant to be; the concept of Web-based social networking was never preordained as a privacy nightmare waiting to happen. Nothing is written into the precepts of graph theory dictating that civil liberties must be violated. Facebook was originally successful in part because it restricted the flow of information between students at different schools. No, what has manifested itself in Facebook today is directly the result of its leadership's conscious decision to put privacy on the back burner.

The key turning point in Facebook's history came in September 2006 when the site switched from being a closed community of students to a global destination for everyone on the Internet. To maintain its high growth rate, the company decided that it had to widen its scope, and in doing so, it tossed user authentication out the window.

At that point, any hope of having a site that respected user privacy was completely lost. The point of authentication, after all, is to prevent people from lying about their identity, and it goes to follow that when that measure is no longer in place, lying can and will happen.

Still, even if you are who you say you are, it's still incredibly easy to share too much. Facebook encourages it, of course. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has a mantra about supporting the "free flow of information," as if openness is a panacea for inefficiency.

There's a reason for this. The more information that's accessible, the more people who want to access it. The more people who come, the more dollars that flow. (Profit, of course, has no bearing on this model.) So long as you sign up, click your mouse, and thereby yield as many advertising banner impressions as possible, you are doing your share in the grand scheme of multi-hundred-million-dollar advertising deals among Google, News Corp., Facebook, and Microsoft that are keeping these sites afloat.

Simply put, there's no way that social networks will put security and privacy first when their very business model gives them incentive to do just the opposite. Just as "the common good" became a rallying cry in the Soviet Union of decades past, only to yield a bifurcated society of poor and super-wealthy, so too has "the free flow of information" divided us into those who hire top-dollar lawyers to keep our information private, as Facebook's CEO did when a magazine ran an article he didn't like, and those of us who don't even have the right to close an account.

Add to that Facebook's spotty history regarding matters of security. It was in March 2005 that I found my first security flaw in Facebook. The site let you download the names, home addresses, birth dates, and other vital facts about thousands of its members without authorization. I alerted the company of the problem immediately. When it ignored my repeated requests for weeks on end, not knowing what else to do, I took it to the press. Only then did the company actually take the issue seriously.

Today, there doesn't even need to be a technical problem in Facebook's software for people to download the same information. The flaw is not just part of the system; the flaw is the system, as illustrated by three separate but equally alarming examples.

First, Facebook application developers (essentially, anyone) can download any member's personal data, regardless of whether those members have expressed interest in their applications.

Second, despite an uproar in the technical community, Facebook's Beacon ad service--aside from being foolish by informing members of their impending surprise gifts, disingenuous by frequently turning real friends into cheap marketing hacks, and Orwellian by peeking at others' thoughts through the eyes of retailers--still to this day tracks Facebook members' movements on the Internet, even when they aren't even signed in.

Third, when I refused to provide Facebook with my date of birth due to the above privacy concerns, not to mention a sense of fundamental injustice, the company suspended my account indefinitely.

Sadly, as the standard of success remains an index of how much one can steal from friends--whether software features or personal data--Facebook should do just fine. In the meantime, it couldn't hurt to have an alternative, privacy-conscious site ready for the day that millions of college graduates realize that they need to find--and keep--a job.

Sponsored content

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum