Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks The Internet Privacy

Facebook Caves To Privacy Protests Over Beacon 95

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the privacy-is-dead dept.
jcatcw writes "After weeks of privacy protests over its advertising system, Facebook's CEO announced that users now can turn the system off completely. CEO Zuckerberg said 'We simply did a bad job with this release.' Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, called the announcement from Zuckerberg 'a step in the right direction.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Caves To Privacy Protests Over Beacon

Comments Filter:
  • Thank god (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Samalie (1016193) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @06:22PM (#21590795)
    Of course, they really should just kill the application alltogether, but at least its a step
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Seumas (6865)
      Like the kind of people that flock to these types of social networks give two shits about privacy. They'd probably give it up for a tootsie roll in-between clicking on the dancing monkey banners.
      • Re:Thank god (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Samalie (1016193) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @06:30PM (#21590901)
        I never said that the "kind of people that flock....give two shits about privacy"

        But that doesn't mean that these same people don't deserve privacy if they want it.

        I'm sure that 99.9% of the Facebook population won't turn Beacon off. But at least they have the ability now.
        • Re:Thank god (Score:4, Insightful)

          by DigitalCrackPipe (626884) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @09:08PM (#21592197)
          I suggest that the very idea that 99.9% of users aren't expected to take advantage of the off feature is reason enough to offer it. Appease the (sometimes very) vocal minority who wants control over such things, and avoid the massive PR whiplash that comes from not giving that choice. And still, make tons of money from the large percentage of people who don't care. Not making revenue from the small percentage of people who rush to turn Beacon off is probably a much better option than missing all the people who will do it now that the controversy hit the media.
        • Good luck trying to find the option, I just went through every "Privacy Setting" section and the button to turn it off is nowhere to be found.
          • Good luck trying to find the option, I just went through every "Privacy Setting" section and the button to turn it off is nowhere to be found.


            Except it's not hard to find at all. Privacy->External Web Sites->Check the box for "disallow".

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by WillAffleckUW (858324)
        Like the kind of people that flock to these types of social networks give two shits about privacy. They'd probably give it up for a tootsie roll in-between clicking on the dancing monkey banners.

        There are no dancing monkey banners on Facebook, unless you add them to your own page.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by ThePengwin (934031)
          Or you have a bunch of people who install apps they say "hey do this cool stuff!!!" that send you invites to everything.

          If i want a dam app ill install it myself... :P
      • Re:Thank god (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Kris_J (10111) * on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @07:02PM (#21591205) Journal
        There are two good reasons (one shit each?) that facebook users cared about this. Some activities they might engage in are embarrassing (Porn, donating to Greenpeace, etc) and some activities are supposed to be a surprise to their friends (say, xmas and birthday gifts).

        Facebook might look like everyone is an open book, but the information shared and public activities seen are carefully chosen for a variety of complex social reasons. Beacon was completely ignorant of this.
        • by Seumas (6865)
          But they *don't* care about it.

          How many signatures did they get on their little petition thing? 50,000? Out of at least 50,000,000 members?

          And these are the people who are handing over their email and communications to some web based central entity to begin with?

          The fact that almost none of them will delete their facebook accounts and never return over this extremely offensive and inexcusable violation only further proves my point. Anyone who would give a company like this a second chance after this kind of
          • by Kris_J (10111) *
            They care about their social relationships and standing. They care about the effects of this situation, not the situation directly. If this damages their social standing, embarrasses them, then they'll consider doing something about it. But if leaving Facebook would do even more damage, then they'll stay. Basically, the peer group will determine what happens. If the head cheerleader buys a vibrator from Amazon and it gets posted to FB, then it will matter. Otherwise, most people will cope.

            Personally,
          • But they *don't* care about it.

            How many signatures did they get on their little petition thing? 50,000? Out of at least 50,000,000 members?


            I didn't sign the petition but I cared. I can't possibly be the only one. Perhaps the overlap between people who do care about this sort of thing and people who don't like to sign online petitions or join random Facebook groups is pretty large...
      • by gordgekko (574109)
        What exactly makes a member of Facebook less interested in their personal privacy then you, or less able to guard their own privacy? Facebook members can share as little or as much information about their personal lives as you do in interacting with people face to face, perhaps even less.

        People who are in my friends' network know where I work, what music I like to listen to, what teams I cheer for and what TV shows I watch. Guess what, everyone I know basically knows that stuff about me because they're my f

        • I'm not sure how it is on Facebook, but with other ..."social networking" (good God I hate that term) websites, all the midteens throw every little detail on there. Generally.
          • by gordgekko (574109)
            I don't see the problem. It's voluntary and most teens live public lives anyway. If they want to air every bit of their laundry then what's the harm, other than a lack of circumspection?
            • It's probably just me. I'm a fairly modest person, so when I see "lol lAst nite i got durnk and had wild group secks with three doods and a goat lol here are some blurred b&w pics luv yas lol" it just annoys me to no end. But like I said, probably just me.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by encoderer (1060616)
            FWIW, facebook has the best default privacy settings of all the social networking sites.

            By default, only those in your network can see ANYTHING about you. This would be people in your own school or whatever. And within that, you have a number of privacy setting controlling whether only your direct friends can see things.

            In a number of ways... I've always thought that Facebook is to Apple what MySpace is to Microsoft...
          • by mdwh2 (535323)
            So because some (I doubt it's all) midteens put all their details on there, this means no one cares about privacy?

            TFA suggests that people do care about privacy on Facebook, and I'll take that as more reliable evidence than a few comments on a blog where social networking sites are, for some reason, looked down upon.
  • Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by roadkill_cr (1155149) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @06:23PM (#21590815)
    I respect that they admit they are wrong, but I find it scary that it took them so long to realize what a privacy issue this is. For an organization with so much information, I had hoped they would put privacy #1 on their priority list.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Facebook is a company not a public service. Their priority is generating revenue by any means necessary. It appears that losing users would hit them harder financially than they would gain from using Beacon.
    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @06:34PM (#21590943) Journal
      The temptation to cash out is just too great for most companies. The only reason why Slashdot isn't worse is because of Taco. I'm not sure why though. Does the contract that gives him full editorial control, fail to specify a system of bonuses based upon ad revenue? Or is he just that incorruptible? or I guess its possible that he just wants a fun solid job with a long term future, rather than a quick cash out. He mentioned the topic a bit during the anniversary hubabaloo, but the monetary link wasn't mentioned, although If I were him I wouldn't have mentioned it either.
      • Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by value_added (719364) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @07:34PM (#21591507)
        The temptation to cash out is just too great for most companies. The only reason why Slashdot isn't worse is because of Taco.

        I was originally planning on waxing poetic about the golden age of business when trust and respect were part of the fabric of things, a time before anyone had even heard of the expression "mission statement", and enlightened leaders guided by tradition and higher principles ruled their dominions, but then the image of Rupert Murdock's grubbing face at a meeting of investors appeared.

        We're all fucked.

        Or maybe not.

        I think Slashdot needs a mission statement. Something between "To Boldly Go" and "Mostly Harmless", maybe?
        • I've always wanted a paradoxical/ accusational mission statement.

          Our mission statement: " We would like to issue this statement, that, for the record, we have no mission. So if your business gets totally screwed by our business relationship,we probably didn't plan for it to happen. Furthermore, it will probably be your fault. If you do have a mission, and you got totally screwed then its definitely your fault for failing to execute the mission."
        • To Boldly Go
          <nazi type="grammar" level="obscure">Nice job splitting the infinitive there, buddy.</nazi> ;)
        • by metalcoat (918779)

          I think Slashdot needs a mission statement. Something between "To Boldly Go" and "Mostly Harmless", maybe?

          Boldly, Mostly?

  • Opt In Not Opt Out (Score:5, Insightful)

    by meehawl (73285) <meehawl,spam&gmail,com> on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @06:29PM (#21590877) Homepage Journal
    This is a salve. Things like this should be opt in, not opt out. Aside from ethical considerations, it would make the data a lot more reliable in terms of a self-selecting group of people that welcomed Facebook spying on their consumption habits. Presumably, these opt-inners would welcome marketing spam.
    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @07:34PM (#21591505) Journal

      "On the opt-out page, it says that you will stop information from being posted to your profile," he noted. "It does not explicitly state that Facebook will stop collecting the information transmitted from third party sites."

      Facebook user Tom Hessman added that Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook will still be receiving data from partner sites whether users opt out or not.
      Nuff said.
      Facebook is still going to be receiving info from any site that signs up for the Beacon program.

      My guess is Facebook's Beacon is going to be the DoubleClick of the social networking world. Maybe MySpace should get in on the action before Facebook corners the market on demographic information.
    • by Falladir (1026636)
      It is still opt-out. It is not opt-in.

      The change is that you don't have to opt out of individual instances of the program's activity. Rather, you can opt out completely with one check-box.

      Facebook's M.O. is to create features that reduce your privacy and to enable them automatically. This means that for users to preserve the status quo, they have to play whack-a-mole as new features come out.
    • Darn tootin'. Will it take another petition to get it to be opt-in?
  • by Ckwop (707653) * <Simon.Johnson@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @06:30PM (#21590889) Homepage

    from the privacy-is-dead dept.

    There's probably enough information about me on-line to uniquely identify me as an individual. There's also enough in what I have said on-line to date already to completely rule me out of any political position in this country.

    However, I sometimes feel safe in the knowledge that everybody who has used the web has left a similar sort of trail. All this information will stay on the web for decades or perhaps even centuries.

    Our privacy, it seems, is protected by the fact that if you dig hard-enough you can find dirt on anybody. Dirt is only good if you can use it and Google shows us just how many people have dirty linen that can be easily obtained.

    When all this shakes out over the next twenty years and the Facebook generation grow-up and get careers, we may well find out that our privacy is protected by mutually assured defamation.

    Simon

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Its not public defamation that most people are worried about. Most people don't want their potential employers reading about how high they got at a party. They don't want government officials putting them on terrorist watch lists for belonging to disfavored political groups. They don't want to receive thousands of advertisements tailored to their daily activities.

      Your Mutually Assured Defemation scenario doesn't cover most concerns.
    • by snl2587 (1177409)

      Our privacy, it seems, is protected by the fact that if you dig hard-enough you can find dirt on anybody. Dirt is only good if you can use it and Google shows us just how many people have dirty linen that can be easily obtained.

      Unless you a) don't have any dirt, or at least none that anyone would care about, or b) you actually are careful when you input information online, on forms, in email, etc. Of course, not many people think about the impact that one underage drinking picture their friend posted could

    • by achenaar (934663)
      There's probably enough information about me on-line to uniquely identify me as an individual.
      As opposed to uniquely identifying you as lots of people? :)


      I'll get meh coat.
  • by vaderhelmet (591186) <darthvaderhelmet AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @06:32PM (#21590915)
    During the mini-feeds debacle, Mark ended up conceding with a comment very similar to this. (http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2208562130 [facebook.com]) If they were really interested in privacy concerns, they would have learned from the first time. To me, it seems like a way to see how far they can push the line before people will complain.

  • by CSMatt (1175471)
    So we know now that we can tell Facebook not to ever display our off-Facebook browsing habits on our profile. But how do we tell Facebook not to collect this data at all? Or did I miss something in the article?
  • Ya, they "caved". (Score:5, Informative)

    by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @06:41PM (#21591021)
    From the TFA: "On the opt-out page, it says that you will stop information from being posted to your profile," he noted. "It does not explicitly state that Facebook will stop collecting the information transmitted from third party sites."

    Meaning: We'll still collect information on you and do whatever we want with it, but it won't appear on your profile. Better? Yes. Much better? No.

    • TFA is wrong (Score:5, Informative)

      by violet16 (700870) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @07:17PM (#21591355)
      TFA is quoting random "user Rob Tandry." Zuckerberg's announcement on the Facebook blog [facebook.com] explicitly says they won't collect info when you turn Beacon off:

      if you turn off Beacon, then Facebook won't store those actions even when partners send them to Facebook.
      • Be that as it may... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I can't say as I trust them. I don't use Facebook and I don't intend to, but I added this to my ad filters after the last story:

        http*://*facebook.com/beacon/*

        Unless you want to use that "feature" I don't see how it can hurt.
        • by davidsyes (765062)
          Tried adding to Mozilla Firefox, but it either wants to block ALL of facebook, or doesn't stay in (asterisks?). Any guidance on blocking beacon in M/FF?

          Thx...
      • Re:TFA is wrong (Score:4, Interesting)

        by novakyu (636495) <novakyu@member.fsf.org> on Thursday December 06, 2007 @12:37AM (#21593655) Homepage
        The only problem is ... you only have their word for it. This is the same people who, after repenting the privacy-invading "features" of News Feed, made the exact same (if not much worse) privacy-destroying add-on to that feature. Do you really trust them? I know I don't.

        Now, if we agree that we can't trust these guys to tell the truth like it is, can you really trust them not to collect the information? What he says is "facebook won't store the info when external sites send it to them". That reads to me like: "Yes, sheep, don't worry about this mysterious communication to facebook.com when you are browsing on eBay. They are probably sending us all your personal, private actions, but we swear solemnly that we will not use or sell this very lucrative information."

        As far as I am concerned (until someone either hacks into or raids Facebook servers without their notice and does a full investigation), they are still collecting and storing your information. They have proven over and over again that they have no integrity, and unless they say something like, "if you opt out, we will make sure to notify external websites not to send us your information," that is, something you can verify to be true, whatever they are telling is at worst a damned lie, and at best, half truth.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by gordguide (307383)
        Maybe it's just semantics, but I can't really agree with your conclusion.

        " ... they won't collect info ..." does not equal " ... won't store those actions ... " in my understanding of the English language.

        As I read it, what happens is first they collect the identifiable data, then they might do some real-time stuff with it, then they throw the identifiable data away, probably keeping whatever aggregate info they glean from the real-time processing.

        Essentially they promise to not store it but they most certa
        • " ... they won't collect info ..." does not equal " ... won't store those actions ... "

          Means "THEY" (as in FACEBOOK) won't collect. Probably also means they offloaded the tool to some ghost subsid or partner who will then periodically aggregate collected data with/to/for Facebook and other unnamed ad agencies... The English language, combined with lawyers, can trick-fuck ANYbody, no matter HOW scholarly or seasoned. Even whole teams of attorneys tend to miss things.
          • by gordguide (307383)
            But they explicitly state they do collect it. The partner sites send everything, including the data from opt-out users, to Facebook. Partner sites are not privy to Facebook users' preferences; only Facebook knows that. So, in every case, they send it to Facebook. (Were it not such, then an even greater privacy issue develops; why does Facebook rely on a thousand retailers to do the right thing and why doses even more information have to be disseminated to even more entities for this to work? Answer: they
  • by bn0p (656911) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @06:45PM (#21591045)
    From the article "Facebook came under withering criticism from its users and privacy advocates alike when a security researcher revealed that the ad system tracks user activities on third-party partner sites -- including the activities of people who never signed up with Facebook, who deactivated their accounts or who were not signed on to the site." [emphasis added]

    What are they doing with the data of people who never signed up for Facebook in the first place? Is there a list of the 3rd-party sites that provide data to Facebook so that they can be avoided? I know that Facebook is not the only site to track user activity, but this underscores the need for a "Do Not track" list. Like that will happen anytime soon :D.


    Never let reality temper imagination.
  • by jnadke (907188) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @07:05PM (#21591241)
    Need to cut the problem at the source: the advertisers themselves. This wasn't easy to find in google, but here's a list of sites that have privacy-violating Beacon code embedded in them.

    Boycott the following sites:

    eBay
    Fandango
    College Humor
    Busted Tees
    iWon
    Citysearch
    Pronto.com
    echomusic
    Travelocity
    Allposters.com
    Blockbuster
    Bluefly.com
    CBS Sports
    Dotspotter
    ExpoTV
    Gamefly
    Hotwire
    Joost
    Kiva
    Kongregate
    LiveJournal
    Live Nation
    Mercantila
    The NBA
    The New York Times
    Overstock.com
    (RED)
    Redlight
    Seamless Web
    Sony Online Entertainment
    Sony Pictures
    STA Travel
    TheKnot
    TripAdvisor
    Travel Ticker
    Typepad
    viagogo
    Vox
    Yelp
    WeddingChannel.com
    Zappos

    Source: http://www.facebook.com/press/releases.php?p=9166 [facebook.com] (found from a blog)
    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      quote: eBay expects to make this feature available to sellers on eBay.com in early 2008.

      They'll probably think twice about that, now that they've seen the impact in made on facebook.
      I think implementing this on eBay would make it easy to boycott sellers by spreading false rumors through your "friend network".
    • Would it be so hard to "boycott" these sites for anyone here? I occasionally look at ebay, but usually ^W always there is a better deal from another source.
    • It would be interesting to look at the various sites privacy policies and see which (if any) of them allow sending data to Facebook without an opt-out. So for example, the New York Times privacy policy [nytimes.com] says they will not share information with third-party sites, and while IANAL it's not at all clear to me that the indiscriminate sharing going on here falls within the exceptions they list.
      • by jnadke (907188) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @09:35PM (#21592371)
        As far as I understand Beacon is merely some AJAX code that resides within the affiliates webpage.

        Your own computer gets this code, and communicates with Facebook directly, looking at your cookies to see if you're affiliated with Facebook. Since the transfer is local you can block it, but still these websites have the malicious AJAX code residing within their pages.

        You have to block "http://www.facebook.com/beacon/*", which can be done using the FireFox BlockSite plugin, among other methods.
    • Don't boycott LiveJournal (or at least not for this reason - there are other reasons you might want to); their implementation is opt-in and I think it always has been. It looks like it just doesn't send anything to Facebook unless you explicitly enable it on your Livejournal account.
    • If you are using firefox you should, install this extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3145 [mozilla.org] then paste this into a file and
      import it:

      [BlockSite]
      http://facebook.com/
      http://gamespot.com/
      http://kongregate.com/
      http://cbs.sportsline.com/
      http://dotspotter.com/
      http://.ebay.com/
      http://.busted/ tees.com*
      http://.iwon.com/
      http://.citysearch.com/
      http://.pronto.com/
      http://.echomusic.com/
      http://.travelocity.com/
      http://.allposters.com/
      http://.blockbuster.com/
      http://.bluefly.com/
      http://.dotspotter.com

  • and that is the crux of the issue, not just Facebook, but everywhere.

    The data I create and store on my computer are MINE. I control access, determine what portion of my income will go to protection of said data, and its my ass for everything if someone steals this information. This event will be both a criminal and civil crime against me personally, that I am free to persue how I see fit.

    The data I create and store on {insert favorite online service here} are NOT MINE. It is the property of some ot
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I admire the broad personal freedoms of Americans ... ... and lament the broad personal freedoms of American corporations.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @07:57PM (#21591659) Homepage
    There will be changes to terms of service or some other nonsense that people will blindly click "yes" to and all of it will be for naught.

    There's simply too much money to be made from advertising and selling information to ignore! That's why CableTV started playing commercials even though it was originally sold to be "commercial free."

    They can't resist the evil... the greed... "the corporate obligation." Adobe's "ads in PDF" is another fine example of crap they can't seem to resist. And the fact is, while people are sometimes vocal enough about some things, there's enough people out there who don't care enough to complain that nothing gets done.

  • CEO Zuckerberg said 'We simply did a bad job with this release.'
    What he meant was, "Awwwwwwwww phooey. Danged kids. mumble mumble ad revenue mumble."
  • About-face (Score:5, Informative)

    by creativeHavoc (1052138) on Wednesday December 05, 2007 @08:18PM (#21591809) Homepage
    This is the response I recieved when telling them I wanted to be able to turn off Beacon before I was "reported on"

    Hi,

    Thanks for your feedback about Facebook Beacon, it has definitely helped us make some changes to the product that we hope will provide you with a better experience on Facebook. Beacon was designed to help you share all the interesting things that you are doing outside of Facebook with your friends. Just like you have full control over your information on Facebook, you decide whether or not you want Beacon stories to be published and from which site.

    Your feedback has made it clear that Beacon can be kind of confusing. To fix this, we are clarifying the way we inform you about a Beacon story before you decide whether or not you'd like to publish it on Facebook. In addition, we're working on making the sites that offer Beacon more visible to you, both on Facebook and through visual cues, so you can determine which specific sites you can publish stories from. Also, we're providing more information on how Beacon works through a new tutorial and expanded help pages.

    We are trying to provide you with new meaningful ways, like Beacon, to help you connect and share information with your friends. Thanks for taking the time to express your opinions about our products. There isn't currently a way to block all sites before you've been sent any stories, but we'll keep it in mind for a future improvement. Please keep the feedback coming as we continuously work to improve your Facebook experience.

    Thanks for contacting Facebook,

    Ryann
    Customer Support Representative
    Facebook

    That's a pretty big change from what Mark was saying in his blog post if you ask me. That being said, the big problem is, all I have turned off is Facebook's reporting of the sites I visit. I essentially hit a switch that says "Track me, but dont let me know what you are getting!" I wonder if I should turn it back on, so I can at least keep tabs on it.

    Also, I wonder if I will still see what sites have reported back to facebook with my information on the settings page, even though I have turned it off.
    • by doublem (118724)
      "I wonder if I should turn it back on, so I can at least keep tabs on it."

      That assumes they're already showing you everything that's being collected.
  • After weeks of privacy protests over its advertising system, Facebook CEO announced that users now can turn the system off completely. CEO Zuckerberg said 'We simply did a bad job with this release.'

    It should be off by default and optional in the settings, as with MSN Messenger and many other applications.

    On a personal note, I enjoyed Facebook at first until I realized that making my network public is quite idiotic. I mean, I can certainly live without Facebook and if I look at the privacy issues and compare it with the Facebook offers, it's just not that sweet any longer.

  • I added Beacon to AdblockPlus when this shit first came to light, but I'm going to officially deactivate it too. Why? The same reason why my Gmail bookmark goes directly to the 'old version' page: These fuckers are keeping track of who goes where and who does what on their sites, and the more people who make a gesture (be it one click or one finger) against this 'feature' creep, the more it'll show in the metrics.
  • Interesting to note that it appears that you can find out which sites are tracking you. From the opt out page...

    Show your friends what you like and what you're up to outside of Facebook. When you take actions on the sites listed below, you can choose to have those actions sent to your profile.

    Please note that these settings only affect notifications on Facebook. You will still be notified on affiliate websites when they send stories to Facebook. You will be able to decline individual stories at that t
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Any one else find it amusing that the first big move by Facebook after Microsoft bought in alienated its entire user base?

    Or am I the only one who sees some correlation and causation there?
  • I'm not sure which is more obnoxious -- Facebook's lengthy resistance to fixing the problem, or their continued spin that this feature was born from some altruistic desire to help people share more information. Can't they just admit that the genesis of this feature was a plan to further monetize their users' social networks?
  • Facebook is still collecting the information it shouldn't have. The fact that users can opt to not have it broadcast to their friends means almost nothing in terms of privacy.
    • by joe 155 (937621)
      as I understand it though if you block beacon using blocksite firefox extension (there is a wikihow on it) then whether or not you've opted in/out you'll be protected from this - so we have some protection (if I'm wrong I'd really like to know...)

      As for people who don't come to /. but would still care if they knew I guess all we can do is to keep up the pressure on them to drop this all together - but they won't because this is where they'll make the money. Maybe some kind of warning (perhaps a giant gro
  • Blocking the Beacon (Score:2, Informative)

    by louisadkins (963165)
    There seem to be a number of sites (ala Google) that show Beacon can (at least, right now) be blocked by adding " http://facebook.com/beacon/* [facebook.com] " to your anti-adware/blocker plugins.
  • People, if you are on Facebook, there is a simple fact you should understand. They may be providing you a service, but they are out to make money and justify their $BN valuation. You are the *product* not the customer. Mark et al are trying to get paid and they could care less about your privacy or what you think. If the violation of privacy was not so obvious in this case to the average FB user, to the point that they would have less product to sell if they kept it up unchanged, they would have done nothin
  • When query google style paid ads at the top of a result set were first introduced in the late 90s people rebelled against. Search engines had to back away from them. Google brought them back using a side panel first, and now at the top in a yellow background, just like they were first introduced 10 years ago (ok, back then the background was blue).

    Just watch we-know-who-you-are ads and tracking will become the norm. Don't believe me? See how much valuable personal information people voluntarily upload in Go

10 to the 12th power microphones = 1 Megaphone

Working...