Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by Psamathe »

[XAP]Bob wrote:Is the complaint here about FB or Cambridge Analytics?

The two are very different beasts...

From what I read (press reports) I understood the complaint was about both in that Cambridge Analytics have allegedly broken the law/their authorisation and the Facebook have allegedly granted CA access they should not have and/or allegedly failed to adequately police what CA did. But that is just from press reports I've seen.

Ian
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by kwackers »

Psamathe wrote:I wonder who will be using the face recognition.

Anyone who want's to.
One of the things about FB is that pics can be hidden from public view - i.e. away from bots.

But pictures exist all over the web on unprotected sites such as this, or public folders in photo sharing, websites etc etc.
Making a bot to trawl for photos isn't difficult and there are lots of bots already doing this - that's how googles image search works.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by 661-Pete »

Just out of interest, I've just tried googling "boycott facebook" with a 'past 24 hours' filter. One of the replies contains the following anonymous snippet of text:
we should be boycotting Facebook. I haven't totally given up on FB. But I have stopped posting photos (I am a photographer). About the only thing I post now is to wish someone a happy birthday.
(My bold/italics). Surely that's one of the worst things you can do! So many 'secure' online facilities (including personal banking) rely on someone's date of birth as a security level...
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by Vorpal »

661-Pete wrote:Just out of interest, I've just tried googling "boycott facebook" with a 'past 24 hours' filter. One of the replies contains the following anonymous snippet of text:
we should be boycotting Facebook. I haven't totally given up on FB. But I have stopped posting photos (I am a photographer). About the only thing I post now is to wish someone a happy birthday.
(My bold/italics). Surely that's one of the worst things you can do! So many 'secure' online facilities (including personal banking) rely on someone's date of birth as a security level...

Except that many people put an incorrect birthdate on Facebook for that reason.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by Psamathe »

Vorpal wrote:
661-Pete wrote:Just out of interest, I've just tried googling "boycott facebook" with a 'past 24 hours' filter. One of the replies contains the following anonymous snippet of text:
we should be boycotting Facebook. I haven't totally given up on FB. But I have stopped posting photos (I am a photographer). About the only thing I post now is to wish someone a happy birthday.
(My bold/italics). Surely that's one of the worst things you can do! So many 'secure' online facilities (including personal banking) rely on someone's date of birth as a security level...

Except that many people put an incorrect birthdate on Facebook for that reason.

I interpreted that as somebody wishing their friend Happy Birthday publicly using Facebook/Twitter rather than the card in the post or a phone call - i.e. not using Facebook's date of birth but from their own knowledge of the real date.

Ian
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by Vorpal »

Facebook has prompts that tell people about birthdays. Most people use these prompts from Facebook to send happy birthday wishes.

There are, of course, exceptions. It's not something that I worry too much about. It's easy enough to find out birthdates from other sources. It's not like it's something that is easily kept secret in the information age.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by kwackers »

Vorpal wrote:There are, of course, exceptions. It's not something that I worry too much about. It's easy enough to find out birthdates from other sources. It's not like it's something that is easily kept secret in the information age.

There's almost nothing you can't learn about someone if you really want to.
What's more its always been like that, if anything in some ways its harder these days. If I had the same knowledge pre internet that I have now there are so many scams I could easily pull off...
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by gaz »

kwackers wrote:I think there's a generic issue with T&C's - they're huge! Nobody has the time to read or understand them.

You can inadvertently sign away your immortal soul by simply failing to untick a box.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by gaz »

To get back to topic I finally succumbed and joined FB last July. It's a useful tool.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by 661-Pete »

gaz wrote:You can inadvertently sign away your immortal soul by simply failing to untick a box.
I'd have thought, anyone who's bought any of GameStation's products has automatically signed away their mortal soul, anyway... :twisted:
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
mercalia
Posts: 14630
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by mercalia »

i only have a pseudo accnt on facebook that is empty :lol:
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by thirdcrank »

kwackers wrote: ... One of the things about FB is that pics can be hidden from public view - i.e. away from bots. ... .


Once upon a time, it was the bots that had to be kept covered up.

:oops: Sorry. :oops:
User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by bovlomov »

kwackers wrote:No, I don't agree with that but they've been found out, there's a lot of noise and stuff will happen because of it so it's all good.

If the illegal activities of Facebook and CA have given us Trump and Brexit, I'd argue that it's very far from good.

More generally, the problem is with the speed of development.

For the individual user, any sense of etiquette, social responsibility and self-preservation lags somewhat behind the technology. That has far reaching consequences. In the past, a camera clicking in one's face was a minor irritation. Now one has to consider whether that snap will end up all over the web - with consequences ranging from mildly embarrassing to career threatening.

The law also lags behind. That is partly the nature of lawmaking - good laws are rarely made in a hurry - and partly to do with the closeness of the tech companies to governments. When Google is sponsoring your party conference, and there is a revolving door between government and the industry, it won't be in the interest of the government to hold the industry to account. It's a form of corruption.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by kwackers »

bovlomov wrote:
kwackers wrote:No, I don't agree with that but they've been found out, there's a lot of noise and stuff will happen because of it so it's all good.

If the illegal activities of Facebook and CA have given us Trump and Brexit, I'd argue that it's very far from good.

You'd rather they hadn't been found out?

Prior to the internet we had newspapers, if you think they didn't have agenda's, money pumped in from dodgy places and didn't influence stuff they had no right fiddling with you'd be wrong.
Why do you think the old fogies whom gave us brexit are the main readers of the DM and the least likely to have FB accounts, whilst the youngsters who are on social media and don't read the DM voted against it?

All media social or otherwise and including this one is guilty of warping opinion.
Why are you on here? Might it be because it's fundamentally an echo chamber for your cyclist-centric beliefs?
More generally, the problem is with the speed of development.

Is there? I suspect most youngsters (who in the main have long since departed FB for pastures new) would disagree.
Personally so would I. So much possibility out there and we're barely scratching the surface.
For the individual user, any sense of etiquette, social responsibility and self-preservation lags somewhat behind the technology. That has far reaching consequences. In the past, a camera clicking in one's face was a minor irritation. Now one has to consider whether that snap will end up all over the web - with consequences ranging from mildly embarrassing to career threatening.

If you're worried that snaps may be embarrassing or career threatening then I'm not completely convinced that your standards of etiquette, social responsibility and self-preservation match mine.
I certainly have no such fears.
Last edited by kwackers on 20 Mar 2018, 3:04pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Who here is ON, and who NOT ON, facebook?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

mjr wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:Is the complaint here about FB or Cambridge Analytics?

The two are very different beasts...

Does there have to be only one complaint?

FB have failed to protect user data as required by law.

CA seem to have done illegal things with it.

And then FB has gone into CA since the story broke - I bet by the time the regulators get warrants and get into CA, there will be almost nothing left. https://linux.die.net/man/1/shred



The OP was directed at FB, but seemed to be complaining about the activities of CA.
FB doesn't advertise at people - CA did that, using the FB platform.

The 'september that never ended' seems to have finally come home to roost :(
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Post Reply