Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

MoveOn Sets Its Sights on Facebook Privacy Violations

Posted by Sara Robinson, Group News Blog at 12:00 PM on November 23, 2007.


Sara Robinson: We have an inalienable right to be the keepers of our own privacy gates, and not just around the holidays.
071122facebookads
Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg speaks to press and advertising partners in New York, in this November 6, 2007 file photo.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Rights and Liberties in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Group News Blog

Bill O'Reilly can howl all he wants about the "war on Christmas." But Facebook has leaped several parsecs ahead of him, making itself into a Grinch so big that the good Dr. Seuss himself would have been gobstopped by the sheer evil magnitude of it all.

How did Facebook manage this? Simply by spoiling the surprise for everybody.

In recent weeks, Facebook has implemented this new "feature" called Beacon. Beacon keeps track of purchases made through businesses that have contracted with Facebook for this service. If you buy a movie ticket through Fandango, or a rental from Blockbuster, Beacon sends around a note to your friends, so everybody will know you went to see American Gangster, or rented Sicko.

This is pernicious enough -- does my conservative boss really need to know I spent Saturday night watching No End In Sight? -- but from a privacy standpoint, it wouldn't be quite so much so if you were given the chance to opt in or out of using Beacon. But, of course, you're not. What you get is a very tiny Javascript link with every purchase -- and a short window of time to click it if you don't want this transaction broadcast to your entire Facebook network. If you don't click that link, your business becomes everybody's business.

And worse: there is no global opt-out on this. You can't just go somewhere that will allow you to bow out of this intrusive feature once and for all. You've got to catch that tiny link and remember to click it -- every single time.

The privacy nightmares are endless -- and already happening. One man quoted in a MoveOn press release said:

"It's easy to picture serious consequences: A college student buying a ticket to Brokeback Mountain and his homophobic football teammates finding out on Facebook. Or a battered woman buying a ticket to see Violence Behind Closed Doors when she told her husband she's working an extra shift. Or a not-so-friendly employer learning a staffer has bought a ticket to a screening of Living With AIDS."

But the real brunt of this is a far more common experience that's not nearly so frightening, though far more universal: Facebook is telling people what you bought them for Christmas.

Say you go, unawares, to some business that's made this deal with Facebook, and buy your honey that gorgeous jacket he's been eyeing. Or that expensive Beatles boxed set for your nephew. Or or or. And your Facebook account dutifully puts out the notice to everyone in your network -- including said nephew (and yes, I have a nephew on my Facebook account) -- that "Sara bought a Beatles boxed set from Amazon."

Well, now, that sort of spoils the surprise, doesn't it? But it's already happened. And is happening. Don't let it happen to you.

Protests, of course, have been organized. MoveOn.org has put out a press release, and also set up a Facebook group you can join to protest this absurd infringement on our sacred right to life, liberty, privacy, and Christmas.

This kind of thing should always, always have a permanent opt-out. We have an inalienable right to be the keepers of our own privacy gates, and not just around the holidays. Facebook: are you listening?

Digg!

Tagged as: moveon, privacy, facebook

Sara Robinson has worked as an editor or columnist for several national magazines, on beats as varied as sports, travel, and the Olympics; and has contributed to over 80 computer games for EA, Lucasfilm, Disney, and many other companies.


MoveOn.org, ColorOfChange.org and NAS to Protest FOX's Racism in NYC
ColorOfChange.org and MoveOn.org Members To Deliver More Than 600,000 petition signatures to FOX headquarters in Manhattan.
Post by AlterNet Staff. July 22, 2008.
Dead Black Man Was Tasered Nine Times by White Cop
Who happens to like using his Taser quite a bit.
Post by Steven D.. July 22, 2008.
Conservatives Want Bush to Issue "Pre-Emptive Pardons" to Officials Involved in Illegal Programs
These are lawyers with little respect for the rule of law.
Post by Ben. July 22, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Details
Posted by: Artaraxl on Nov 23, 2007 5:58 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the relevant Facebook help page:
http://www.facebook.com/help.php?page=57

It looks like a simple way to avoid this is to logout of Facebook. Also the user should get two chances to prevent a given transaction from being published on the News Feed.

But I agree it was a bold (in a bad way) move by the marketers at Facebook and there should be a global opt out at least. They may live to regret the idea if there's a user backlash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why?
Posted by: sliver on Nov 24, 2007 1:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is Facebook doing this in the first place?

The last thing I would like to know about my friends is what they are buying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Face it: Posted by: justAnEgg
» RE: Why? Posted by: hagwind
I am not on facebook
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Nov 24, 2007 3:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right this moment, I am very glad of that fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Warrant? don't need NO stink'n WARRANT! Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
Concerned Citizen
Posted by: GTG on Nov 24, 2007 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For sometime now I have been judging privacy issues around a historical perspective/notion and that is that our ideas about privacy have only recently morphed to our current expectations.

If you think about the early human condition, one in which I would think we existed for hundreds of thousands perhaps even millions of years, it was of small settlements cavemen if you will. These groups lived in close proximity to each other and likely knew almost everything that everyone else was doing.

So if you needed to borrow a rock you didn't need a credit report it would be common knowledge within the group whether or not you could be trusted to return the rock.

If you abused children there would be no need for a registry and bulletin from the school, everyone would know.

So that said, when I look at the Facebook "flap" (pun intended) I think they fail because even in the small group of early humans I am sure secrets, particularly gifts, could kept completely private until such time as the gift was received.

GTG http://voterblog.votervision.us/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Show Them The Money
Posted by: QQOblivion on Nov 24, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the protests are ineffective, watch as other social-networking internet sites start to do this too.

Hey, since the publishing of purchases is meant as a form of endorsement of Facebook-sponsoring products, I wonder where the cash is for those Facebook users that didn't opt out of getting their privacy violated. Aren't they giving the companies they bought from FREE advertising? I would like to see our private information bought from us rather than taken from us, even though I am just dreaming about this. I personally would take my privacy, in most cases, over the cash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms. Katmai
Posted by: Ms.Katmai on Nov 24, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for the heads up, Sara. I was considering joining Facebook, but now, I am not going to be a part of this invasion of my privacy.

Catherine

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ms. Katmai Posted by: swells
Repeat after me: There Is NO Such Thing As Privacy On The Interwibble!
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 24, 2007 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right to privacy, which was read into the Constitution by the courts, gurantees folks certain protections from an overly-intrusive government (Bush admin. notwithstanding) and gives government limited powers of oversight on other privacy issues.

Your right to privacy is sacrosanct, Bush admin. notwithstanding. Your expectation that some mystical entity will swoop in to protect you from giving out your personal information when you log on--*COUGH, COUGH*--that's LOG on is...ridiculous. In addition to the myspaces and facebooks that tell you when they are about to further violate your false-assumptions of privacy, there are plenty of people and groups out there who won't tell you when they take a peek at your family (or other) videos.

Privacy just isn't there. Use a good firewall, get behind a NAT router, and do your best to stay anonymous online if remaining anonymous is what is important--and still you can get hacked. Putting your info out there on the *WORLD WIDE* web only adds to your compromisability. In my opinion, the very thought of giving the world a window into your personal life via "social networking" sites is hideously stupid.

This just adds a level of stupidity. If you submit to facebooks--or any other web portal's--terms of service, and if they are updated to include mining your online transactions you have the option to either quit using a nasty, invasive product that advertises its nastiness and invasiveness as a *KEY FEATURE!!!*, or you may continue to enjoy the nasty invasive new features you've been gifted with.

There is no privacy online.

There is no privacy online.

There is no privacy online.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Patriot Act
Posted by: Zeugitai on Nov 24, 2007 12:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As far as my understanding of the Patriot Act goes, we lost our "inalienable" right to privacy, specifically the Fourth Amendment protections, when that Act was broadly accepted by the American citizenry. It was recently renewed without much ado. I don't pretend to understand why Americans act as they do, but it seems to me that the draping of the word "patriot" over the casket of the Fourth Amendment fooled a whole lot of people. I'm also willing to bet (as if I had money to bet) that no one reading this post has read the Patriot Act or comprehends its implications. It's like all the times I've argued with someone over the theory of evolution: I ask have you read Darwin? They always say no. It is a sad thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Got something to hide?
Posted by: Infamous on Nov 24, 2007 10:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is the flip side. If you don't have anything to hide, why worry? If you don't want people to know what you are doing, then don't do it. Its plain and simple. Or, as someone said, don't participate in Facebook.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your highness
Posted by: chrish on Nov 25, 2007 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you use Firefox, you can block Beacon.
See this article

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/11/09/
how-to-block-facebook-beacon

Here's the plugin:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3145

Then just block "http://www.facebook.com/beacon/* "

If you're using Internet Explorer, then you're already comfortable with being owned by malware, so you can either start using a more secure browser, or never mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Use Firefox to block Beacon
Posted by: chrish on Nov 25, 2007 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you use Firefox, you can block Beacon.
See this article

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/11/09/
how-to-block-facebook-beacon

Here's the plugin:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3145

Then just block "http://www.facebook.com/beacon/* "

If you're using Internet Explorer, then you're already comfortable with being owned by malware, so you can either start using a more secure browser, or never mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

& NSA WIRETAPPING is SORTA SCARY, TOO.
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Nov 26, 2007 3:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Information:
medical
financial
social
political

COMPLETE EMAIL & VOCAL COMMUNICATIONS RECORDING...

um... FaceBook makes a nice "round up all those Progressives & their little dogs, too" technology...

but I'd be VERY, WORRIED about the BIGGER QUESTION:

exactly WHAT is being done with this & the *accidentally lost* data from say places like the VA?

a political Operation Falcon roundup or limiting TRAVEL & SPEECH?

gotta wonder. why does everything need RECORDING... unless someone plans to SCOUR IT for 'suspicious data' & can't **anything** be called suspicious?

U.S. hid witness who could help clear Khadr

AT&T Whistle-Blower Hits D.C. To Stop Telecom Spying Immunity

November 23, 2007
Missing data and economic worries erode faith in Gordon Brown
===
Privacy watchdog questions 'opaque' federal no-fly list
Kim Bolan , CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Canada's privacy commissioner says there was very little consultation with her office before the Conservative government introduced a no-fly list for air travellers last June.
...
Stoddart told inquiry Commissioner John Major she is concerned that people could be placed on the list in error and face dire consequences if their identities are then disclosed to the RCMP or passed on to police agencies in other countries.

And she questioned why, if people are so dangerous that they can't get on a plane, they are deemed safe to travel by other means in Canada.

"These are hugely general criteria and one wonders if there are these dangerous individuals who are being watched by the RCMP and CSIS, what are the dangers that they are posing, not only to airline security, but to ordinary citizens in other modes of transport in day-to-day existence?" Stoddart testified at the Ottawa inquiry.

Under the program, Canadians cannot find out in advance if they are on the no-fly list, but would be rejected at the check-in counter if there is a match to their name.
...
"I think it only deepens the mystery of the rationale, the usefulness of this," Stoddart said. "The program is totally opaque."

Major suggested that perhaps less extreme measures could be taken. For example, individuals on the list might be able to undergo extra screening so they could be allowed to travel.

Major added that he doesn't understand why a person cannot get on a plane if authorities take sufficient precautions. In extreme situations, he noted, a person could undergo a body search, and board the aircraft if no threats are detected. Risky passengers could conceivably also be "handcuffed to the seat" and still be allowed to get to their destinations, Major said.

Other members of Stoddart's staff added there are concerns someone could be stranded in Canada after arriving without incident, only to be prevented from boarding their return flight.

===
BlueBerry Pick'n
ThisCanadian.com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What the heck is Facebook??/
Posted by: MindyB on Nov 27, 2007 9:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I must live in a cave, I have no idea what this Facebook is!! Can someone please enlighten this cavedweler?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]