• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Facebook (lack of) Privacy ? !

Reli said:
Didn't you know? We're all supposed to devote half our lives researching the minute details about online privacy, food ingredients, household chemicals, healthcare, drugs, health record storage, cloud storage, investments, mortgages, insurance, and everything else. It's all our fault if something bad happens. Corporations are never to blame, because after all, it's perfectly understandable for them to do anything they can to maximize profit.

Bootstraps, yo!!
Click to expand...

I mean, I can't be the only one who does that....
 
I heard on the radio this morning that FB knew about the breach since 2016 but are only talking now because they have to.

Not our "Friends."
 
Bay Arean said:
I heard on the radio this morning that FB knew about the breach since 2016 but are only talking now because they have to.

Not our "Friends."
Click to expand...

It wasn't a breach. Professor sold data he acquired for academic purposes to CA. FB found bout told CA to delete it and certify. Whatever that means. CA certified they deleted it. Now it comes out they actually didn't.
 
regarding the catch of the murderer bomber recently, they found him due to him leaving a "digital fingerprint" everywhere he went.

I think this is true of all of us. we leave digital fingerprints wherever we go. some can be simple like a cc transaction. others maybe walking in front of a camera that can scan your face for future recognition if necessary.

not saying I like it. It just is.
 
When "opt-in" became "opt-out" and everyone opened wide and swallowed that was the beginning of the end. As a whole, most people didn't realize how significant changing that default really was or what it would lead to. Here we are.
 
Schnellbandit said:
When "opt-in" became "opt-out" and everyone opened wide and swallowed that was the beginning of the end. As a whole, most people didn't realize how significant changing that default really was or what it would lead to. Here we are.
Click to expand...

i don't think it even matters now. cat's out of the bag. if you (royal) are on electronics, you are getting tracked. every move.

want out? cash. turn off cell phone. leave big city. the only way really

not wanting to give that up? well then, you're in it whether you agree to the Terms or not.
 
there is no trace of me on social media. was recently told by opposing counsel as a matter of curiosity - ‘we haven’t been able to establish the fact that you actually exist.’ that’s deliberate, and fine with me lol.
 
littlebeast said:
there is no trace of me on social media. was recently told by opposing counsel as a matter of curiosity - ‘we haven’t been able to establish the fact that you actually exist.’ that’s deliberate, and fine with me lol.
Click to expand...

My wife is the same, zero social media presence. I also don’t upload photos of my kids, we don’t want their info floating around before they are old enough to make those choices for themselves.
 
The more I think about it, I guess I'm not worried as much about the data gathering, as I am about the reports that say it was used to manipulate us.

Now I want to know; exactly how was this data used for manipulation ? I'd like to see the details of how this works.
 
planegray said:
The more I think about it, I guess I'm not worried as much about the data gathering, as I am about the reports that say it was used to manipulate us.

Now I want to know; exactly how was this data used for manipulation ? I'd like to see the details of how this works.
Click to expand...


If they think you're a bit undecided on a particular subject, they'll flood your fb feed (and other media) with inflammatory articles that may not even be based on fact.
As history has shown time and time again, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth.
Being pummeled with story after story of undocumented immigrants raping and pillaging our sacred homeland, and you might be swayed into voting against a more lax policy on immigration.

Do that to literally millions and millions of people that you have extensive psychological profiles on and you can effectively sway an election.
 
planegray said:
The more I think about it, I guess I'm not worried as much about the data gathering, as I am about the reports that say it was used to manipulate us.

Now I want to know; exactly how was this data used for manipulation ? I'd like to see the details of how this works.
Click to expand...

The pizza commercials played during televised sports games? The toys "given away" at some fast food places? The political message that arrives saying new schools need funding when the Costco rebate shows up

Marketing and sales, manipulation in another art form.
 
Last edited:
mean dad said:
If they think you're a bit undecided on a particular subject, they'll flood your fb feed (and other media) with inflammatory articles that may not even be based on fact.
As history has shown time and time again, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth.
Being pummeled with story after story of undocumented immigrants raping and pillaging our sacred homeland, and you might be swayed into voting against a more lax policy on immigration.

Do that to literally millions and millions of people that you have extensive psychological profiles on and you can effectively sway an election.
Click to expand...

I'm getting that, I also see how encouraging people to think that splitting the vote won't matter because it's going to be a landslide for one particular party anyway, would be very useful.

I'd really like to see exactly what was posted (a catalog, if there is one), how much human work was required, and how much was done with software.

This feels like a machine to me, and I like analyzing machines :)
 
Last edited:
UDRider said:
It wasn't a breach. Professor sold data he acquired for academic purposes to CA. FB found bout told CA to delete it and certify. Whatever that means. CA certified they deleted it. Now it comes out they actually didn't.
Click to expand...
The problem is that they didn't put any teeth in the document that CA signed to 'certify' that it had deleted the data.

If they were serious, rather than just covering their own ass from a legal standpoint, they would have put in some very severe language with huge payment agreement if they didn't. Just about any lawyer who wrote non-disclosure documents that I've signed over the years of being a consultant would have wanted to put something like that in. Remember, CA got this data through deception n the first place, you don't just 'take their word' for it from a company that did that.
 
Someone gains access through an agreement, deceptive or not to valuable data. You demand they delete that data and sign 1,000,000 agreements requiring they delete the data.

And someone how, anyone really believes the data gets deleted?

Is that all the data? Yup, just one copy,1ⁿ% guaranteed and we can prove it, here, watch as we shred this DVD. See? All gone. What about the server? Oh, that...we wiped that too, that hosted the data that the networked computer accessed to burn the DVD. The computer? Oh, we smashed it and threw it away. All good, see?

Glad we got all the bases covered.

Come on, are we all that naive to believe that anyone actually deletes the only copy of data even with agreements up the wahzoo?
 
Schnellbandit said:
Someone gains access through an agreement, deceptive or not to valuable data. You demand they delete that data and sign 1,000,000 agreements requiring they delete the data.

And someone how, anyone really believes the data gets deleted?

Is that all the data? Yup, just one copy,1ⁿ% guaranteed and we can prove it, here, watch as we shred this DVD. See? All gone. What about the server? Oh, that...we wiped that too, that hosted the data that the networked computer accessed to burn the DVD. The computer? Oh, we smashed it and threw it away. All good, see?

Glad we got all the bases covered.

Come on, are we all that naive to believe that anyone actually deletes the only copy of data even with agreements up the wahzoo?
Click to expand...

So, because we're naive for expecting them to abide by their promises, the company is off the hook for failing to do so?
 
Climber said:
The problem is that they didn't put any teeth in the document that CA signed to 'certify' that it had deleted the data.

If they were serious, rather than just covering their own ass from a legal standpoint, they would have put in some very severe language with huge payment agreement if they didn't. Just about any lawyer who wrote non-disclosure documents that I've signed over the years of being a consultant would have wanted to put something like that in. Remember, CA got this data through deception n the first place, you don't just 'take their word' for it from a company that did that.
Click to expand...

This is how I see it too.

You want access to our data ?

Ok; you sit in a room in our house, you play on a pc that's not connected to anything else but a printer, you get our permission for every query/report you want to run, and pending approval from our IT Security we'll let you keep the RESULTS in digital form. Oh, and you'll be monitored by a human the whole time ;)
 
Climber said:
The problem is that they didn't put any teeth in the document that CA signed to 'certify' that it had deleted the data.

If they were serious, rather than just covering their own ass from a legal standpoint, they would have put in some very severe language with huge payment agreement if they didn't. Just about any lawyer who wrote non-disclosure documents that I've signed over the years of being a consultant would have wanted to put something like that in. Remember, CA got this data through deception n the first place, you don't just 'take their word' for it from a company that did that.
Click to expand...

Right. I am not saying FB is blameless in this, or that CA certification wasn't bs. Just that it wasn't a breach. The way I definite breach is if someone hacked into their servers and stole data.
This was the case of someone using FB shitty privacy settings for third party apps to do some shady stuff, and FB just kind of went with it, and as you said just covered their ass. At that point it's only thing they could do. Maybe they could have put stronger language, but I am not sure it would have done anything.
 
Last edited:
Climber said:
The problem is that they didn't put any teeth in the document that CA signed to 'certify' that it had deleted the data.

If they were serious, rather than just covering their own ass from a legal standpoint, they would have put in some very severe language with huge payment agreement if they didn't. Just about any lawyer who wrote non-disclosure documents that I've signed over the years of being a consultant would have wanted to put something like that in. Remember, CA got this data through deception n the first place, you don't just 'take their word' for it from a company that did that.
Click to expand...

the type of certification they required is routine, even in instances where privacy and data security are concerned (the highest standard of third party confidential information). my experience around this is in medical records, which is a special and tightly controlled class of protected information - and i’ve never seen an instance where auditing was contractually required to ensure compliance with the destruction of information once the order is given to destroy it. like i said, certification that it has been done is what is typically required.

that said, the ‘teeth’ wouldn’t be in the certification document itself, it would be in the original facebook Agreement that authorized the disclosure and use. it is impossible to believe that facebook does not have significant legal and financial recourse, and their attorneys are likely working overtime on that. that’s the least of their worries though. the PR nightmare is what’s front and center. even if they are entitled to collect enough damages to put the responsible parties out of business, they still have the residual long term damage to their reputation. and considering all of the competition nipping at their heels, that has the real possibility to prove fatal to their business. probably not a swift blow - more likely, a long, slow bleeding out as users with a thorn in their paw move to fresher, smarter venues.

and don’t even get me started on NDA’s. whole ‘nother can of worms.
 
Last edited:
littlebeast said:
tit would be in the original facebook Agreement that authorized the disclosure and use. it is impossible to believe that facebook does not have significant legal and financial recourse, and their attorneys are likely working overtime on that.
Click to expand...

Some ex-FB employees have shared internal discussions about this.

One FB camp informed management that hanky-panky was going on with the data bank and clamp-down was needed.

Another FB camp said well if we clamp down it will put a chill on the money train so lip service would be the answer.

ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY! FB did nuthin except offer promises of trust us, don't worry, because clamping down on whoring out their data bank would jeopardize the money train.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top